Yes, the fact is that all children come from a contribution from a man and a woman. However, it is *not* a requirement that the contribution come from the *same* parents.
Your point is that merely because a child is biologically heterosexual does not mean his literal genetic contributors must raise him. You must try to see that I am not claiming that this must be the case. What I claim is that the circumstance wherein both his genetic contributors raise him is the circumstance that has most integrity with his and the rest of our biological reality. This is human nature and we ought not be forced by the might of law to affirm anything outside of it. We may be free to acknowledge such things, especially in view of single parent tragedy and infertility, but we ought not be forced to accept them as the equal of our biological reality. No one has such a right to force anyone to affirm that which is fundamentally foreign.
There are obviously many examples of parents that are not biological parents: adoptions, second marriages, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, etc.
And where these examples are heterosexual, they still reflect the fundamental bipolar reality of all humans – unlike with homosexuals.
You cannot say that the fact that the biological contribution does not come from the parents is a reason to not consider it a valid family unit.
Where heterosexuals adopt, etc., they are families simply because their logical arrangement conforms to what nature exploits to create families. Nature exploits their scheme to create families every single minute of every single day of every single year. When homosexuals adopt, etc. they fashion a biological lie. No human anywhere reflects a fundamental homosexual biology. Such people are not a family because the combination they form is not a logical object in the human family.
Nature has never produced a single parent family (ok, well, some of us believe it did once :) By your argument, single parent families are also not 'families', and the word can only apply to heterosexual male/female pairings.
That is exactly correct. With single parents we see broken families, not intact families. There is not necessarily a lack of human dignity here merely because of this brokenness. A parent may be absent because of death, for example. But the biological fact of the matter is this: people in such cases are suffering tragedies, and they are deserving of our empathy and support. We do not celebrate their circumstances. You have committed an error here. We cannot use such tragedies to support the celebration of the willful human perversion that takes place when homosexuality exists.
The same was thought for centuries as far as the role of the man and woman. The role of the man was protector and food provider, whereas the woman was the nurturer and raiser of children. These roles have changed and expanded greatly in the last century.
They have not. You have merely been deceived by technology. Surely options have broadened for women. But they have broadened for everyone. Nevertheless the essential role, note it - the essential role of women is the same as it has always been since the dawn of man – and it will never change because of nature. Women take care of children – period. Nature forces them to it. (Think to the essentials) When a child is first conceived, it is the mother who feeds, warms and protects it. She does this without having even to think because nature made her, not her husband, but her such that she can do what no man can do.
Woman can now be the protector and provider, whereas men are free to be the primary raiser of the children.
This is all superficial stuff. The fact of nature is that the woman is especially equipped to care for children as no man can. We may erect technologies around her so that she might decrease the amount of direct care she gives, but the essential logic of her caring nature is always present – from the very moment of conception.
Some would argue that this arrangement is also 'not natural', and in fact there is a movement to "restore" the family unit back to it's "natural" state. Which is fine for those who wish to do so, as long as they don't impose that definition on others.
Well this is really off the point.
Logically, we see that two women or two men are quite capable of raising children, providing both necessities and nuturing.
And humans are quite capable of raising pigs, providing both necessities and nurturing. Still don’t be making a friggin’ family in nature. (grin) So this is no reason at all to force anyone to affirm it as a genuine familiy. The very concept of family is rooted in biology.
By example, we see many same-sex couples lovingly raising good, moral kids (I know a few myself).
And I have a dog that is very obedient and kind.
The 'unnatural' issue is one that does not affect their family unit at all, therefore there are no adverse consequences of such an arrangement (unless you want to fall back on the 'morality' argument, which I doubt).
I don’t give a flip how these perverse groups get on. The issue for me concerns their lack of integrity with my fundamental identity as a human being. No one has the right to force anyone else to affirm what is foreign.
In fact, you could make an argument that those who oppose same sex marriages are, in fact, penaliz[ing] both the couples and their children by denying them the rights afforded to other 'legally' married couples.
You could make this argument, but it would be false. Other married couples have their rights simply because they form objects that are distinctly human – just like you and I. To deny them rights would be tantamount to denying the very human structure that is responsible for our own existence. It is to deny ourselves. That is why true couples have rights. They are us.
Contrariwise, there is no logic in the universe supporting the notion that homosexuals are us. You may wish to give them rights. It is your prerogative to do so. But you have no right in nature at all to force anyone else to do it because it is our natural right to affirm only that which is us.
Therefore, this stance of yours ends up hurting families and children who will, thanks to the Supreme Court, continue to raise children the best they know how.
My stance will not hurt such families because such families cannot exist. They are simply guys who have perverted sex and who are keeping kids. Yet I don’t wish to deny them anything that you would willingly give them. They do not have the natural right to force anyone to tolerate or affirm them because they do not form relationships that are human. They in fact commit crimes against me when they use the law against me.
The homosexuals will win their struggle. It is inevitable because society now rapidly decays. But their win will be a loss to everyone. They can only win by falsity and by further imprisoning people within temporal law - not because of the facts of nature. Other groups will continue to heap similar laws upon society until the burden becomes so heavy society implodes. Then nature will have her way once again. It is just a matter of time. (grin) |
