Isn`t this an unbalanced union that`s not beneficial for the children.Has it not been said by doctors and psychiatrist that a child needs both male and female instruction in growing up to be well balanced and healthy?
Why do religious people pursue this again and again, it is homophobic hate dressed in meally-mouthed whining and whispering. It is far more harmful for children to be brought up by religious freaks who are intent on domination from a position of ignorance and bigotry.
A child needs somebody to love them, which gay and lesbian couples do, not someone to control them and dictate what they should think and do in an attempt to force a pre-determined half-life onto them.
Yes, our prisons are overflowing with children that were raised by same sex parents, because the ones who were straight did such a great job raising their kids that not a single straight parent ever had a child that turned out bad.
I never get this notion. What makes anyone think a child is going to turn out a certain way just because of the parents. I mean how many kids actually paid attention to their parents after grade school? And, I find our societies rush to blame parents for a child that may have not turned out so great, is the same kind of bull shit submitted by the parent who claims their child's success is directly related to the way they brought them up.
I would never blame my parents or credit my family for me being gay, or anything else that I have done in my life. I know of people who had great parents who turned out to be miserable assholes. It's all pyscho analytical bullshit. I don't care who the parents are.
Children need stable loving parents, so as to grow. The sexual aspects of the parents of the child is quite irrelevant. I've found many gays and/or lesbians, to actually be more open minded than those who are not.
Being gay or lesbian is irrelevant, like being hetero. Love the child, teach the child openly and be honest.
How can one who cannot be honest about their own sex be honest in other thing?
The difference between the male and female is as plain as night and day.
Well to all except the dishonest.
There's 2 problems with this:
I can't see how, aside from its repression, homosexuality is directly related to dishonesty.
Does that mean that because a man and a woman have fitting sexual organs, they're completely and perfectly honest and capable of raising a child?
You posted to my comment and it's the only reason I am even acknowledging your statement.
I find your statement filled with ambiguity. Some person's individual sexual preference has nothing to do with dishonesty. The fact that you hook the two of them together insinuates you've some sort of truth.
However, what you failed to realize is that it is not related to honesty or dishonesty, but choice.
@all others- the argument of gays/lesbians is only based on control of the individual. If that truth is not seen by the actions of those who have posted to this thread, then let me point it out.
Living life is a choice. You can end it any time you choose. What you do with your life is your choice. Those who want to play the pro-creation theme, are only doing a disservice to those around them and themselves.
The only authority a person has to answer to is himself/herself. Is that how they want to live their life? If so, then they reserve the right to do so, without the physical, emotional or mental abuse portrayed within this thread.
It's truly amazing the world really hasn't self-destructed yet. Absolutely unbelievable.
Cogs you seem to forget that truth and honestly goes together.
The physical and natural evidence of maleness and femaleness is still the penis and vagina and their purpose needs no explanation to none.
When one strays from this ,where will it end?
If one cannot discern Truth from the physical word by which they interact naturally how can they discern Truth, of Spiritual, which is without evidence except that which is within.
There is only one sin, and it is the willingness to stay from Truth.
I'm sure you are also opposed to heterosexual oral and anal sex, but just for the record, "the physical and natural evidence of maleness and femaleness" needs explanation for practically everything that has them. Humans are not the only animals that practice weird sex, far from it!
In fact, we'd be weirder if we didn't. Just to name a few examples, pygmy chimps rub genitals together (male-female, male-male, and female-female) as a form of greeting, male dolphins are regular practitioners of penis-blowhole sex, stallions and geldings are notorious masturbators, and some flatworm species penis-fence as foreplay.
please consider the use of your own term "weird sex" maybe you would teach your own self by it.
And why would you look to the lesser life forms to learn from or justify your own sexuality?
Do you not know better than they?
I tell you Truth is with all men but there are those who will actively seek not to know it.
You obviously view mankind as apart from nature. I view us as a part of it.
As Lisa HW wrote so eloquently elsewhere in this thread, if nature teaches us anything, it is that nature is full of variation.
Shoving men and women into strictly defined gender roles is a cultural practice. It has nothing to do with nature. Anthropologists have discovered human cultures that define three, four, or even six separate genders. Even within modern Western culture, which has only two, there are many different terms that help us identify different variations on the theme of "male" and "female."
For example, I was a "tomboy" growing up, a girl who liked "boy" stuff like sports and bugs and dinosaurs better than "girl" stuff like dolls and jewelry. Today, I remain deeply uninterested in many stereotypically "female" pursuits, such as fashion and beauty, yet I'm also a housewife and mom and I identify as a cisgender, (mostly) heterosexual woman. I know other tomboys who now identify as cisgender "femme" lesbians, others who identify as cisgender "butch" lesbians, and yet others who now identify as transgender heterosexual men! (In other words, biologically female people who identify as men and are attracted to women.) In some cultures, this sort of situation has been accepted as normal. In ours, sadly, it is not, but that's a flaw in our culture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with nature. Nature is full of gender-bending, up to and including some species that can actually change their biological sex.
Lesser? Does that hierarchy of species apply to races within humans as well?
...many g/l have children....bringing them up in a loving family....balance?....balance what?.....i think love, nurturing and guidance is what is needed....where ever that comes from...
....my experience with seeing a loving g/l family is within my own family....from the outside looking in - my sis and her partner have done an excellent job of raising 2 sons...and now grandkids are in the mix....wonder what the docs and pyschs would say about that....and do they have any real experience themselves or do they just speak from old 'theory'...
there are many children being raised in families that look very different these days...one parent...and they are being raised very well...probably better in some cases because the parents (whatever gender) didn't live well as a family....what's the divorce rate amongst hetros?....i'm sure that has a huge impact on some kids when parents split....
...and then there are those families (doesn't matter about the gender) where they stay together living in turmoil and dysfunction and raising children....geez, wonder what the docs and pyschs would say about this too....
....guess what i'm trying to say is that life is not necessarily a bowl of cherries because 2 hetros are raising children...
There is that obsession again. What is the point of the question, you will just get the same responses you will get in this forum whenever anyone brings up gayness. It'll just be the same old same old from the same old same olds.
These posts (and posts and posts and posts) are usually written by someone who has NO Hubs, or else someone who has no Hubs about any gas issues. Nobody should bother arguing, and they'd eventually go away. If people want to pipe off with their opinions about gayness, they ought to pipe off in their own Hubs on their own profile - and then anyone who wanted to agree or disagree could post their comments there.
Maybe if these threads contained nothing but post after post of people who agreed with the OP's of them the whole thread would eventually become "gay-bashing" enough that HP would delete them. They really don't speak very well for so-called Christian behavior, do they...
Having said that, I'd like to answer the OP's question:
A month or so ago I had a big party and was inviting a lot of people I hadn't seen for quite awhile. I'd learned that one woman I knew is now living with another woman, and they've adopted an Autistic child (who was 7 at the time). His apparently heterosexual parents were badly abusive to him and his siblings, and this little boy was said to have had a LOT of problems when he first went to live with them. Needless to say, the child was in a special school arrangement.
One of the women called the morning of the party, because they were driving quite a way to get here. She said the (now teen) boy was now in regular high school, and that the night before he had had a silent part in the school play. I asked her if he had any dietary restrictions, if he may prefer to be seated either facing out or not facing out, or if the light ball we had might bother him. She laughed and said, "He's a chow hound, and he's quite the social butterfly - so, no, he'll be fine." The two women showed up at the door with a handsome young man, dressed in nice sweater and shirt. It was clear he has Autism, but he was friendly and talkative. He seemed to enjoy making comment to my son, who makes everyone feel comfortable. In fact, he seemed to thoroughly enjoy the whole experience of being at the party, seated with "everyone else", and talking (in his own way) to people at the table.
People who had seen this boy when he was seven, nine, or even twelve saw how well he was doing. I was told he had been very happy to get the invitation and had kept looking at it in the weeks before the party. It was obvious his mother (the one who adopted him first) knew how to guide him, and it was obvious he was young man who has received a lot of love and care. This kid had a great time, and when anyone talked to him he answered. He seemed a little younger than his seventeen years, but he was a well mannered, cheerful, friendly, young person who seemed so comfortable and interested in everything that was going on.
His family consists of the two women one of the women's two grown sons.
So - I don't know... - what's the consensus? Does anybody think this child should have stayed with heterosexual parents? Does anybody think he should have been left in the uncertainty of the foster-care situation? Does anyone think he should have been left without family until a young, married, heterosexual, couple who couldn't have a baby decided to opt to adopt a seven-year-old boy with serious Autism and serious problems (if anyone thinks that, go to some of the "hard-to-place" adoption sites and see how many kids grow up waiting for the family that never comes)? Does anyone think anyone else could have done any better in helping this boy go from a special school and far more serious problems than he now has to regular high school, being (even if silent) in the school play, attending parties, having friends, having people who love him and devote so much time to him, etc. etc.?
Uninvited Writer, you are soooo right! Didn't we have enough of this nonsense in another forum today? ughhh.
I dont have it in me anymore. To each his own. Geez....
While there may be no documented general consensus regarding alternate sexuality and adoption, there is great concern and documented research among logical therapists and educational scholars regarding consistent exposure to sexually based lifestyles. Their findings declare that such exposure forms an image in the youth of practices that appear to violate natural action in humans and as a result form confusion in the child.
The necessity of "love" is a womb quality that can only be generated in the female and satisfied by a female. The masculine affection of a child is documented in strength and discipline. Should a child be influenced by solely feminine tendencies or solely masculine tendencies, these logicians conclude --by their own admission and documented research--that the child will lack certain social and sexuality defining skills. The data is equal, in many respects to a dysfunctional family --by internal neglect, violence or severe distance between a complete male and female authority. They conclude that a child requires both to formulate a balanced and equally expressive self, else forced --keyword forced-- to develop a social viewpoint that is tainted. A complete violation of their free will. One could liken that to brainwashing by religion or science --and they would not be far off in any respect.
Apart from the obvious necessity/ order of creation --in humans-- a male & female expression are needed and required for mental and emotional development of a child so they may freely express themselves and develop their own attitudes, opinions of life.
Any influence by parental authorities apart from the natural creation of another human being violates natural law --keyword law-- and should not be proliferated/educated in the helpless minds of children, no matter what umbrella is used (science or religion).
In the case of adoption, within gender-identical couples, it could and in many respects should be outlawed. Why? Religion, no. Religion will only proliferate an already dangerous situation. Science? Hardly, as science cannot create anything and should not be given liberty to "do as it pleases" while the life form of a human is in question.
What is even more strange is gender-alike "couples" using science to produce/donate offspring. That is genetically unfair to nature, all the male humans on the planet and certainly the female humans as well.
People continue to "mess with", exploit and use children. And, I don't apologize to the "gender challenged" sympathisers when I ask this question: who or what gave you the right/authority to abuse a child --mentally, emotionally, spiritually or socially? Since when is child abuse considered socially acceptable or responsible? Since when is a child a commodity to promote YOUR social ineptness or selfish desires be it same-sex couples, divorce of either type of couple --natural or not?
This sounds all fine in theory. Just in theory. Whether or not being gay is a bad influence in the development of a child's psyche is irrelevant if you happened to notice that most straight parents are too a bad influence in the growth of their children. So are schools, the streest, their friends, their experiences, everything will have a bad influence on them as well as a good influence too.
The argument that states that is against Nature is pure bs. You writting here is not "intended" by Nature, nor is it what brand of clothes you wear or pretty much anything any of us do all the time. Nature is indifferent to all of this.
Didn't you ever see a male dog humping another male dog? It's not Nature who has a problem with that, it's society.
It's pretty simple: is every kid raised from a straight marriage perfect? Is every kid raised from a gay couple a freak and a bad person? No and no. And it's not because it's "against" Nature, it's because parenting is hard.
How fitting that a logical human would deduce --yes deduce themselves to a skeptical Darwinist theory of monkey is man or dog in this case. Proves the point even further. If humans do not and cannot respect their natural place in the order of creation, they will proliferate other creations within nature to substantiate their claim. Yet in the end, have shamelessly, deliberately violated the first order of human nature and --although I dislike it-- humanism itself.
IMO, if you prefer to compare yourself or another human to a monkey, goat or dog, that is your right. But the reality of creation will and has proven that incorrect many times throughout history. So much for your "bs" self absolution.
Although I understand in part the religious nature and logical nature of necessity to sustain an argument, there is nothing either can provide that proves your case. Logical sensation? Bully. Sensational Logic? Even more bully. Social counter-ism and apathy/empathy? Shame on you!
In my eyes it is still child abuse. All the parties involved --religious or logical/law/scientific --should suffer pain unimaginable, indescribable --should they influence, cause or direct a child in a manner that supplants, satisfies or negotiates a personal loose of responsibility, to promote or satisfy their self or social indignation, lack, divisive and most certainly limited emotional self satisfaction.
Your whole argument is based on the mistake that humans are external from Nature. It's got nothing to do with comparing, nor respect. Respect, shame, belonging, these are all social and strictly human concepts.
What you call natural is in fact social and cultural, and ironcially, this is what could screw children up: society telling them "this is wrong, this is not meant to be, blahblahblah". It's not the gay parents, it's people like you saying "you're a freak, you weren't raised like I was!".
Roll back a couple of decades and you'd be arguing against interracial marriages.
The fact that you call it abuse is simply ridiculous, let alone that you think someone, regardless if they have a big, loving, generous heart wants to give home, food, shelter and education to a child, should "suffer pain unimaginable" because they feel attracted to someone who shares the same sexual organs.
Quite the contrary! Humans are the epitome of nature, which supports my argument to the highest point.
The parental order of human nature dictates and has proven to be the single greatest expression of creations known on this planet. As of late, it has been greatly misconstrued by both sides of the Ism --logic/law (including science) and theology.
And again, you deduce to social qualities that have proven false as exemplified by "inter racial" relations. Those skin tone actions are irrelevant to human nature or better stated humanities actual nature. It is obvious the influence of the aforementioned promotes and sustains such a viewpoint.
As for the "unimaginable" --YES, mental molestation is just a ruthless, tasteless, selfish and violating as any act imaginable against a child. worse is forcibly subjecting them to such actions/reactions with sensational justification!
And how --having answered none of my previous queries earnestly or with any measure of humanism, can come to the conclusion of ridicule?
Any human couple can provide elements of illusion --food, home, comfort --yet still have an underlying quest of selfishness, easily noted by heterosexual, like-sexual couples and the products of either or both. So long as any sexual ideology causes the influence of a child --by proxy, force, education or suggestion, it is a violation of their rights and free will. Not to mention --again-- abuse.
Seems the argument pro like-gender ideology is as useless, weak and flawed as any others. Perhaps it would be better suited to call upon the religious or logical/scientific sympathies --along with their political provisions, to supply various emotional/rational loopholes that will immediately satisfy that apathy/empathy, else ultimately dismantle natures order of humanity?
"The parental order of human nature dictates and has proven to be the single greatest expression of creations known on this planet."
Nature dictates nothing. Nature just is. There are no 'shoulds and shouldn'ts' in Nature.
You have a particular case of bad homosexual parenting, it's because they're not good parents, not because of what chromosomes they have or the size of their chest. You have a particular case of good parenting, it won't matter the parents' sexual orientation.
The arguments you're stating are about the child's psychology, right? They need a mother figure to grow supposedly with a balanced mind, or normal at least (which in my experience is not ideal). You could even go further and talk about mother's milk and how it affects the development of the child's brain. What about single dad's? The wife dies. Is it against "human nature" to raise a child alone? Or to get a new wife? Won't the kids grow up with problems knowing their mother figure was "fake"? Is this also some form of abuse?
How about ordinary husband and wife, who work a lot, are never home, and have a nanny? Are they abusing as well? Should they be thrown in the "unimaginable pain and suffering" bag as well?
You part from the assumption that kids from normal marriages turn out just fine. That things are perfect the way they are and should not be changed.
It used to be other races, then women, now gays. You say there is nothing in human's natural order that dictates a reason to prevent 2 people from different races to raise a child. But there used to be. Because it wasn't really in Nature at all, but in society. Same with women's role. White people were superior to any person with dark skin, men were superior to women. At least that's how they viewed themselves at the time. Now straight people are superior to homosexuals.
You use a lot of words but your whole argument to me is "this should be this way because it has always been this way".
Can a child, despite having two really good gay parents, grow up with some issues regarding their parents sexuality? Sure! Can a child die from an accident with a fork? Yup. Does that mean we have to completely ban forks?
It's not about Nature, it's not about what's right or wrong, it's not about abuse. It's about being the new thing.
The big flaw in this little bit of so-called "logic" is that the particular people you mention seem to believe that all women are all nothing but "womb-like" love, and all men are about nothing but strength and discipline. That's baloney. The world is full of women who successfully raise children either alone (often elderly grandmothers) or else in spite of husbands who don't take a shred of interest in child-rearing. A lot of women raise kids in spite of goon husbands who don't have a clue about child development and who think that the only way to teach a child right from wrong is by hitting or otherwise resorting to violence.
I've heard that "experts" say that what children need is to have at least one, good, strong, solid, loving, parent.. Two good, solid, loving, parents (a mother and a father) is ideal; but not all kids can have that. These experts say that as long as kids have at least the one, solid, parent they have a good chance of growing up OK.
Actually, I've known a handful of people who have foster children. It turns out "experts" often place foster children who have been abused by, say, a father, in foster homes where there is no man in the home; because it is believed the child will feel most secure in a home where there is no man. Obviously, there's disagreement among "experts" regarding the so-called "order of humanity", isn't there...
It's the "order of humanity" that mothers are supposed to love and nurture their babies and not harm them - and yet babies keep getting taken away from that "womb-like" () "love" of their biological mothers because their mothers beat them up or lose their aggressive tempers with them. It's the "order of Nature" that most animal mothers raise their babies until they can fend for themselves; and yet, all over YouTube there are animals that have "adopted" (without benefit of a court system) motherless baby animals of a different species.
If anything is going to "dismantle Nature's order of humanity" it will be the LACK of humanity that exists when people don't understand, or recognize, that in Nature there is variation; and that in humanity there are individual differences; and that expecting Nazi-like order and imagined "perfection" in society is the biggest way to eradicate respect and love among people. If anyone thinks "order of humanity" is ever going to keep existing he needs to recognize that it is only the love of caring parents that results in a well adjusted, psychologically healthy, individual . Kids can past a whole lot of differences, flaws, and imperfections in whatever they have for parents; but they don't often emotionally survive the robot-like adherence to some "order of humanity" thinking that would have human beings reduced to nothing more than their reproductive functions.
I've heard about way too many birth mothers who have harmed, killed, or thrown into dumpsters their babies for me, personally, to think any "order of humanity" is particularly adhered to in this world. I've also seen how love can work miracles on children who have been abandoned or harmed by their biological parent(s).
Is it perfect that a child not be raised by two loving, wonderful, brilliant, skilled-in-child-development, pillar-of-society, father and mother? No. It's not perfect. A lot of kids don't get "perfect", though, and a lot of them grow up just fine (as long as they're loved and know they belong in a family). People worried about "perfect" and "order" need to do some reading up on the whole Eugenics movement and the kind of thinking behind that.
the society becomes permissive/accepting as time goes by, and it should be that way - children and family members adapt to ever changing family structure. Family composition and dynamics is not static -- there are single households etc
If two healthy and happy same sex adults are loving of each other and the child, why not?
That's better than most dysfunctional families
Apparently not. It seems it's prefferable to have a mother and father figure over two of the same. Even if the mom's a crack addict and the dad a murderer. Because daddy loving daddy is a form of abuse.
Love is abuse. That is where this thread is going.
Thank God, we had only drunks in our family.
There is no consensus, which is why this thread will last eh? For what my humble thoughts are worth? When I started coaching High School sports, most kids had 2, count em, 2 parents show up for parents night. Mom, and Dad. about 10 years ago those numbers changed. About half the athletes had their biological parents with them as a couple. This year 3 kids lived with their biological parents. 10 either had multiple parents or were living in foster situations.
I believe one of the most far reaching damages done to "us", as a civilization has at it's root, the destruction of the family. We can argue for years to come, about the validity or definition of a family. But, for me, the "because I promised"...her Dad, her Mom, my entire family, and most certainly her, that no matter what...I'd be here...was something I really didn't wish to break. And while yes we had parents or friends or other folks who would have relished our failure, we never had to face what (I imagine) ill-wishes the average Gay couple faces from so many angles.
In short, it was tough without the externally imposed booby traps and drama.
Good parents are good parents - regardless of their sexuality. I had WAY rather see a loving, caring gay or lesbian couple with kids than an abusive straight couple with children!
Yes, Yes and yes! You are right. Thank you. It just makes you want to grab some people by their shoulders and shake some sense into them. Let it be let it be!
Hi, Julie. You sound like me! I swear, sometimes I see parents in stores who are so mean to their kids that I just want to smack 'em! (the parents - not the kids)
I know exactly what you mean. My 3 year old has mild autism, he has the occassional tantrum, he just happened to have one in Walmart. I already know how to calm him so I began to speak to him calmly, brushing my hand on his hair and so on.
This lady that was walking around with 4 kids comes up to me and says, "You need to spank that nonsense out of him!". OH MY! habee.... first of all she doesn't even know what the heck happened to him and secondly all children are different. I gave that lady my, "Are you serious?!" look and told her to get the hell away from me before I lit into her ass, you know as in smacking her. She put her hand to her chest and gasped.
What was she thinking?! That is the type of idiocy I have dealt with on many occassion AND ITS ALWAYS STRAIGHT PARENTS TELLING ME TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT!!!!
I'd mostly like to second the points made by Lisa HW, Habee, spookyfox, brimancandy, and others, but I'd also like to point out that outlawing adoption by gay and lesbian individuals or couples can also break up families in some cases. For example, if one member of a gay or lesbian couple has a child from a previous relationship, preventing the other partner from adopting it can have serious consequences should something happen to the biological parent.
Such a law could also prevent gay and lesbian couples from becoming adopted parents or guardians of nieces, nephews, or other related children who have lost their own parents for some reason. Does anyone genuinely believe that such children would be better off in the foster care system than with their own family, if that family just happens to be homosexual?
My opinion on this is that there are tens of thousands of children who are in need of adoption, no matter whether a male/female is better than a male/male or female/female is better or not, A family is better than No family.
It is too easy to get bogged down in the details sometimes, you might just miss the big picture.
Elton John and his Husband have just had their first child through surocacy......
this is all about sex here? or adoption by people who have "weird" sex? Or think about it, would you like to be Elton and his wife/hubby's child? I sure wouldn't mind! On with the show!
Yes. Some people are obsessed with sex, specially people with a religious background that has a lot of repression, particularly in that aspect.
ha! Megs, you're a hoot.
But the issue I was engaging is child abuse --in the form of sexual abuse. Not so much a physical action against the child's body, but rather sexual abuse of their minds. This is a terrible injustice society has yet to enforce. Oddly, when it comes to hetero AND mono-gender couples mental abuse is enforced, sexual abuse or neglect is enforced and is often grounds for civil dissolution.
If the natural order of humans --emphasis on humans, not Darwinist naturalism ideologies of the animal kingdom-- is altered and forced upon children, what will happen to society?
The child is being abused, by being subjected to a sexually based relationship that is opposed to natural procreation. and while I agree in many ways hetero couples are faulty, it is not grounds to say an alternate lifestyle is more fitting.
Religion, Science and now Law are dictating that sexual behavior as civil necessity/acceptance through everything from gender neutrality/alteration/transformation to education, entertainment, and beyond. That to me makes no sense.
What's more is the ramifications of such "families" and the result of the child's mentality as they grow up. The researchers believe, as with any hetero abusive situation, the child will adapt/conform, against their free will, to satisfy the parent ( husband, wife, captor --aka the abuser)...
are you, like so many others in these forums, presuming that homosexuals would "abuse" their children and force them to become homosexual like them? that they could not encourage their heterosexual children as easily as heterosexuals encourage their homosexual children to succeed? because I think these particular homosexuals we started thinking about in this forum are probably alot more open about sexuality and accepting of all kinds of sexuality than some of you sound like you are. Your own presupposition that gays would always sexually abuse their children is complete bushwah!
Absolutely not. Presuming any gender would is pointless. Assuming any gender could is fitting. All the genders are capable be them male, female, she/he-male. However, a family of mom-mom, dad-dad, mom-was-dad, dad-was-mom, mom-was-dad but still looks like mom, etc is undeniably a form of sexually based mental abuse. The kicker: religion & science are working together on this issue, accepting it as easily as they accept those donations, and it isn't helping the child a bit.
--my last expression for this topic/thread.
There's a lot of injustice in a society that will allow incompetent, uncaring people to breed, but two loving people cannot volunteer to raise a child. A child who will otherwise be passed around to random people who are only interested in a monthly check. Way too many people of power have their heads in their asses.
kids need love and support regardless of their parents gender and preferences. There are so many kids that need to be adopted, if you can afford it, do it!! Many wishes and blessings to you all these kids need loving families.
2 Thesselonians 2:11 * And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
2 Thesselonians 2:12 * That they all might be damned who believeth not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I don't think it matters at all. Your adopted child should and eill be grateful that you are in their life. When they come to that age of understanding, they will. I am sure they will be grateful.
by crankalicious 17 months ago
Do families that worship God have stronger bonds than those that don't? Is believing in God fundamental to being a good parent?Read the following article and see what you think. This study on religion and parenting is the largest of its kind and is a very interesting...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
What are the TEN components of mature and conscientious parenting?
by Jacqui 5 years ago
Can two parents of the same sex raise children?I ask this AFTER writing my hub on a similar topic (Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally), but I'm looking to write another on the views of people and those who are SS parents.So, can SS parents raise children? Why? Why Not? What are your...
by Comfort Babatola 6 years ago
Do you believe in the adage, "It takes a village to raise a child"? This is an African proverb that has helped shaped societies in time past. But could it work in this time and age? Will you apply this ancient truth in raising your child today?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Why are religious people so concerned about the atheist? Really, being an atheist is clearly NONE of their business. Why do so many religious people contend that the atheist is going down the wrong path. There are a myriad of beliefs in this world. None are superior to the...
by arreed15 2 years ago
What are your thoughts on young parents trying to raise a child?Is there a good outlook on the youth having children or is it just youth is bound to fail in life based on their decion?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|