Obama: some children raised by 2 Fathers...

[Hoovie]

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...on-fathers-day

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...on-fathers-day

Sad. I've known of households comprised of a "gay" biological father, his "boyfriend" and a child from a previous heterosexual marriage.

The circumstances were invariably tragic.

The President is correct to recognize the plain fact that a lot of folks are working hard to get by and do the best they can even after all of the curve balls that life can throw at them. But, we shouldn't be affirming those "curve balls" as being the desired or preferred situation.

[commonsense]

Signs of the times unfortunatley.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Sad. I've known of households comprised of a "gay" biological father, his "boyfriend" and a child from a previous heterosexual marriage.

The circumstances were invariably tragic.

The President is correct to recognize the plain fact that a lot of folks are working hard to get by and do the best they can even after all of the curve balls that life can throw at them. But, we shouldn't be affirming those "curve balls" as being the desired or preferred situation.

I agree.

He didn't say an "ideal" fatherhood nor did he affirm these situations as "preferred." That's not really his place. But on that note, even single-parent homes would be disqualified by the "ideal" stamp. He's acknowledging the realities of those who are raising children in America.

[Hoovie]

I'm a radical I guess. It's a dangerous place for a child to be... a home with two homosexual deviants.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I'm a radical I guess. It's a dangerous place for a child to be... a home with two homosexual deviants.

Homosexuality is immoral.

Two fathers sets up a standard in a child's mind that is inherently immoral. I agree.

When you say "dangerous" can you please clarify?

Also, how do you define "family?" Blood relationship? Marriage? Shared household? Curious.

I'm aware of Dobson's studies cited about the psychological benefit of one dad, one mother. But let's face it -- our society has the signs of moral depravity written all over it. Look how many single mom's are raising children in the ghettos. Look at how many divorces and blended families there are in the suburbs. It's alarming.

The Libertarian in me says we should be legally accomodating for all people, while the believer in me seeks to influence this world with the Gospel -- not just so that they can be moral people, but so they can see a more fuller way of living life, and live with understanding God's grace and generosity, knowing He is Lord.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Homosexuality is immoral.

Two fathers sets up a standard in a child's mind that is inherently immoral. I agree.

When you say "dangerous" can you please clarify?

Also, how do you define "family?" Blood relationship? Marriage? Shared household? Curious.

I'm aware of Dobson's studies cited about the psychological benefit of one dad, one mother. But let's face it -- our society has the signs of moral depravity written all over it. Look how many single mom's are raising children in the ghettos. Look at how many divorces and blended families there are in the suburbs. It's alarming.

The Libertarian in me says we should be legally accomodating for all people, while the believer in me seeks to influence this world with the Gospel -- not just so that they can be moral people, but so they can see a more fuller way of living life, and live with understanding God's grace and generosity, knowing He is Lord.

I fully understand there are marriage definitions that are not blood relationship. (and also that those are generally less than ideal) But I do believe official references to homosexuality like this one are an obvious attempt to normalize it while at the same time diminishing the importance of God's ideal.

Dangerous because he will likely view sodomy as something other than an abomination.

Also because he is in a house with two perverted men who most likely support causes like the North American Man/Boy Love Association. (they work closely with the gay and lesbian groups)

Practicing homosexuals have a much higher risk of disease, drug use and premature death.

The libertarian in me does not want to remove the child without hard evidence. But the libertarian in me also believes I have the right say it is immoral, deviant and dangerous choice - and one better not confirmed or approved by the church, government or society at large.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I fully understand there are marriage definitions that are not blood relationship. (and also that those are generally less than ideal) But I do believe official references to homosexuality like this one are an obvious attempt to normalize it while at the same time diminishing the importance of God's ideal.

Dangerous because he will likely view sodomy as something other than an abomination.

Also because he is in a house with two perverted men who most likely support North American Man/Boy Love Association. (they work closely with the gay and lesbian groups)

Practicing homosexuals have a much higher risk of disease, drug use and premature death.

The libertarian in me does not want to remove the child without hard evidence. But the libertarian in me also believes I have the right say it is immoral, deviant and dangerous choice - and one better not confirmed or approved by the church, government or society at large.

Is it the place of a US President to proclaim something like Sodomy to be "abominable?" Even if that President isn't a believer? Even if the republic is not all believers and Jesus Followers?

As far as the higher risk of disease... we could go many directions on statistics and you know it.

As a Libertarian, I believe I can individually voice my dissent, but may not on all issues connect-the-dots between what I disapprove us and what I think the government should explicitly disapprove.

In reality my issue is not that some people share homes with others of the same-sex, practice sodomy and in their own twisted way, provide love for a child, the issue is that their lives are deprived of the Gospel.

[Praxeas]

We as a society dropped the ball a long time ago when it comes to nurturing real men. We focused on women. Our churches are no different either. That's why I hit hard on the magic hair crud, where God's only protection for a man is his wifes uncut hair.

Watch TV and you will see that man is always depicted as bumbling, stupid fools or soft emasculated boys. Nor did we help when it came to defining marriages. The 60s with free love and all that was the wrong kind of influence. Churches are afraid to stand up and preach against sin, preach real family values and order of creation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We as a society dropped the ball a long time ago when it comes to nurturing real men. We focused on women. Our churches are no different either. That's why I hit hard on the magic hair crud, where God's only protection for a man is his wifes uncut hair.

Watch TV and you will see that man is always depicted as bumbling, stupid fools or soft emasculated boys. Nor did we help when it came to defining marriages. The 60s with free love and all that was the wrong kind of influence. Churches are afraid to stand up and preach against sin, preach real family values and order of creation.

Jackie Gleason was funny to millions - but frankly, he scared me to death as a kid. I couldn't watch that. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble were my next "role models." hmmm... And they were based on the Gleason/Art Carney duo.

As a kid growing up in the 60s and "coming of age" in the 1970s, I feel like our culture really failed the men of my generation. The cowboy westerns were a relic and the whole genre had slid into a self absorbed existentialist over analysis. In other words, the "heroes" raped and murdered their way through town dispensing "justice."

The only other available role models were closeted gays like "Mr. Brady" or "strong women." I remember going into my Jr. High current affairs class as a 7th grader right after the Bobby Whatshisname vs. Billy Jean King tennis "match." Our teacher openly taunted the boys and ridiculed us for the failings of a 50+ year old whose schtick was being a "male chauvinist pig" so that he could get one last fat paycheck before retirement.

King on the other hand, was a predatory lesbian at the top of her career. The teacher kept piling it on for the rest of the term. Unbearable. And this was one of my favorite subjects (current events - the 1973 war had just unfolded). Yet all I got was this lesbo taunting rant about how men are all failures.

I desperately wanted a hero. There were none. Even Captain America went "AWOL" at that time in the comic book. Having a dad that was often "AWOL" as well, I was ripe pickings for whatever the lamest thing around could throw my way. Bible fundamentalism turned out to be it. Why bother with a "real" education? The time of the end was at hand. And so, I frittered the best years of my life away on an illusory apocalyptic fairy tale.

I would have been better served to have angrily stood up against the whole thing and been labeled a "chauvinist" or worse and just fought it out instead of isolating myself within a womb of insecurity and fear. When most of my generation did pretty much the same thing we left the culture to continue to degrade without any strong voices to help guide the next generation. And so, the rot continues.