On 19 sep, 19:34, kfw1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:01 am, Martin Koolhoven
> wrote:
>
> > I think this conversation is strange in onother
> > way. We're talking about their right to adopt which should be
> > something completely different from there right to marry.
>
> I agree the issues are separate, but the same data has to be examined.
Actually, I don't agree with that.
>
> > Here's an FRC article on ... health with dozens of citations from
> > secular sources:http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1Doyou think kids
> > benefit from healthy parents?
>
> > Sure. Are unhealthy parents forbidden to have children? Should they?
>
> Excuse me. First of all, you forgot to acknowledge that there are all
> sorts of secular sources providing data you claim is only coming from
> the religious right.
I'll look into it again. Everytime I looked, God came into the picture
somehow. I admit, I didn't check everything.
And the issue is not whether ...s should be
> forbidden to have kids. As you know, or as you know if you can read, I
> have not suggested that they should be forbidden.
Then I really don't understand your reasoning. They can have kids, but
they can't marry. Why not? Because marrying is better for kids.
The issue isn't even
> whether kids are better off with ... parents or no parents and in an
> orphanage.
In a way, it is.
I have answered that question, and no I won't repeat my
> answer.
Then I missed it.
Please don't ask leading questions that imply I believe things
> I don't. The issue is whether we want to call ... parenting as good as
> straight parenting without studying it,
No it isn't. The question is whether they can marry or not. By no
means the label marriage is a stamp for good parenting.
so that more and more
> bi.uals will leave their marriages for ... relationships,
A sillyumption.
and more
> and more ...s will have test tube kids, and more and more kids besides
> those orphans will have ... parents.
I really don't see your point.
MK
|