Thread: Qualifications for parents

Originally Posted by frank47

NYCshaver, I'm not saying it wouldn't be natural. All I was saying is that you have not PROVED and cannot PROVE that homosexuality in the human race is natural from your line of reasoning.

Can you then prove that homosexuality is not natural?

Originally Posted by TheGeek

However if the state puts a child in your care , that child is not your child and especially in the case of a foster family, where they may be returned to their biological family, you do not have the right to indoctrinate that child with your beliefs, for a number of reasons

A well thought out post with many valid points. What you are saying, in effect, is that ideally foster parents should be people with no strongly held belief in anything, especially any organised religion.
For example, if our family had fostered a child we would have needed to find somewhere for the child to be looked after on Sunday morning if attendance at Sunday school was deemed unacceptable. Likewise festivals such as Christmas and Easter would have presented logistical problems.
My wife taught primary school for many years , starting in Canada in the late 1960s, followed by Scotland and then England. Towards the end of her career it was becoming 'politically incorrect' to celebrate or express belief in very much at all. At her last school, even the time honoured tradition of making fathers day cards was eventually ruled out by the headteacher, on the basis that it was discriminating against the third of the class who didn't have a father in the household.

My spiritual journey has been my spiritual journey. Very different from my parents'.

My son's spiritual journey will be his spiritual journey. I only pray that my God (and his) will bless and direct him.

Originally Posted by markevens

Can you then prove that homosexuality is not natural?

That is not the point. You stated homosexuality IS natural. The burden is on you to prove your claim and from your line of reasoning you cannot.

Remember that the Oxford English Dictionary gives more than one definition of the word unnatural. It can also mean; extremely cruel or wicked.

Originally Posted by frank47

That is not the point. You stated homosexuality IS natural. The burden is on you to prove your claim and from your line of reasoning you cannot.

You still haven't defined what is unnatural.

The definition of natural is: Present in or produced by nature

Homosexuality in the human race meets the definition of natural.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

You still haven't defined what is unnatural.

The definition of natural is: Present in or produced by nature

Homosexuality in the human race meets the definition of natural.

I never was going to since I never made the claim it was unnatural. In fact I never made any claim one way or the other for this entire thread. What is the root cause of homosexuality as far as I am concerned is unknown. If one states they know the root cause, all I ask is to prove it.

Originally Posted by frank47

I never was going to since I never made the claim it was unnatural. In fact I never made any claim one way or the other for this entire thread. What is the root cause of homosexuality as far as I am concerned is unknown. If one states they know the root cause, all I ask is to prove it.

And what, pray tell, are your conditions for "proof."

This is far worse. A man loses custody of his own children, because he changes his religion from christianity to agnostic.

Father says his faith cost his custody » Cops, courts and fires » The Herald Bulletin

I don't buy it. The article states that the fatehr is claiming that he lost custody because of his religious preference. However, the article goes on to describe an almost textbook case of abusive/controlling husband/father. There is more to the story than "I lost my kids because I am agnostic."