Comments on: >Judge Lederman’s Top Ten List: Bad Arguments for Homosexual Parenting

By: Aunt Lo

Aunt Lo — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:09:00 +0000

>A flawed premise seems to be constantly reiterated by those who oppose equal rights. It is framed here as, “homosexual conduct is not an innate characteristic like race, an involuntary characteristic like unemployment….” The conduct is not innate; however, the natural human drive is as innate and inborn as race or gender. No human being has the ability to know God’s intent and is in no position to judge his or her fellow humans based on a flawed, human interpretation of God’s Word. God does not make mistakes. Perhaps God put homosexuals on this planet to teach tolerance to His children? Why don’t you try meeting just one homosexual couple raising a family before you judge what you have not experienced? Working in the child welfare arena, I met many such families, and I found the children, without exception, to be better behaved, better adjusted, and better prepared for the real world than their counterparts raised in so-called “Christian” households. Judge not lest ye be judged.

By: webtenor

webtenor — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:37:00 +0000

>Judge Lederman’s decision was appalling. Aside from the arguments related to children, I believe the arguments for same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue are equally flawed. I would like to see the debate re-cast as an issue of whether or not same-sex marriages provides society with an equivalent return on investment to what is achieved by investing in traditional marriages.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:41:00 +0000

>Peter Sprigg is spot on here and this critic cuts right through the problems with this poor decision.