Okay, I know SEVERAL children of same-sex parents and they turn out wacko. I'm sorry, I can't support this scientifically, but anyone else at my school will verify this.
`
A child who grows up seeing same-sex marriage will learn that it is okay. He will even think that it is his decision, just as he may choose his shirt color.
`
Society won't benefit. America will become even more decadent. I'm sorry.
But that goes beyond the point of the debate. We are not debating whether or not it is ethical to have children who you cannot support.
`
Foster care vs. orphanage? Foster care any day.
`
Foster parents are often people with big hearts. The child was not forced upon them- they chose to adopt him/her. They go through intensive interrogation and background check to see if they are suitable parents.
`
I know a foster parent who is also a teacher. She has adopted about 5 children over the course of her adulthood so far. She can be seen out of work walking her child, teaching the child, and raising the child as her own. The child will eventually know that it is adopted.
`
The NO! side argues that the child deserves a true mother and father. However, if you asked the adopted child, Ann, of my teacher, if she would want a true set of parents over her foster parents, I guarantee you she would say no. They are one and the same to her.
If you believe in heaven, this may not be the correct debate for you. Also, doesn't it get kinda crowded up there?
Reincarnation seems probable because it is mind-boggling to think that we are alive for only appr. 70 years in the grand scheme of the universe. The universe may have a lifespan of infinite years. But we only are alive for a tiny time. Do we die for good?
No.
Your argument is the typical argument, that God MUST exist because of all the miracles and 1-in-a-million chances that are seen in today's world. Your points, addressed briefly one by one:
1) Our world is miraculously the only one known to support life. There are likely millions of other planets that could support life but are SLIGHTLY off in the conditions. And so it may have been a one-in-a-million chance that we are alive on this planet, but it is still just probability. It is not the work of a Creator that out of millions, heck- BILLIONS of worlds, one is known to support life. It is pure chance, but we attribute it falsely to a being greater than ourselves.
2) Water WOULD be odorless and without taste. Why would evolution make the thing that we drink the MOST taste funny? Just as I am pretty sure that to fishes, the saltwater around them has no taste. And water wasn't made by the Creator to suit us. Water's properties are UNIVERSAL, and WE adapted to suit its properties.
3) The right mix of chemicals + electric energy (some consider it as sea + lightning) can create a basic protein. From there come cells. Etc.
4) OF COURSE scientists have no definite explanation for what happened at the VERY beginning. If they DID, then there would be no more debate. But it is better to be unsure than to conveniently attribute the beginning to a supernatural dude who makes things go POOF. See, scientists need to use SCIENCE, not mere FAITH to prove their theories.
Thank you.
