Utah judge removes lesbian couple's foster child, saying she'll be better off with heterosexuals

[Kevin]

I've now bought into the theory that Juan is really Jay.

[TobiasFunke]

I think I can proudly say that I started that theory

[juansavage1]

I think society has and is determining that homosexuals can make fit parents too, except for the occasional outliers like this Utah judge.

 

As for your last statement, of course "everybody brings their beliefs into politics." But religious belief shouldn't dictate law. Be part of the discussion, sure. It is inevitable. But laws are meant to be for all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation. So it becomes problematic if we have "Christian laws" and "Muslim laws" for everyone, regardless of whether they are Christians or Muslims. Laws are meant to be more universal.

Beliefs dictate law. That's just the way it is. Men are belief-driven. 

 

I think what you're talking about and what the founders were most wary of was denominationalism, where one sect gets preference over another. 

[Angelsjunky]

Beliefs dictate law. That's just the way it is. Men are belief-driven. 

 

I think what you're talking about and what the founders were most wary of was denominationalism, where one sect gets preference over another. 

 

Well, not quite. What I mean is that the country's laws should allow for a wide variety of lifestyles and ideologies all under the broad umbrella of the ideas and spirit of what this country was founded upon. Specifically, laws shouldn't force the beliefs of adherents of one ideology onto those to hold said beliefs - except when such beliefs are widely accepted as part of the society's ethics (e.g. murder is illegal).

 

Gay marriage is a perfect example. Gay people getting married doesn't impact people that don't agree with it, except on the level of moral offense. But it doesn't in any way impact the freedoms of those who oppose it. But prohibiting gay marriage does impact gay people, and for what? Moral satisfaction for those opposed?

 

That said, I do think that specific churches and priests should have the right to not marry a gay couple, just as I think a specific baker should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose. But on a legal level? The law is meant to support a wide variety of lifestyles and choices, not just cater to the morality of a specific group.

[juansavage1]

Well, not quite. What I mean is that the country's laws should allow for a wide variety of lifestyles and ideologies all under the broad umbrella of the ideas and spirit of what this country was founded upon. Specifically, laws shouldn't force the beliefs of adherents of one ideology onto those to hold said beliefs - except when such beliefs are widely accepted as part of the society's ethics (e.g. murder is illegal).

 

Gay marriage is a perfect example. Gay people getting married doesn't impact people that don't agree with it, except on the level of moral offense. But it doesn't in any way impact the freedoms of those who oppose it. But prohibiting gay marriage does impact gay people, and for what? Moral satisfaction for those opposed?

 

That said, I do think that specific churches and priests should have the right to not marry a gay couple, just as I think a specific baker should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose. But on a legal level? The law is meant to support a wide variety of lifestyles and choices, not just cater to the morality of a specific group.

First, this is one of the few serious, non-insulting posts disagreeing with me. I don't mind non-serious. Insulting bothers me. Thanks.

 

Now:

 

Can you come up with a law that doesn't force a belief? Your gay "marriage" law forces that belief that marriage is between two people so you can't use that one.

 

Can you come up with a reason any expansion of marriage would impact other people (which would allow for infinite permutations of marriage)? 

 

I don't want to start this again, but you should modify your claim to: "I don't think we should allow for any belief I don't believe in, nor consider any impact I don't think is important."

Edited November 17, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Jay]

I think I can proudly say that I started that theory

yeah you're a genious

[nate]

dude it's a joke, get a grip

 

No difference from that post and the rest of his posts.

[Angelsjunky]

First, this is one of the few serious, non-insulting posts disagreeing with me. I don't mind non-serious. Insulting bothers me. Thanks.

 

Now:

 

Can you come up with a law that doesn't force a belief? Your gay "marriage" law forces that belief that marriage is between two people so you can't use that one.

 

Can you come up with a reason any expansion of marriage would impact other people (which would allow for infinite permutations of marriage)? 

 

I don't want to start this again, but you should modify your claim to: "I don't think we should allow for any belief I don't believe in, nor consider any impact I don't think is important."

 

Juan, you're side-stepping here. How does gay marriage force you into anything? Do you have to marry a man? Are you a priest that has to marry gay people? All you "have to" do is accept that gay people can now get married. And to be honest, you don't even have to accept it. You can disagree with it until the day you die. But you know what? And entire group of people has recently been upgraded to equal rights in terms of marriage. I'd say that is a big step forward for human rights.

 

Again, it isn't a matter of laws having to reflect my own personal beliefs - although like everyone, my beliefs are what I think is most true. There are plenty of instances where my own personal beliefs aren't reflected by law. But the law is meant to serve and protect as many people as possible, to extend liberties to all within certain parameters.

 

It is so simple: laws are meant to be as universal as possible, while still reflecting contemporary social mores and ethics which change over time. You seem to have a hard time with that last part - the changing nature of social mores and ethics. But imagine if they didn't change. Imagine if blacks and women didn't gain the right to vote. What bemuses me is that people who are against gay marriage can't see that this is a contemporary manifestation of civil rights, and that they are behind the times.

[juansavage1]

Respectfully, any law codifies a belief. You believe marriage is this and I think its that. One of our definitions is what the government accepts and excludes.

Having straight marriage didn't force anybody to do anything and didn't prevent people from considering themselves married or having a ceremony. It just said what the government would accept.

Juan, you're side-stepping here. How does gay marriage force you into anything? Do you have to marry a man? Are you a priest that has to marry gay people? All you "have to" do is accept that gay people can now get married. And to be honest, you don't even have to accept it. You can disagree with it until the day you die. But you know what? And entire group of people has recently been upgraded to equal rights in terms of marriage. I'd say that is a big step forward for human rights.

Again, it isn't a matter of laws having to reflect my own personal beliefs - although like everyone, my beliefs are what I think is most true. There are plenty of instances where my own personal beliefs aren't reflected by law. But the law is meant to serve and protect as many people as possible, to extend liberties to all within certain parameters.

It is so simple: laws are meant to be as universal as possible, while still reflecting contemporary social mores and ethics which change over time. You seem to have a hard time with that last part - the changing nature of social mores and ethics. But imagine if they didn't change. Imagine if blacks and women didn't gain the right to vote. What bemuses me is that people who are against gay marriage can't see that this is a contemporary manifestation of civil rights, and that they are behind the times.

[Adam]

Lol

[Rico]

There are issues with same-sex couples. 

 

Let's take these women. Who's putting the bike together on Christmas? What if one of the kid's project requires woodworking? Who will explain the infield fly rule? Who's the battleaxe? Which of the two are going to complain how they could have married somebody richer? 

 

I'm pretty sure at least 80% of all lesbians have played on a softball team at one point of their life.  The other 20% are hot.

[juansavage1]

This has to be the most ignorant and stupid thing anyone has ever posted here.

 

Now at least I know Juan is a troll.

JS: What is it that I'm ignorant of? 

 

Nate: Lesbians happen to excel at woodworking. What Dwarves are to mining, lesbians are to carpentry and whittling. 

 

JS: That's why I come here- to learn from Nate. 

[Angelsjunky]

Respectfully, any law codifies a belief. You believe marriage is this and I think its that. One of our definitions is what the government accepts and excludes.

Having straight marriage didn't force anybody to do anything and didn't prevent people from considering themselves married or having a ceremony. It just said what the government would accept.

 

 

Juan, there is a simple logic here that you are evading.

 

Gay marriage = equal rights for gay people + moral discomfort for some Americans

No gay marriage = non-equal rights for gay people + moral satisfaction for some Americans

 

Is that moral satisfaction really worth not giving an entire demographic of American citizens equal rights to what you and I have? Does gay marriage affect you in any way other than providing you with moral discomfort?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[juansavage1]

Juan, there is a simple logic here that you are evading.

 

Gay marriage = equal rights for gay people + moral discomfort for some Americans

No gay marriage = non-equal rights for gay people + moral satisfaction for some Americans

 

Is that moral satisfaction really worth not giving an entire demographic of American citizens equal rights to what you and I have? Does gay marriage affect you in any way other than providing you with moral discomfort?

No gay marriage means that marriage makes sense and is an institution to move the country forward, as it's the pairing of two sexes that need each other and make families. 

 

Gay marriage means that marriage is nothing more than emotion, people who really like each other and may or may not like to bone. 

 

You're wrong that it discriminates against people who like the same sex, since they're not barred from participating in marriage. You're right that it discriminates in favor of conjugal marriage and against sterile by design, emotion-only marriage. 

[Angelsjunky]

Sorry Juan, I don't buy your argument. Gay marriage can serve the same purpose as straight marriage, even without procreation. Why? Because of adoption. According to the CCAI, there are almost 400,000 children in the foster care system without permanent homes, and 153 million worldwide. If, in your mind, the primary purpose of marriage is to make babies, why not allow gay marriage to offer more potentially stable homes? 

 

As of April this year, there were approximately 400,000 gay marriages (an interesting coincidence), a number that is rising quickly. Not all gay married couples adopt, but neither do all straight couples re-produce. By your logic reproduction should be mandated if you are married, otherwise it is "emotion-only."

 

Anyhow, my guess is that you'll come back with "but its better for children to have a man and a woman as parents." Even if that is true (which I don't necessarily think it is), it is better to have loving parents than no parents.

 

But here's the point: when you get to the root of being against gay marriage, logic doesn't stand up. It is entirely ideological/religious, emotional, and irrational. In fact, by being against gay marriage you're essentially saying that foster children are better off in the system than in a permanent (gay) home.

[juansavage1]

For those not committed to social revolution, you've been fooled. Gay marriage is absurd. You know who thinks it's absurd? Gay people. Gay people marry much less than straight people, abuse and "cheat" each other more, and divorce more. Why? Because, it's not a serious thing. Their feelings are serious, but their dedication to the institution isn't. 

 

If a man and a woman split up or aren't devoted to each other, it's a mini-tragedy for society. If two dudes split up, it's just sad for them. 

[juansavage1]

Sorry Juan, I don't buy your argument. Gay marriage can serve the same purpose as straight marriage, even without procreation. Why? Because of adoption. According to the CCAI, there are almost 400,000 children in the foster care system without permanent homes, and 153 million worldwide. If, in your mind, the primary purpose of marriage is to make babies, why not allow gay marriage to offer more potentially stable homes? 

 

As of April this year, there were approximately 400,000 gay marriages (an interesting coincidence), a number that is rising quickly. Not all gay married couples adopt, but neither do all straight couples re-produce. By your logic reproduction should be mandated if you are married, otherwise it is "emotion-only."

 

Anyhow, my guess is that you'll come back with "but its better for children to have a man and a woman as parents." Even if that is true (which I don't necessarily think it is), it is better to have loving parents than no parents.

 

But here's the point: when you get to the root of being against gay marriage, logic doesn't stand up. It is entirely ideological/religious, emotional, and irrational. In fact, by being against gay marriage you're essentially saying that foster children are better off in the system than in a permanent (gay) home.

I bet you the number of children in foster care will remain the same. 

 

It wasn't long ago that people on the left said that marriage itself was illogical and/or evil and only a system of oppression. Why the sudden turn around? 

[Glen]

If a man and a woman split up or aren't devoted to each other, it's a mini-tragedy for society. If two dudes split up, it's just sad for them.

You're more dramatic than any of my homo family or friends.

[nate]

It is also another excellent generalization and the sensationalism is really strong.

[Angelsjunky]

For those not committed to social revolution, you've been fooled. Gay marriage is absurd. You know who thinks it's absurd? Gay people. Gay people marry much less than straight people, abuse and "cheat" each other more, and divorce more. Why? Because, it's not a serious thing. Their feelings are serious, but their dedication to the institution isn't. 

 

If a man and a woman split up or aren't devoted to each other, it's a mini-tragedy for society. If two dudes split up, it's just sad for them. 

 

OK, this clarifies where you are really coming from. Your viewpoint is emotional and ideological, not logical or morally rational.

 

I bet you the number of children in foster care will remain the same. 

 

It wasn't long ago that people on the left said that marriage itself was illogical and/or evil and only a system of oppression. Why the sudden turn around? 

 

I can't answer for "people on the left," although you wouldn't get this because you are seemingly unable to see any nuance or difference in your catch-all caricature of lefism.

 

Anyhow, your bet is pure conjecture.

 

And you evaded my question: should married straight couples be mandated to procreate? If not, according to your logic isn't their marriage a farce and purely emotional?

[Stradling]

There are issues with same-sex couples.

Let's take these women. Who's putting the bike together on Christmas? What if one of the kid's project requires woodworking? Who will explain the infield fly rule? Who's the battleaxe? Which of the two are going to complain how they could have married somebody richer?

Remember in other threads how you asked me why I called you ignorant, lets go ahead and call this Exhibit A.

[Stradling]

Juan you are good at what you do as long as what you do is to say absurd things. Congrats on that. You and Bakunin (who is probably just another name you use) are pretty impressive in your nonsense. You totally remind me of those term paper generators that used to exist where you would type into the generator what the subject is and how many words it needed to be. The generator would have about one paragraph pertaining to the subject then the next million words would be random things totally unrelated to the subject.

[Jay]

Not sure if Juan is a troll but he sure pushes the right buttons around here.

 

Some people are so pissed off they can't even think straight.

[m0nkey]

I should visit this forum more often

[Glen]

Not sure if Juan is a troll but he sure pushes the right buttons around here.

Some people are so pissed off they can't even think straight.

Pissed off?

Angry cons like to imagine that everyone else is as angry as they are. Assumption for assumption.