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

[Jay]

see what I mean?

[Hollyw00d]

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.

Dont you mean think gay?

[mtangelsfan]

Pissed off?

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

 

For a guy that complains a lot about generalizations you sure generalize a lot.

[Glen]

For a guy that complains a lot about generalizations you sure generalize a lot.

I guess the last sentence wasn't clear enough to indicate I was responding in kind.

[Tank]

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. 

 

this made me LOL. whittling? hahahaha.

[juansavage1]

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

Well, it's more complicated when it's an opposite-sex couple. The children are likely the product of their love. There's also the fact that it's important for men and women to be with each other because they complement each other, make each other better. 

[juansavage1]

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.

First, I appreciate the non-insulting replies and attempts at serious discussion (over an issue I actually hate talking about)

 

People get more upset at the truth than a lie. You don't even have to be angry or insulting. Just point out facts. The simple fact of the matter is that in any gay relationship, the children will be separated- by design, not tragedy- from either their mother or their father. A further fact is that society can no longer use terms like "the nuclear family" or even suggest that children are the natural result of sexual union and marriage. 

 

We have completely deconstructed family and sex. Congratulations.  

 

"But you can still marry a woman"

 

Yes, but I'm talking about societal values and momentum, not what you or I can do. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

In Juan's world gays and Nazis are the same thing.

to be fair, some of those S&M outifts are pretty similar.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Im late to this thread (have never noticed a political forum on here). But this is ridiculous...judge way overstepping his boundries for a personal belief.

[Hollyw00d]

Juan really hates america

[juansavage1]

For a guy that complains a lot about generalizations you sure generalize a lot.

I'm guessing that it was just a trick. To be against generalization in principal is true ignorance. The trick is to make good, true, and relevant generalizations.

[juansavage1]

Pissed off?

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

This is an example of another phony argument. Are you against anger?

[juansavage1]

Juan's reality reads like a Bill O'Reilly popup book.

Do you have any thought at the pop up book level? Let's have it. 

 

"Well, how does gay marriage affect your marriage and...uh...love wins...and...no discrimination."

[juansavage1]

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.

So, following your logic, the government shouldn't have any restrictions on marriage at all. Marriage is what the individual's belief's are. As long as it doesn't force anybody to marry. What you're saying is that marriage isn't any thing except what the individual thinks it is and, therefore, has no real purpose- as far as the government is concerned, at least. Is that correct?

 

That's a different way of looking at it than in the past, isn't it? How do you think that new message will affect society? Should schools teach kids that marriage is whatever individuals think it is? Is that attitude related to the collapse of marriage in much of the West? 

 

"There will be more and new and wonderful kinds of love that won't affect anybody or society."

Edited November 18, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Angelsjunky]

So, following your logic, the government shouldn't have any restrictions on marriage at all. Marriage is what the individual's belief's are. As long as it doesn't force anybody to marry. What you're saying is that marriage isn't any thing except what the individual thinks it is and, therefore, has no real purpose- as far as the government is concerned, at least. Is that correct?

 

That's a different way of looking at it than in the past, isn't it? How do you think that new message will affect society? Should schools teach kids that marriage is whatever individuals think it is? Is that attitude related to the collapse of marriage in much of the West? 

 

"There will be more and new and wonderful kinds of love that won't affect anybody or society."

 

To the first point, no. But this is a common ploy anti-gay people use: "gay marriage means anything goes." Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults. It has meaning as a societally sanctioned union. For some it has religious connotations, for others more cultural or symbolic or personal. But the point is, it has cultural and societal meaning.

 

What's wrong with changing (or evolving) from the past? When Rosa Parks sat down in the front of the bus, I'm sure some said "That's a different way of looking at it than in the past." I think the message will say: "Gay people are equal citizens, and homosexuality is not considered wrong or amoral."

[juansavage1]

To the first point, no. But this is a common ploy anti-gay people use: "gay marriage means anything goes." Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults. It has meaning as a societally sanctioned union. For some it has religious connotations, for others more cultural or symbolic or personal. But the point is, it has cultural and societal meaning.

 

What's wrong with changing (or evolving) from the past? When Rosa Parks sat down in the front of the bus, I'm sure some said "That's a different way of looking at it than in the past." I think the message will say: "Gay people are equal citizens, and homosexuality is not considered wrong or amoral."

 

 

If your argument isn't that anything should go as long as nobody is forced to marry nor accept that definition, then don't make that argument. That is what you said earlier. Also, don't blame people for using YOUR logic and rationale for forms of marriage that you don't like. 

 

It's a new, different definition that the government will force people to accept. The government will also exclude some types of relationships from marriage. 

 

Again, when you make that argument with your friends, don't make it freedom versus oppression, make it the virtues of male-female marriage only versus sex-neutral marriage. 

 

Your argument that if gay people marry, there'd be less hard-to-place kids in foster care is a real argument. I don't think it would make any difference since places with gay marriage actually have less marriage, but at least it's an honest argument. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Blarg]

The value of marriage in society has depreciated over the centuries when people got some wild hair up their ass that it needed to be for "love" instead of traditionally marrying for political or financial reasons. Prearranged marriages we determined for the good of both families, not the indulgence of lustful teens that have no concept of the stability of the family unit and introduced strangers into the fold that may interrupt the path to a better social status. By promising a child to another family and accepting theirs unto your own there is a contractual bond tying families together base on mutual trust, the couple will sort out their feelings later but would stay together because of a valued family commitment.

 

That is what Juan would like us all to return to, the age of dowries, social order and bartering your children.

[Glen]

And procreation. Gotta have more kids to work the fields.

[TobiasFunke]

I don't buy the sanctity of marriage argument with the number of divorces in this great country.

[Stradling]

The more I read Juan the more I like myself, and I'm kind of a dick.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Stradling

[Stradling]

I don't buy the sanctity of marriage argument with the number of divorces in this great country.

Exactly. I would say me getting divorced is just as bad for marriage as gay marriage.

[nate]

I don't buy the sanctity of marriage argument with the number of divorces in this great country.

 

And pre-marital sex.  I don't see evangelicals protesting Christians getting married that had sex outside of marriage or had been divorced.

 

It is a prejudicial and hypocritical fight from them through and through.

Edited November 18, 2015 by nate

[mtangelsfan]

And pre-marital sex.  I don't see evangelicals protesting Christians getting married that had sex outside of marriage or had been divorced.

 

It is a prejudicial and hypocritical fight from them through and through.

 

Why would you "see" that?

 

Most folks won't share that kind of thing but when they do many churches require the couple to be celibate for a certain period of time up until the wedding.

 

Silly argument.

[nate]

They sure don't have any trouble declaring Gays sinners and unfit to marry.

[mtangelsfan]

The same churches that don't care about premarital sex are probably not too vocal about homosexual marriage.

 

Nate, you know a lot of stuff but you don't know much at all about what goes on in evangelical churches.