Is this far enough?

[MrBishop]

That's an awfully big leap. One does not have to hate what one finds offensive or is in disagreement with.

It's not as big of a leap as you'd imagine.
"Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"

I seem to recall seeing born-agains walking the streets with signs that said "Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" and "AIDS is God's punishment for Homosexuality" etc... hardly a love thy neighbor attitude. This goes beyond dissagreement or offence. It's outright hatred for something which goes against God's plan.

Now...if the woman had just broken up with this woman because she didn't want to be gay anymore, or didn't like the way it made her feel..so be it. The moment that she tried to take visitation away and laid the ground-work for homophobia with their daughter, was the moment where she stepped over the line.

There's a wide chasm between "I think that homosexuality is wrong" and "I don't want you to see her again because I think that homosexuality is evil, and she is evil because of it"

BTW...what's with the Postal-boy? Did she threathen her ex-lover with a gun?

 

[Gonz]

"Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" is not hateful. It's simple biology. The AIDS thing, well, that is another kettle of tripe. Like our current political targets, the bigotted radicals ruin a good argument for everyone.

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Old testament...seems quite clear cut. There are various interpretations of this but they all say, predominitely, the same thing.

If you become religious & take your religion seriously, then that is another commandment. I neither agree nor disagree with it, but it is there & I respect peoples choices in their beliefs.

Trying to get away from the homosexuality of this though, it's not the place of a court to determine what a parent can or cannot teach their children. If we allow them into our living rooms then they have a right to enter our bedrooms. Which takes us fairly well full circle wouldn't you say?

 

[chcr]

The AIDS thing

Was started by men fucking monkeys.

 

[Professur]

Now...if the woman had just broken up with this woman because she didn't want to be gay anymore, or didn't like the way it made her feel..so be it. The moment that she tried to take visitation away and laid the ground-work for homophobia with their daughter, was the moment where she stepped over the line.

Wait a minute. I still haven't read the article, nor do I intend to. But You've made a statement here. First off, we have two women. One of them gets preggers, right? Obviously not from having sex with the other woman.

So where the hell does the other one get visitation rights from?

 

[Gonz]

sperm bank? turkey baster & donor?

The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl. It also, in conjunction with the ruling in favor of McLeod, said Clark cannot raise her child with any religious teaching or upbringing that is "homophobic."

 

[A.B.Normal]

Wait a minute. I still haven't read the article, nor do I intend to. But You've made a statement here. First off, we have two women. One of them gets preggers, right? Obviously not from having sex with the other woman.

So where the hell does the other one get visitation rights from?

The child was adopted .This is more about not turning the child against the other parent and less about limiting ones rights.Even if the parents were male / female ,one parent should not be allowed to turn the child against the other parent.(even if he/she is a cheating bastard or turns gay)

 

[Professur]

So there it is. It's not about a parent's right to teach their kids to despise gays. It's about one parent's right versus another's.

So this entire thread was misrepresented from the first post. It was posted, not to inform, but to inflame. Probably the article was written with the same in mind.

 

[Gonz]

So this entire thread was misrepresented from the first post. It was posted, not to inform, but to inflame.

Excuse me?? It was posted as A)another example of how the courts interfere with our lives, B)another example of how political correctness is eroding our rights, C)another example of where the homosexual agenda will lead us, D)an example of the circle that ensues allowing the courts in one door (parents rights)& how, by example, they must be allowed in the other(sodomy laws).

 

[Professur]

Excuse me?? It was posted as A)another example of how the courts interfere with our lives,

Funny, that's not what most of the posts replying to you are all about.

B)another example of how political correctness is eroding our rights,

Nothing to do with PC. It has to do with one 'parent' of a breakup slandering the other. Not that I agree with either of them being called parents. OR with gay adoption. But in this case, neither of those are the issue. Similar rulings have been handed down about man/woman divorces.

C)another example of where the homosexual agenda will lead us,

Same as above. While they may have been a gay couple, the issue isn't a gay one. The subject is, the issue isn't. There's a difference.

D)an example of the circle that ensues allowing the courts in one door (parents rights)& how, by example, they must be allowed in the other(sodomy laws).

Where the hell do sodomy laws come into effect with two women?

 

[Gonz]

Similar rulings have been handed down about man/woman divorces.

Had I seen one of those with the same theme I'd have posted it. The courts have no right to become thought police.

The sodomy laws are written for homosexual behavior. Lesbianism is a form of homosexuality.

 

[MrBishop]

Had I seen one of those with the same theme I'd have posted it. The courts have no right to become thought police.

The sodomy laws are written for homosexual behavior. Lesbianism is a form of homosexuality.

Sodomy=anal intercourse. Heterosexual couples being sodomous are breaking the law just as easily as gay-male couples. Lesbian couples aren't sodomous unless on uses a strap-on on the other.

The courts unfortunatly have the right to protect the child's mental well-being. Even if this wasn't about homosexuality, turning one parent against another is wrong, especially if the goal is either petty revenge or a way of gaining full custody.

your biblical quote doesn't tlak about women laying with other women as they would a man...seems more aimed at the male homosexual than the female. If we take it figurativly, with a lot of leeway, Lesbians are commiting a sin. They too are an abomination.

[font=verdana,arial,geneva]abomination (noun) -[/font]

1. an action that is vicious or vile; an action that arouses disgust or abhorence
"his treatment of the children is an abomination"

2. hate coupled with disgust
Synonyms: abhorrence, detestation, execration, loathing, odium

3. a person who is loathsome or disgusting


As abominations, they are to be loathed, abhored, detested etc... if I were to call you an abomination, you could sue me for libel. It's covered under the hate-crimes act. If you keep it to yourself...no crime. If you try and spread it around (to family, friends or others) it's a crime.

As a crime, it's under the jurisdiction of the police and the courts. There's the freedom of speach to consider, but one person's freedoms stops exactly at the point where it infringes on someone else's rights.

You can begin calling me postal-boy again

 

[Gonz]

sodomy is usually referenced to anal-sex but it is actually any non-coital sex.

As far as abomination goes, here we go again, the act is abominable...the perpetrator may or may not be (biological error argument).

Hate crime laws are thought police in action. If you call me an abomination, (referenced to meaning 3), that's opinion & isn't libelous. Either way, it's another example of the courts meddling in our personal lives.

 

[A.B.Normal]

sodomy is usually referenced to anal-sex but it is actually any non-coital sex.

As far as abomination goes, here we go again, the act is abominable...the perpetrator may or may not be (biological error argument).

Hate crime laws are thought police in action. If you call me an abomination, (referenced to meaning 3), that's opinion & isn't libelous. Either way, it's another example of the courts meddling in our personal lives.

Its the courts protecting the Child,not about them limiting the parents rights.Doesn't the court have the obligation to protect the child ,if it knows that the child will be played one parent against the other.

 

[Gonz]

Protecting the child from what? An opinion?

The court also granted joint custody of a minor to a non related person. Who's protecting the child from that?

 

[ris]

seeing as the child was adopted the relationship with the mother is purely legal. i can't see the problem or great moral outrage in the extension of a legal state [custody] to another non-related person.

 

[outside looking in]

...it's not the place of a court to determine what a parent can or cannot teach their children.

While I would like to belive that our world is such a place where your ideals are adequate, but unfortunately it is not. I really don't like the idea of any government control over what parents teach their children, but the practical side of me has to wonder if it is not needed in at least some extreme circumstances. I'm reminded of a quote by the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett:

If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods--that the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest oportunity. Our future well-being--the well-being of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of our descendants.

If a couple is teaching their children that the US is evil, and the only acceptable course of action is terrorist acts against her, should this be allowed? Does the US have the right to step in and protect herself and her people? If so, where do you draw the line to define "protect"? Only against death, or physical harm, or perhaps in this case slander?

It's a slippery slope to be sure... so many important things are.

 

[Gonz]

Then you are saying that the families that teach by example, say, racial bigotry, need to have the courts interfere? How about the families that teach that the US is #1? Aren't they teaching a disrespect for other nations? Maybe those damned Mormons ought to be summarily executed because they bring indoctrination to a closed religion. Those Jews...they are murderers of Palestinians aren't they? They run the world & have others fight their battles. Shouldn't they be given instruction in diversity?

The courts have no place in our homes as long as the children aren't being physically harmed & they aren't violent against innocents. Period.

Once that door is opened, to allow/disallow cetain non-violent behaviors & beliefs, we give up our privacy & our right to act & speak as we please.

 

[outside looking in]

Once that door is opened, to allow/disallow cetain non-violent behaviors & beliefs, we give up our privacy & our right to act & speak as we please.

Read the last line I wrote. That's why our courts are allowed to judge cases on an individual basis, even overturning or going against precendent when felt necessary. We don't have to lump all of one "kind" of thing together and make a blanket rule. Slippery slope, but one that's not impossible to stand on. We do it all the time with our laws... some drugs are legal, others are not, etc.