Skip to comments.Florida judge OKs 3-parent family: two lesbians and a homosexual man
Posted on 02/08/2013 2:23:21 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
Not a chance.
I just LOVE the way ELSIE scratches behind my ears!
The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
Try explaining the next logical step to Gay Marriage, polygamy, to the low information young. They will say “well I guess they should be allowed to marry too.” It’s scary.
I was thinking government should just stay out of defining marriage. Let it be a sacrament.
However, here’s one problem: when these three people divorce, the “family” law courts will utterly destroy this poor child’s life.
A better legal solution is list the biological father and mother on the birth certificate. The father then gives up his rights and the baby is adopted by the second lesbian.
The father is listed, but gives up his rights to not have to pay child support. The second “mother” gets her legal status via adoption. And the legal definition of parents isn’t turned into a three-some.
After the two-year legal battle, when Gerina was not permitted to see his daughter, Judge Antonio Marin signed off on an agreement reached on January 31, granting Gerina weekly visits with Emma for several hours, at the mothers residence or an otherwise agreed upon location. Emmas birth certificate was issued with all three parents names on it.
I am the father and I have visitation, but legally speaking they [Italiano and Filippazzo] are the parents, but that does not exclude me from Emmas activities or major decisions, Gerina says.
Everyone seems to forget the rights of the child; hence my initial comment of treating babies as chattel. Children are not furniture. This entire farce of lesbian reproduction requires a man. He is the child's biological father. The woman who bore the child is her biological mother. The child carries both their dna and when asked by doctors if there is a history of _____ (fill in the blank) in her family, has a legal right to that information from her biological parents, not the "pseudo maternal" partner.
Each of the individuals pictured above, has approached the conception, birth and rearing of this child from a selfish perspective. This notion of "ownership" began with the legalization of artificial contraception. That set the stage for the the acceptance of legalized abortion. Since life is no longer reverenced, we have already seen the next phase, legalized euthanasia. As a society, we continue to degenerate and this child is just one more victim.
Oooo, twice weekly visitation righs... Moron judge. How can he father that way?
Cut the baby into THREE PIECES and distribute to the 'parents'.
Sorry. For some reason it started doing this.
Polygamy, only good when the fags do it.
The sociopathic agenda of gays promoting their legit grief cause in munchausen syndrome style in order to hide their rape agenda is most creepy.
We are going to be destroyed.
I ask them where they draw the line, What is unacceptable to you? I tell them that I really love the neighbor across the street and my wife and I want to make it a three way union. I then tell that the guy down the road really loves his dog and the dog obviously loves him, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
How about those outmoded ages of consent laws? Shouldn't a couple be able to decide when it is right for them? Even if he is 40 and she is only 10-12?
At some point they begin to squirm and get very uncomfortable. I then point out they do have a line they won't cross, it is just farther down the road to perdition. They rarely change their mind, but they know they are full of crap and I am correct.
"If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don't mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it's the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married?
"Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children?
"For if that is not its fundamental purpose there is no reason why for example "marriage" should have to be between people of opposite sexes...
"If contraceptive intercourse is all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse."
-- "Contracepton" (1972) Elizabeth Anscombe
She was of course against all this, but saw that the non-Christian could folow her logic, while (unlike her) approving of he result: the polymorphous pervert would agree that if contraception is OK, anything you can imagine is OK.
But even in 1972, ever in Britain, it was still possible to hope that many readers would agree that contraception is wrong because the logic of contraception is that "Sex is anything you want it to be."
Her whole essay (it's 16 pages) is here:http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php
"Getting out when he had the chance" in this context could only mean "keeping his semen out of some deranged woman's genital tract."
He had no business becoming a part of these women's baby-making scheme. But once he's a willing participant in procreation, he's acquired obligations, flowing directly from the fact that the child has rights.
What I'm getting at is this: this is a massively screwed-up situation, but the central considertion (which isn't even being recognized) is that every child has a natural right to be cared for by her natural mother and father.
The natural father is the DNA father. The genetic father. The begetting father.
It's not that he has rights, but that the child has rights.
In theis case, the right to derive identity, kinship, and support from the natural father.
I don't see how any law, any judge, or any lesbian mother can justly rule or bargain or negotiste away the child's rights.
This whole freak show is based on the premise that the two-year-old daughter has no natural rights.
I realize that the UK doesn't have our understanding of the Declaration of Independence, but they must understand that "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" applies to all human beings at the moment of Conception
Or, my shoe. Soon it will be legal to marry my shoe. Or an orange juice can.
Freaks are on a roll now.
Quite a few years ago I commented to someone that we have reached the age where anyone who says what used to be considered such obvious truth that it seems not worth a mention is now called extreme or crazy while those who spout utter insanity are elected to high office. The first time I said that I got a look of disbelief as if I were some kind of nutcase. Now when I say the same thing it is usually received with a nod of agreement.
If you can watch what passes for “news” reporting on television now without wanting to scream you have a problem. In other words if you cannot spot the schizoid on MSNBC then you are schizoid.
The type of person who used to be called “role model”, “pillar of the community” etc. is now called “extreme”.
She must have known that the dolphin would have a shorter life span than herself. This was quite convenient, because she got the publicity, the sensationalism, probably money too for her charade.
I’ll bet she married an aging dolphin so it would not be a long time to wait until Cindy’s death.
In other words, I think she did it on porpoise.
I only live 40 miles from the freak show that is miami. Ft lauderdale is pretty weird too.
This is more bad news for George Zimmerman; there is justice in FL and no balm in Gilead, it would seem. Who could trust a FL jury or judge now? And FL juries are just an organization of the FL people, who virtually always let us down.
#26 and #40...
I’ve just about got that list memorized... :-)
Yep....they must be feeling very smug about their accomplishments, because they are many.
2 mommies, 1 daddy. What could go wrong?
The world has gone mad.
There is only one concept of a family, and that is God's concept: father, mother, and child.
I'm glad the father refused to sign away his paternity rights.
On another thread some people were supporting the idea of a "paper abortion" in which a father would be able to permanently relinquish his paternal rights to a child. Equally insane.
Permitting contraception to the MARRIED at least still preserved a vestige of “principle.” The same principle by which in the older, wiser days we still would smile upon marriages of the senescent set, obviously well past child bearing years. Nobody told 70 year old Aunt Bertha that she shouldn’t marry because children would be impossible.
Sex outside marriage blows the principle galley-west.
There are also adoptions.
I don't know that there's ever been any moral or legal objection to 70-year-old Aunt Bertha getting married to Old Bachelor Bert. True, procreation isn't possible (barring a Sarah-style Geriatric Pregnancy miracle) but if they are still able to unite as a husband and wife with a marital act, then more power to them.
Happy Honeymooning at Viagra Falls!
That's not even remotely related to contraception. Contraception involves the intentional impairing of one's sexual wholeness. It's taking a naturally fertile act and twisting its so it's chemically or structurally incapacitated. Old Aunt Bertha and her Old Bert aren't doing that. They're not disabling themselves.
Women are naturally infertile most of our lives, due to being pre-puberty, post-menopausal, pregnant, lactationally anovulatory, or just in the 3 infertile weeks of every month. Add that up, and at all those times intercourse cannot result in conception. That does not mean that sex at those times is "contraceptive." It isn't contra anything. It's still natural sexual union.
Gay sex isn't even a "sexual union," which means an act that "unites the sexes."
Contracepted sex, and gay sex, aren't even the marital act. That's become a mini-embarrassment in the U.K., where gay marriage campaigners have discovered that there is no act in "gay marriage" which actually matches the legal definition of consummating a marriage.
Neither is there any act possible with gay couples which matches the legal definition of adultery.
Now I suppose they'll protest because those who can't marry, can't divorce! Or because they're only "allowed" to commit adultery heterosexually!
You, as a Roman Catholic, have every right to that view, which is also echoed in some evangelical quarters. The idea to many other sincere Christians is that they are letting married Cousin Jane temporarily put herself in some semblance of the biological position of Aunt Bertha, with the consent of her husband. Good Christians do differ over this. And I do not want to offend anyone’s sincere faith in Christ.
The underlying idea is this: the healthy, normal, human body, complete in every detail: God demonstrates very, very often that that's what He wants for us.
God's design for us at the outset, at Creation, was very good (that was the First Reading at Mass today!). That's why real medicine is legitimate: because legitimate medicine has the aim of restoring the body, as far as possible, to its normal, healthy condition.
Contraception (to impair the body with a drug, device, or surgery, to disable its power and design)) treats the good, fertile, womanly body as if it's got a design defect. Something that's bad. This is an untruth, and rather an aspersion cast upon the Creator, as if to say, "You made me, and all other healthy normal women, wrong, wrong, seriously wrong: but AHA! I'll nullify it."
Fertility isn't a design defect. It's a design feature. And the Designer said so.
So drugs, devices and surgery are OK if they are directed toward restoring, healing, curing, returning the body back to normal function. BUT...
Think of hormonal drugging & surgery to change one's ... er, what do they call it? gender? ... It has a whole lot in common with contraception: using drugs, devices, and surgery to change one's sexuality by making oneself a procreative neuter.
If Cousin Jane "put herself in some semblance of the biological position of" Nephew Gary, it wouldn't conform to any revelation of the Will of God that I know of.
Um... Book of Neuteronomy?
(I'm not trying to offend anyone's sincere faith. Certainly not your, my dear HiTech. I'm just applying the principle to discover the implications.)
(And the priciple, "It's OK to chemically/surgically impair your body to alter or disable your sexuality," is wrong.) I don't see how the practice of medicine can ethically intentionally cause a disorder, rather than cure it. Contraception, like sex-change surgery, causes a disorder, wether it's temporary or permanent. I would have to call that a disordered medical practice.
I would welcome a further discussion, if you want.
Otherwise, I'm outside to plant more garlic if the weather holds. :o)
Sounds Mormon to me ;-)
1) Is that Hitlery?
2) Are those tatoos on her arms?
3) will those ugly things impact her ability to run for POTUS? (Please, God, Say YES).
I sense another florida constitutional amendment comming forward.
“A Child will have only ONE mother and ONE father where father is defined as a bilogical male and mother is defined as a biological female.”
It could be the sleeves of a blouse under the outer garment.
Sometimes fraternal twins have separate fathers...
Sometimes the only phrase that can come to mind is what Stan Marsh says on SouthPark, “Dude, this is pretty *messed* up, right here.” (That’s the clean version)
I respect your point of view and as I said it has some advocates in the evangelical community as well. By means of medications or things that have the action of medications, many perfectly natural things can be deferred to serve one or another purpose. Drinking coffee can defer sleep so you can study or work more. Swallowing pills containing certain hormones can defer ovulation so that you will conceive children when your family is in a position to support them. (The immature eggs remain there in the ovaries, they do not die, but also do not mature and come out until the hormones are stopped.) Some are horrified at the thought of either or both, even though intercourse could also be timed such that the possibility of pregnancy is mostly evaded, and hardly anybody complains that THIS is evil.
Anyhow — surely procreation is one of the biggest mysteries of which mankind is aware and some very understandably do not want to tread on that holy ground at all.
I was being silly of course!
I was being silly of course!
Yes. Me too.
YOur last sentence, my brother, shows a good insight. May you have a good Lent and may the Lord have mercy on all of us, for we are under judgment.
that what she said ...
Well, thanks in part to being on Weight Watchers “Simply Filling” regime I will have a Lent and maybe the whole rest of the year too without eating anything really rich. Maybe I’ll take a diet holiday and indulge for a morning at a church breakfast on Easter, and maybe Thanksgiving and Christmas, but feasting for a “Mardi Gras” just sounded unseemly to me. Might sound strange coming from one who is pretty much indifferent to temporary contraceptive measures in marriage. But the bible didn’t say Jesus stuffed His face to prepare for that 40 days of desert testing. For me it’s not going to be even testing, it’s just an exercise in, well, “extreme moderation.”
Must have been that Saint Pie-us who recommended that...