Posted on 09/16/2004 1:11:19 PM PDT by presidio9
Three homosexual couples filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to overturn a law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.
The lawsuit alleges the measure, which is an amendment to the Oklahoma Adoption Code, "appears to sever legal ties between parents and their children whenever families led by same-gender couples enter the state of Oklahoma."
Gov. Brad Henry signed the law in May. It was drafted by 17 state lawmakers after Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued an opinion in April requiring the state to recognize all adoptions, regardless of the gender of parents.
A gay couple from Washington state, Ed Swaya and Greg Hampel, sought the opinion when they asked for a birth certificate listing both of them as their daughter's parents. The state Health Department had initially refused to list Swaya because he was not the birth mother.
The couple adopted their daughter from an Oklahoma woman. Now they fear they would lose their legal rights as parents if they visited the birth mother.
Swaya and Hampel are two of 10 plaintiffs, including the couples' children.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Nothing has any meaning any more at all. We're all practical nominalists.
(Thanks for doing the messy job of taking the garbage out)
Do you have more details on this? I missed it.
The most damning thing about this page is the corresponding Google Ads that come up relative to GLBT themes, namely:
I'm not very educated. What are "nominalists", when you have the time to explain a little?
Not necissarily. FL's ban on homosexual adoptions was upheld.
I suspect this is a lamda legal effort to "backdoor" FFC much like they are trying to use Mass. for force immigration visas for canadian homosexual "marriage".
FFC is not exclusive there is even precident for not recognizing certain marriages based on age of consent or closeness of relations. (ex: too young to get married)
There is no societal reason for homosexuals to be allowed to adopt children.
This book “Daddy’s Roommate” should be banned because it talks about pedophile. The roommate raps a young boy, and tells him that it is natural and because he somehow wanted it. It’s basically a book saying homosexually and pedophile is normal. Do we really need this filthy trash circulating in our society?
Typical Gay argument. You mention the extremes in society and say Gays can do a better job. The argument is false because it assumes that the only two options are gays vs a sick heterosexual or drugged out mother. The other options are not assumed like loving religious heterosexual family vs promiscuous or pedophilia gays.
You do not need religion to object to homosexual adoption.
In the legal arena, religious reasons are a detractor. The homosexual lobby uses "its only religion" to dismiss all opposition to homosexual deconstruction efforts.
Addoption is a STATUTORY creation by legislature. It does not exist at common law. The indent of adoption is to allow a method for society to construct a family for a mother & fatherless child. NOT as an accessory for some parental wanabe. This is family law 101.
The adoption law as written and envisioned NEVER INTENDS FOR THE CHILD TO KNOW they are adopted.
Homosexual access to children can not fullfill the objective of this statutory creation TO BENEFIT SOCIETY.
Homosexcual adoption only serves to stroke the ego of the homosexual seek a child as an accessory to their deathstyle.
For the homosexuals, a child adoption is a bandaid to feign normalcy.
There is no religion needed to explain that. It is simply a matter of law. It is also a question of the personal agenda of the judge. In this case does the judge intend to punt and say it goes to the legislature or will he simply shift the case up to the appeals.
This makes the appointments of the perhaps FOUR USSC judges very important. (Occonor confirmed, rumored Renquist, rumored stevens, rumored ginsberg)
BTTT
The FL Bar's Family law section has been infested with homosexuals seeking access to children.
They recently tried the same BS saying that homosexuals only want unadoptable children. This was exposed as a TOTAL LIE. Homosexual adoptors will compete directly with normal couples for normal children.
The homosexual arguments are premised on the concept that society rewards the individual. This is false. Society rewards the institution not the individual when it comes to raising children.
Homosexuals advocate a recreational sex which does not reward society so they should not be rewarded with access to children.
Yes it will, adoption and marriage are not the same thing as say a state permitting the purchase of alcohol within their boundarys. They also can't just prohibit their entry. When Bush said he would support an ammendment I believe he had this in mind. Of course the judicial could rule that this is not a case for full faith and credit, and congress has already passed a law allowing the states to do this kind of legislation. But we will see.
If the Oklahoma judge subscribes to the ABA model family law divorce code, he/she will hold that children are not a LEGAL part of marriage. Children are only an accessory to breeding pairs. (aka the homosexual slur of "breeders")
This case is VERY dependent on who is the judge and if the judge ever worked in the real world rather than just a government job.
>>You do not need religion to object to homosexual adoption.<<
Religion, no. Faith, begging your pardon, but yes you do. Homosexuality is rooted in sin - this is a moral issue above and beyond anything else. Believers everywhere should not be ashamed to stand firmly on the Word of God in their public debates/arguments/controversies.
Since only He can change hearts and minds, all the logical arguments in the world won't make a difference - because the unsaved have their hearts hardened to the Truth.
Scripture is the only tool we need to fight this most spiritual battle - we are not fighting flesh and blood here. To suggest that you can't use the Truth of the Word of God in this debate is to suggest that His word is insufficient to handle contemporary problems - and that simply isn't true.
There is nothing new under the sun. Sexual deviancy has been around since the fall of man - the only solution is in the saving power of Christ, not in man-made laws.
>>The homosexual lobby uses "its only religion" to dismiss all opposition to homosexual deconstruction efforts.<<
Good for them - they're supposed to. But they're not going to hear the Truth - the only thing that can truly save them - if we're shamed into being silent. I, for one, will not deny Christ before men, nor suggest that His word isn't the solution to this and all other problems we face today.
In MA, a percentage of adoptions must be to homosexual couples, already, it's so so sad!
Nominalism is an attempt to solve the "the problem of universals." We know both "this cat" and "cat," or "catness." "This cat" is the particular term, "catness" is the universal term. But what does "catness" refer to? Does the term "catness" refer to anything real, or does it exist purely in the mind as a name given to a set of characteristics common to various particulars? If so, how can I know that my understanding of "catness" is the same as yours, since we have diverse experiences with furry creatures? The problem for Nominalists is insoluble, and Nominalism tends to devolve into solipsism or relativism.
Realists, on the other hand, believe that universal terms refer to real natures (essences or forms).
When the mind apprehends the essence of a thing (quod quid est; tò tí en eînai), the external object is perceived ["this cat," in my example] without the particular notes which attach to it in nature (esse in singularibus)[quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, possession, doing, and undergoing] and it is not yet marked with the attribute of generality which reflection will bestow on it (esse in intellectu). The abstract reality is apprehended with perfect indifference as regards both the individual state without and the universal state within: abstrahit ab utroque esse, secundum quam considerationem considerattur natura lapidis vel cujus cumque alterius, quantum ad ea tantum quæ per se competunt illi naturæ (St Thomas, "Quodlibeta", Q. i, a. 1). Now, what is thus conceived in the absolute state (absolute considerando) is nothing else than the reality incarnate in any give individual ["cat"]: in truth, the reality, represented in my concept of man, is in Socrates or in Plato. There is nothing in the abstract concept that is not applicable to every individual; if the abstract concept is inadequate, because it does not contain the singular notes of each being, it is none the less faithful, or at least its abstract character does not prevent it from corresponding faithfully to the objects existing in nature. As to the universal form of the concept, a moment's consideration shows that it is subsequent to the abstraction and is the fruit of reflection: "ratio speciei accidit naturæ humanæ" ["catness," in my example]. Whence it follows that the universality of the concept as such is the work purely of the intellect: "unde intellectus est qui facit universalitatem in rebus" (St. Thomas, "De ente et essentia," iv).
Aristotle's great insights into the nature of reality were made possible by his conforming his philosophy to the everyday usage of words. There is great collective wisdom in language.
Modernism is the child of Nominalism, which is why I trace the fall of the West to Ockham's proto-nominalism in the 1300s.
Nominalism, which is irreconcilable with a spiritualistic philosophy and for that very reason with scholasticism as well, presupposes the ideological theory that the abstract concept does not differ essentially from sensation, of which it is only a transformation. The Nominalism of Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, Huxley, and Taine is of no greater value than their ideology. They confound essentially distinct logical operations--the simple decomposition of sensible or empirical representations with abstraction properly so called and sensible analogy with the process of universalization. The Aristotleans recognize both of these mental operations, but they distinguish carefully between them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.