The N.Y. court says marriage is good for kids. Then why doesn't my daughter deserve the same legal protection as the children of opposite-sex parents?
The fundamental basis for all gay-rights is the fallacious argument that gay rights are a matter of social justice.
Gay rights advocates make social equality, social justice, on the surface a laudable principle to uphold.based on an implied sense of morality but what ultimately is revealed to be convoluted, fallacious and disingenuous.
Gay rights advocates calling for equal rights make for a seemingly unimpeachable argument (what person could possibly be against equal rights, except maybe a Nazi?) that is purely emotional , one that is logically unsound because to the uninitiated the argument grants itself an implication it has no right to assume in the manner as if some sort of existential, legalistic reciprocity exists between groups.
The arguments implied by proponents of gay marriage rights make a powerfully emotional rallying call but is one based on a self-deluding assumption that any sort of symmetry is even legalsitically sound, inherent simply because one self-defined group finds itself at odds with another.
Who/what defines us? Who/what defines them?
It's a slippery, slimey slope that has now come to this.
JUSTICE FOR KIDS!
Yeah. and who among us could possibly be against kids?
Her wife???????
ewwwwwwwwww
I like what the church wrote "It would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children."
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development."
There is always, of course, the option of "adultery."
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
This article is nothing more than a vile, disgusting, stinking of fresh excrement, filth!
Au contraire, the ban on sod "marriage" ensures justice to children.
Man, these people are right out of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and the Principles of Newspeak, e.g. the Ministry of Peace makes war, etc.
Yes, please do explain how this works. How can two women be the parents to two children when neither of the women (I assume) can produce sperm? Fantasy role playing becomes a societal norm because some mush heads decide it's the 'right thing to do'.
I wonder if Sarah Miles' wife knows she's the wife...
Ping. Where's the barf alert?
It is also used to silence debate, and dissent. Kind of like Ann Coulter pointed out about "victimhood."
Far as this?
Her 'wife..."
Kindly observe this family unit:
Pseudoblogged here:
-When Whackademics Attack----Yes, yes, I know. I really should quit rubbernecking at that trainwreck, but its just too damn fascinating.
It pleases Sara to call her domestic partner a "wife." It pleases me to have an un-birthday party 364 days of the year and invite the Mad Hatter. That doesn't make it any more reality-based. Anyone can live in fantasy world, but, by definition and all the customs and usages of thousands of years of civilization - not to mention virtually every religious, moral, ethical, and legal treatise in existence - a marriage is a sanctioned bond between one man and one woman. Otherwise, I'd "marry" the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Uh... if I could get them to agree, of course. Anothers would certainly marry his dog Spot, a goat, or a camel. Words, and the concepts they represent, are not fungible. The same people who want to define "marriage" to include a partnership with anyone - or anything - refer to the constitution as "a living document" to be defined at any time by anyone in whatever manner he or she chooses, consider all privately owned goods and privately contracted services to be the rightful property of the state, and believe the UN to have authority over life in the US. These things are simply an exercise in nonsense - very "modern" but ultimately meaningless.
Homosexual agenda ping
The leftists redefined "life". Now they want to redefine marriage. They have mainstreamed abortion---the homosexual lifestyle is next.
no barf alert?
The salon homosexual makes a few erroneous assumptions.
If a homosexual did not use technology to get pregnant then she or he simply had sex with a member of the opposit sex. Which means heather has a mother and a father.
The author fails on several points but the bottom line is that society has a REASONBLE ground to exclude homosexuals from marriage because homosexuality by its very act offers NOTHING to the future of society.
Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children
BULL SH**
LOL
Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children.
Actually the judge cited many incidental reasons that "rationally support" marriage as it is and always has been understood. Including one if not the only primary rational based reason that homosexual couplings do not nor can not aspire too -procreation...
Creating children is a far different vocation than that of raising children...
Btw, that's a guy.
That deserves a bmup all by itself...
One wonders about the "how to" manual.
But one does not want to read it.