• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

I'm sorry, but this has not actually been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are many experts in the field (psychologists whose specialty is sexual issues) who are not convinced that homosexuality is inborn and immutable. I've posted links to some of these sources in the past on DP.

No "gay gene" has been found. No physiological difference between gay and straight has been proven to exist at the moment of birth that is a "causative".

You don't have to look hard to find many stories of people who have switched orientations.

Do not postulate as fact that which is far from proven, even if it may be "popular assumption".

It is more than "popular assumption".

It may not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly by a preponderance of the evidence.

The debate over whether homosexuality is inborn or a choice is a good subject for a separate thread.
 
It's an ugly custody dispute.



Someone needs to shoot this moron in the face. If Jenkins was Miller's civil partner-- read "wife"-- when Isabella was born then Isabella is also her daughter. There's no more "adoption" necessary here than when a man marries a woman pregnant from a previous relationship.

And, that man wouldn't have a snowman's chance in hell of getting custody of that kid in the event of a divorce, either.
 
And, that man wouldn't have a snowman's chance in hell of getting custody of that kid in the event of a divorce, either.

No, but he would have a good shot at visitation rights.
 
Uh_ what does being a lesbian have do with this issues? I am not sure what the big deal is?
Well the article came from a site (WND) which has thanked God for 9/11, denied the holocaust, hosted articles by known White supremacists, claimed that Obama had a gay affair with a convicted felon, and been forced to pay damages outside of court for intentional libel.

So there's your explanation as to why they think it's a big deal that she's a lesbian. If she had been black, Stormfront would have run an similar story (but they also would have mentioned her race and pretended it's an issue).
 
In a civil union, she would be analogous to the stepfather.

Did everyone notice that the fight is not about custody, but visitation rights? That makes quite a difference, don't you think?

No, actually its about custody.
 
Something seriously was wrong with the biological mother for her to intentionally marry a woman and conceive of a child through AI and not expect her wife, the non-biological parent, to object to the child being taken out of state and having her visitation rights denied. This is the reason we need to have a federal marriage equality act. Try and tell me a heterosexual couple would be having state's rights cited in this instance if the couple had married in one state and moved to another.

I suspect there is a whole lot more to this story than first meets the eye.


'Things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise.; The Buddha
 
Last edited:
I oppose gay marriage and any paper coated terms for gay marriage like domestic partnerships and civil unions and I oppose adoptions that not by a married couple consisting of a man and woman. That said if you are in a relationship with someone and you allow that person to take on a equal parenting role for a significant portion of that child's life then one of the consequences is that person still gets visitation even after the relationship is over.

Not in Virginia.

And why do you oppose civil unions?
 
I oppose gay marriage and any paper coated terms for gay marriage like domestic partnerships and civil unions and I oppose adoptions that not by a married couple consisting of a man and woman. That said if you are in a relationship with someone and you allow that person to take on a equal parenting role for a significant portion of that child's life then one of the consequences is that person still gets visitation even after the relationship is over.
sometimes you amaze me. ;-)
 
I find that sad. :( Don't let tragedy get you down or else you're going to be one sad puppy.
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?
 
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?

Probably some nice yuppie couple in a city far away that can't conceive.
 
you might just be right. who knows.

Eh, here's hoping that by some miracle that yuppie couple comes across this child and both 'mothers' involved in this case have mental breakdowns if said couple does arrive.
 
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?

Divorce can be this way, regardless of the sexual preferences or affectional lives of the parents.

Parents who are mature enough to put aside their differences and make decisions in the best interest of the child are rare. Often the parents act out their anger and disappointment in each other through the child.

The obvious spin of the story coming from WND is 'how dare some lesbian upstart assert her parenting rights or criticise a "good Christian"?

Woe to the lesbian who dares to parent. May your relationship always be flawless and never result in divorce.
 
Last edited:
No, actually its about custody.

I posted a link from an actual reliable source showing that it was not, as claimed in the spurious source from the OP, about custody at all. If you want to go ahead and debate based on a source more questionable than the National Enquirer, then by all means do so. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Good for the kid. Better to have two mommies than to be raised in a fundie cult. I'm sure many fundies are shiiting their pants over this. :lol:


Wingnut Daily is basically a fascist/white supremacist version of the national enquirer. The site has admitted to intentional libel and settled in out of court settlements, has hosted articles which have "thanked God" for 911 because New York is a "liberal" state, have claimed that Obama had a gay affair and used hard drugs with a convicted felon, and have suggested the Holocaust was a hoax. It's closer to Stormfront than it is to Fox News (and it makes Fox News look like the Daily Kos in comparison).

Yeah. "News" on WND isn't news, it's propaganda. I'm not even sure there is a court battle given their history. This is just another move on their part to kill common rights for all.
 
Not in Virginia.

And why do you oppose civil unions?

I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman and it should stay that way. I do not buy into the argument made by closet gay marriage supporters that calling marriage by a different name somehow makes it different.
 
I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman and it should stay that way. I do not buy into the argument made by closet gay marriage supporters that calling marriage by a different name somehow makes it different.

A civil union isn't a marriage, it's a civil union. :D Heteros can get em too. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom