• 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!

Utah Judge orders child be taken from Lesbian Parents

Beaudreaux said:
If the judge ruled to remove the child simply because the married couple were a same-sex couple, then his ruling should be reversed and the judge sanctioned or removed from the court.

However, the OP article states that there are no transcripts of the case available to the public to prove what was actually said, the judge is prohibited by judicial rules from talking about it, and all we have is one side's view, memory, or interpretation. We should wait to see what actually happened before we call to ruin the life of a judge. Maybe one or both of the ladies have something in their background that they are not telling us, that caused the judge to make this ruling? We can't know the truth yet.
Click to expand...

The Child Welfare Services spokesperson confirmed that their description was accurate and that nothing else came up in the case against the parents. In fact, the judge cited research (likely the very flawed Regenerus study) as reasoning to remove the child.
 
faithful_servant said:
But you have NOTHING to back that up, other that the assumptions of the lesbians and the way the press reported the story. Where is the proof of the judge's motivation?? I'm willing to accept that he abused his position to enforce a personal belief, are you willing to accept that he made his decision based on a objective standard of what would be best for the child??
Click to expand...

Ummm actually we have the Judge's opinion that there is scientific studies claiming hetero do a better job of raising kids. The scientific community is pushing back on that. His standard isn't objective but selective... :peace
 
faithful_servant said:
I'm not taking a stand about the judge's motivation in any way - you are the one doing that. All I'm saying is that we don't know the "why", we just know the "what". You are assuming the "why" based on your bigotry and willingness to accept the word of someone based on the fact that they are lesbians, this is Utah and in Utah there are a lot of Mormons, so the judge obviously must be a Mormon forcing his personal beliefs on the lesbians. But you have NOTHING to back that up, other that the assumptions of the lesbians and the way the press reported the story. Where is the proof of the judge's motivation?? I'm willing to accept that he abused his position to enforce a personal belief, are you willing to accept that he made his decision based on a objective standard of what would be best for the child??
Click to expand...

Yes, we do know the why because the first linked article is the view of the social services, not the mothers. The social services people said that there was nothing else, just that they were lesbians and that the judge specifically cited "research" that said heterosexual couples were better than homosexual couples parenting children (likely the highly flawed Regenerus study which has been shown for the bull it really is).
 
The NY Times is reporting that the judge has reversed his decision.
 
roguenuke said:
The Child Welfare Services spokesperson confirmed that their description was accurate and that nothing else came up in the case against the parents. In fact, the judge cited research (likely the very flawed Regenerus study) as reasoning to remove the child.
Click to expand...

Did you see the transcript from the trial? I didn't.

You folks can light your torches, grab your pitch forks, and get the rope slung up in the tree if you want, but I prefer to wait for all evidence to be provided first.

If he is guilty of doing what we all believe he did (which cannot be defended or excused), then the court system will take care of the situation and take care of the judge. There will still be no need to get all apoplectic over this. That's why we have laws. Mob rule never helps anything.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Did you see the transcript from the trial? I didn't.

You folks can light your torches, grab your pitch forks, and get the rope slung up in the tree if you want, but I prefer to wait for all evidence to be provided first.

If he is guilty of doing what we all believe he did (which cannot be defended or excused), then the court system will take care of the situation and take care of the judge. There will still be no need to get all apoplectic over this. That's why we have laws. Mob rule never helps anything.
Click to expand...


Interesting, mob rule seemed to be fine when it was the mob voting against same sex marriage and there was quite a bit of outrage over the fact that the SCOTUS overturned mob rule (conducted by vote) when the Loving decision and the Obergefel decision overturned State laws which had passed based on mob vote.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Interesting, mob rule seemed to be fine when it was the mob voting against same sex marriage
Click to expand...
Since when? And, okay according to whom?
WorldWatcher said:
and there was quite a bit of outrage over the fact that the SCOTUS overturned mob rule (conducted by vote) when the Loving decision and the Obergefel decision overturned State laws which had passed based on mob vote.>>>>
Click to expand...
What? Loving was decades ago, and Obergefel upheld the 14th Amendment rights of EVERYONE. I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me? However, if you are trying to say "They did it so we should, too" then I can't support that. Mob rule is not the right option, ever.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Since when? And, okay according to whom? What? Loving was decades ago, and Obergefel upheld the 14th Amendment rights of EVERYONE. I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me? However, if you are trying to say "They did it so we should, too" then I can't support that. Mob rule is not the right option, ever.
Click to expand...


Do some research on the Loving decision, only about 80% of the population supported interracial marriage in 1967. The people of Alabama, as an example voted to ban interracial marriage, the decision of the people was overturned by the SCOTUS. Many were upset by the court usurping States powers under the 10th Amendment.

Do some research on the Obergefel decision. Did you miss that a little over a decade ago majority rule passed many state bans on same sex civil marriage. Many were upset by the court usurping States powers under the 10th Amendment.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Do some research on the Loving decision, only about 80% of the population supported interracial marriage in 1967. The people of Alabama, as an example voted to ban interracial marriage, the decision of the people was overturned by the SCOTUS. Many were upset by the court usurping States powers under the 10th Amendment.

Do some research on the Obergefel decision. Did you miss that a little over a decade ago majority rule passed many state bans on same sex civil marriage. Many were upset by the court usurping States powers under the 10th Amendment.



>>>>
Click to expand...

I don't need to research them to understand the backlash from those that disagreed with the decisions.

What I asked was, what the heck did you mean by your post? You still haven't answered that. I also said, that if you meant "They did it so we should, too" then that is not a reasonable argument and doesn't justify mob rule.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't need to research them to understand the backlash from those that disagreed with the decisions.

What I asked was, what the heck did you mean by your post? You still haven't answered that. I also said, that if you meant "They did it so we should, too" then that is not a reasonable argument and doesn't justify mob rule.
Click to expand...


Sure I have. Many supported mob rule when it was vote to ban interracial and same-sex marriage. The code phrases are "it was put to a vote" and "states rights".

So in their opinion mob rule was OK as long as it was against those things. Suddenly the pubic not liking a decision is "mob rule" and now it's bad.


Pretty clear to me.


>>>>
 
Good for the judge. The SJW impetus to experiment on children by having them raised by same-sex couples is sickening. What's even worse is how they shame any research that contradicts their opinions and silence the children of those raised by same-sex couples who speak out now against it (i.e. Robert Oscar Lopez).
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
we have the full story, the judge acted outside the law and is derelict in his duties. He's a bigot who needs to be removed.
Click to expand...

Aye, comrade. Send him to the gulag.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The NY Times is reporting that the judge has reversed his decision.
Click to expand...

Clearly the very oppressed LGBT lobby was too weak to do anything about this.

Oh wait, they always get what they want? How exactly do we call them "oppressed", then?
 
phattonez said:
Good for the judge. The SJW impetus to experiment on children by having them raised by same-sex couples is sickening. What's even worse is how they shame any research that contradicts their opinions and silence the children of those raised by same-sex couples who speak out now against it (i.e. Robert Oscar Lopez).
Click to expand...

Since we know that research... tons of it, confirms that children do as well with homosexual couples as they do with heterosexual couples, your comments above are irrelevant... beyond you presented a biased opinion that has no basis in fact.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since we know that research... tons of it, confirms that children do as well with homosexual couples as they do with heterosexual couples, your comments above are irrelevant... beyond you presented a biased opinion that has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

I will just say that if anything ever happens to me and my children for whatever reason ended up in the system I would like it if the state didn't give them to a gay couple. Call me whatever you want for that, but I don't buy into the idea that a mother and father are not best for a child.
 
Henrin said:
I will just say that if anything ever happens to me and my children for whatever reason ended up in the system I would like it if the state didn't give them to a gay couple. Call me whatever you want for that, but I don't buy into the idea that a mother and father are not best for a child.
Click to expand...
Well if something happened to you where you couldn't be their father any more. They would never have a father again. You can only have one of those. Step parents will never be father and mother.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well if something happened to you where you couldn't be their father any more. They would never have a father again. You can only have one of those. Step parents will never be father and mother.
Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one that thought that anymore? I actually purposely used the word mother and father because I thought everyone thinks step parents went by the same name. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
I will just say that if anything ever happens to me and my children for whatever reason ended up in the system I would like it if the state didn't give them to a gay couple. Call me whatever you want for that, but I don't buy into the idea that a mother and father are not best for a child.
Click to expand...
Fortunately for those kids, that wouldn't be your call.
 
Henrin said:
I will just say that if anything ever happens to me and my children for whatever reason ended up in the system I would like it if the state didn't give them to a gay couple. Call me whatever you want for that, but I don't buy into the idea that a mother and father are not best for a child.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. Doesn't alter what I said in the least.
 
Henrin said:
I thought I was the only one that thought that anymore? I actually purposely used the word mother and father because I thought everyone thinks step parents went by the same name. :lol:
Click to expand...
Step parents don't need to be an opposite sex couple because they didn't participate in the creation of the child. So there is no need for them to be opposite sexes.
 
Andalublue said:
Fortunately for those kids, that wouldn't be your call.
Click to expand...

Well, I think my wishes should be considered since it would be my children they are dealing with. My wishes are also not harmful to the children and are just looking out for what I think is best for them.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Step parents don't need to be an opposite sex couple because they didn't participate in the creation of the child. So there is no need for them to be opposite sexes.
Click to expand...

And I disagree with that and don't consider the research you guys are relying on to be very convincing of anything.
 
Henrin said:
Well, I think my wishes should be considered since it would be my children they are dealing with. My wishes are also not harmful to the children and are just looking out for what I think is best for them.
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason that you are no longer able to care for the child as well as what is in the child's best interest, not yours.
 
roguenuke said:
Depends on the reason that you are no longer able to care for the child as well as what is in the child's best interest, not yours.
Click to expand...

And being raised by opposite sex couple is in their best interest and allows them to get male and female role model without leaving the home, which is of course a good thing. My opinion also should be considered since the state got them from my death/inability to parent, not through other means like abuse/neglect.
 
Henrin said:
Well, I think my wishes should be considered since it would be my children they are dealing with. My wishes are also not harmful to the children and are just looking out for what I think is best for them.
Click to expand...

Once taken into care they are no longer your children and it's not for you to decide whether your wishes are harmful or helpful. Children aren't property to be disposed of according to your whims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom