- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Well lovely, now we have yet another divisive, polarizing issue with which to tear the citizenry of the nation apart. :doh
Wait there's unity?
Well lovely, now we have yet another divisive, polarizing issue with which to tear the citizenry of the nation apart. :doh
Uh_ what does being a lesbian have do with this issues? I am not sure what the big deal is?
Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child
I lol'd. Hard.
Everyone's thoughts on this impending ****storm?
October 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When Lisa Miller repudiated the lesbian lifestyle in 2003 and turned to Jesus Christ as her savior, she believed that she and her daughter Isabella would be safe from her traumatic and confused past. However, her former partner Janet Jenkins, to whom she was joined in a “civil union,” was not willing to let go without a fight. Jenkins sued and successfully received the right to unsupervised visits with Isabella, some lasting for weeks, despite the fact that she has no biological or adoptive relationship with the child.
Lets change up the facts then shall we....
Man and Woman.... Woman is biological mother to child, Man was not involved in the creation of this child and did not "adopt" the child as his own during their time together.
The two get seperated.
The facts show that the man did not have much of a part of the child's life during the seperation, did not call the child on its birthday, or send birthday cards, or call to ask how the child was doing in school, or how they were developing. During visitations with the man, the child returned to tell the mother that the man had done "some act" that was thought extremely inappropriate. The mother is otherwise viewed as a positive influence in the child's life and a good mother.
Now you tell me, who should get custody of this child?
If the case is this simple, the courts should make short work of it. If WND is not presenting all the facts, then we don't know enough to judge. Either way, messy custody fights are a tragedy for the children, and whether the people involved are strait or gay is, as you show, irrelevant.
Lets change up the facts then shall we....
Man and Woman.... Woman is biological mother to child, Man was not involved in the creation of this child and did not "adopt" the child as his own during their time together.
The two get seperated.
The facts show that the man did not have much of a part of the child's life during the seperation, did not call the child on its birthday, or send birthday cards, or call to ask how the child was doing in school, or how they were developing. During visitations with the man, the child returned to tell the mother that the man had done "some act" that was thought extremely inappropriate. The mother is otherwise viewed as a positive influence in the child's life and a good mother.
Now you tell me, who should get custody of this child?
My only problem with the story is the emphasis on "christianity"
Who gives a flying **** about christianity.
My only problem with the story is the emphasis on "christianity"
Who gives a flying **** about christianity.
I would agree with that, and add the "lesbian" part. Neither is any ones business but those involved directly. The whole story is designed to inflame the small minded, and neglect the real tragedy, which is a poor kid is caught in the middle of an ugly custody fight.
I think the mother should get custody of the child, if she was a positive influence ectt. If the father is a douchbag he shouldn't get custody of the child.
Well, technically in my scenario the "father" you speak of isn't the father of the child.
Which is what we have in this situation.
[Further, if the former domestic partner is a lesbian, then it follows that the mother is a lesbian also. Is, not was. There is no such thing as a former lesbian; either a woman (or man) is gay, or not. It is neither a choice, nor is it something that can be "cured."
There is no such thing as a former lesbian; either a woman (or man) is gay, or not. It is neither a choice, nor is it something that can be "cured."
Tomorrow, I could choose to start ****ing dudes (I'd start with Rev. Hellhound and CC). And I'd enjoy it too, mostly because I'd get mah rocks off. What now Mr. It's-not-a-choice? And if tomorrow I started ****ing dudes, the day after I could be 'cured' with a nice piece of she-tail that makes me see the error of my ways. Sexual orientation is based on one thing: Getting your rocks off. And you can gain and lose new fetishes, often times it's by accident, but the average person can choose what kind of sex they want to have one way or another.
You are confused. Being gay is not just having sex.
Right...right...I meant to say Homosexual
Again, there is a difference between being a homosexual, and having homosexual sex. You could be a homosexual and be celibate.
Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child
I lol'd. Hard.
Everyone's thoughts on this impending ****storm?
But...then you're a nosexual.
No. It is possible to have an orientation, and not be active sexually. Orientation involves who you are attracted to.
Either way, you have a sexual preference that could be acted upon and could change at will or not at will...or whatever. What point are we trying to make again?
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.
Either way, you have a sexual preference that could be acted upon and could change at will or not at will...