Utah judge removes child from lesbian foster parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And all societies have worshiped a supreme being, virtually all societies have had traditional marriage.

There goes the Bronze age myth. This is in China, India, everywhere and those societies are much older than we are.
 
And all societies have worshiped a supreme being, virtually all societies have had traditional marriage. There goes the Bronze age myth. This is in China, India, everywhere and those societies are much older than we are.
Most or all societies once practiced slavery too. Our understanding of what is moral and ethical evolves with our understanding of the human condition. A 21st century person need not and should not look to the Bronze Age or Neolithic China to discern what is moral or ethical.
 
The point continues to sail over your head. First of all, you are attributing a refutation to me that I never made. I refuted the assertion that the statement attributes the source of evil to religion. It does not. It identifies religion as a source of evil that compels otherwise good people to do evil things. Humans can just be evil people for no reason other than they choose to be and/or are inclined to make evil choices. I don’t need a lecture about “bogus” arguments from someone who’s moral decisioning is driven by the babble of a bronze-age boob who claimed that a celestial entity carved the rules of human existence on a mountainside.
Much of the above isn’t even worth dignifying with a response.

What precisely constitutes an “evil” choice and how would anyone “for no reason other than they choose to,” KNOW that their choices – the ones that they “are inclined to make” FOR NO APPARENT REASON – are determinably “evil?”

The question isn’t whether religious or atheistic people “can do evil things,” the question is about how does anyone whether religious or atheist know that those things are “evil” in the first place?

Which was my previous point AND one that you refused even to attempt to answer before going off on your hysterical tirade against historical persons and bronze-age beliefs.
This needs to be addressed more fully.

What is absolutely required for sound moral and ethical judgements is a sound view of the ends for which human beings ought to strive and, therefore, a sound and defensible view of human nature – of what it means to be “human” in the first place.

**Care to provide those without resorting to spouting inane banalities about liberty **(the freedom to be whatever you want) and diversity (the requirement to permit others to be what they choose?) Both of which simply undermine every possible ethical system and moral judgement.
So instead of spouting inane banalities about liberty and diversity, you resorted to spouting inane banalities about bronze age events and beliefs – but you still haven’t addressed my point.

Not that I have any hope that you will, but the question of establishing legitimate moral grounds for any legal determination still hangs on answering the questions of “What does ‘moral’ mean?” and “How do we recognize moral good?”

Are we to expect another diversion?
 
Most or all societies once practiced slavery too. Our understanding of what is moral and ethical evolves with our understanding of the human condition. A 21st century person need not and should not look to the Bronze Age or Neolithic China to discern what is moral or ethical.
Again, the question, then, is: How do YOU as a “21st century person” determine “what is moral or ethical?” (And without any help from Bronze Age or Neolithic Chinese thinking.)
 
Most or all societies once practiced slavery too. Our understanding of what is moral and ethical evolves with our understanding of the human condition. A 21st century person need not and should not look to the Bronze Age or Neolithic China to discern what is moral or ethical.
In the interest of educating a “21st century person” into what a specific “Bronze Age” group thought and how they acted before jumping to conclusions about the purported superiority of our modern culture, it might be helpful to broaden your horizons rather than presume you know where those horizons actually are…

youtu.be/ZOUvw0lMg98
 
Multiple studies show that children raised by gay couples do just as well as those raised by straight couples…
There is no study I know of that shows that children raised in a gay household minus a mom or dad “do just as well” as ones raised by their stable married mothers and fathers—which is what I meant as the unarguably superior arrangement.
 
There is no study I know of that shows that children raised in a gay household minus a mom or dad “do just as well” as ones raised by their stable married mothers and fathers—which is what I meant as the unarguably superior arrangement.
Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
“It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.
Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.
Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population.
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
 
Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population
Let’s assume that study is sound. For the sake of this argument. General population does not equal stable married moms and dads raising their children. The general population is full of other home arrangements, like single parent homes, divorced homes, unmarried homes, step-homes, etc…

As I said before, I have never seen a study that can demonstrate that gay "parents’ raising a child can compare to the benefits of a child being raised in a stable mom-dad home. That is the benchmark. And I’m not fooled by studies that leave the impression otherwise or that are marketed to confuse people into thinking otherwise.
 
Let’s assume that study is sound. For the sake of this argument. General population does not equal stable married moms and dads raising their children. The general population is full of other home arrangements, like single parent homes, divorced homes, unmarried homes, step-homes, etc…

As I said before, I have never seen a study that can demonstrate that gay "parents’ raising a child can compare to the benefits of a child being raised in a stable mom-dad home. That is the benchmark. And I’m not fooled by studies that leave the impression otherwise or that are marketed to confuse people into thinking otherwise.
What exactly is a “stable mom-dad home” and how do you measure whether either of the parents in a mom-dad home is really a suitable parent? I know of plenty of people who grew up in households that included both a mother and a father and they still had a miserable childhood because one or both parents were emotionally or physically abusive to their children.
 
What exactly is a “stable mom-dad home” and how do you measure whether either of the parents in a mom-dad home is really a suitable parent? I know of plenty of people who grew up in households that included both a mother and a father and they still had a miserable childhood because one or both parents were emotionally or physically abusive to their children.
Correct. So children have a right to a mother and father who are stable, caring, responsible and capable. How does the fact that some parents don’t live up to what children need become an argument to, therefore, permit anyone – regardless of their actual relationship to the children – the right to experiment with raising them?

No, what we should be doing as a society is supporting mothers and fathers in what is a difficult job, not doing everything possible to undermine motherhood and fatherhood in order to usher in a “new age” of treating children as commodities to be bargained for by those who have the cash to invest in the venture.

I am willing to propose that where the society has gone wildly off the rails you will also find those who claim to have had a “miserable childhood” despite being raised by competent, loving and responsible parents.

The question could be asked: “Do we currently live in a society that is sufficiently stable and functional that it could possibly provide an appropriate benchmark for good parenting?” Complaints about “miserable childhoods” by those who also complain vociferously about every imagined, magnified and manufactured trespass when these “victimized” individuals are at the same time determined to destroy traditional social expectations surrounding maintaining stable familial relationships are hardly to be taken seriously.
 
Morals and ethics can be determined and either lived by or against without religion.
Not according to your “expert’s” bumper sticker philosophy. Bad people are incapable of doing good. Now please answer my question concerning the thief reporting a crime he discovered while robbing a house. Is reporting the child porn/murder a bad thing since the thief is a bad person, or is being a thief and robbing a house a good thing?
 
And I can counter with a student of mine some fifteen or twenty years ago – being raised by two lesbians – who was one of the most messed up 8 year olds I’d ever met before, then or since. The anecdotal stories don’t make the case and neither should we try to generalize off of one or two instances.
I was simply sharing an experience. I never said they all work out just the same with other families. I have an ex boyfriend who comes from a christian family and he has some anxiety from growing up with a strict father. I come from christian family also and I did not turn out like that.

Saying that I hope shows an example that not everyone in a situation turns out the same. I also was not trying to or intended to generalize off of said story.
 
There is no study I know of that shows that children raised in a gay household minus a mom or dad “do just as well” as ones raised by their stable married mothers and fathers—which is what I meant as the unarguably superior arrangement.
Still arguable… There is still incidents of child abuse, neglect, absenteeism and substance abuse in biological families. But that isn’t germane to this topic. This is a case of a foster child being removed from an adoptive couple because of their sexual orientation. If the order stood they wouldn’t be going back to their biological parents to live happily ever after, they would be going back into the system… So your claim that the biological parents are always the best choice is irrelevant.
 
From today’s Washington Post:
A juvenile court judge in Utah who drew criticism for removing a foster child from the home of a lesbian couple has recused himself from the case.
Apparently agreeing to a motion filed by the couple, Judge Scott Johansen issued an order Monday that he “hereby disqualifies himself from this case and refers all pending matters to the Presiding Judge.”
Johansen, a juvenile court judge in eastern Utah, had drawn the ire of gay rights activists and others, including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, for removing the 9-month-old baby from the home of Beckie Peirce and April Hoagland, who had fostered the child for three months. The couple was seeking to adopt the child.
washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/16/utah-judge-removes-himself-from-lesbian-foster-care-case/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_pn-utahjudge-521pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
 
Still arguable…So your claim that the biological parents are always the best choice is irrelevant.
Not arguable based on any study I know but I digress and won’t beat a dead horse for the unwilling. I also did not say bio parents are “always” the best choice. The judge had sociological reasons to make his original decision to prevent yet another fatherless home, but he caved so it’s moot.
 
What exactly is a “stable mom-dad home”
Generally non divorced married moms and dads raising kids. Any nuances from study to study can answer for themselves. I recommend reading Truth Overruled bt Dr. Ryan Anderson. He has a whole section devoted to various studies.
 
Generally non divorced married moms and dads raising kids. Any nuances from study to study can answer for themselves. I recommend reading Truth Overruled bt Dr. Ryan Anderson. He has a whole section devoted to various studies.
But just having a married mom and dad is not enough and does not ensure that they will be good parents. A household with two great lesbian parents would still probably be just as good as a household with a mother and father who are mediocre or bad parents. 🤷
 
It was the right thing to do.
Nah, it was the left thing to do.
If you believe, as progressives do, that human nature is not fixed, and hence is not a basis for understanding natural rights. And if you believe, as progressives do, that human beings are soft wax who receive their shape from the society that government shapes. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people receive their rights from the shaping government. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people are the sum of the social promptings they experience. Then it will seem sensible for government, including a university’s administration, to guarantee not freedom of speech but freedom from speech. From, that is, speech that might prompt its hearers to develop ideas inimical to progress, and that might violate the universal entitlement to perpetual serenity.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-american-campuses-freedom-from-speech/2015/11/13/98d33faa-8966-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top