We could characterize two lesbians wanting to adopt a child as also placing “personal prejudice” above biological reality and natural law – both of which supercede a merely capricious “law” cobbled together by five human beings who presume to place their personal prejudices above nature and biological reality.For placing personal prejudice above the law and recommendations of the relevant authorities.
“Biological reality” and “natural law” are not the legal standard in this country.We could characterize two lesbians wanting to adopt a child as also placing “personal prejudice” above biological reality and natural law – both of which supercede a merely capricious “law” cobbled together by five human beings who presume to place their personal prejudices above nature and biological reality.
Because you are in the position of determining what constitutes the child’s “well-being” for that child based upon your personal prejudices?Not pertinent to the child’s well-being in this case.
And if they don’t?And the court of appeals will disagree with the judge.
Based on the determination of the relevant authority, yes.Because you are in the position of determining what constitutes the child’s “well-being” for that child based upon your personal prejudices?
Of course not. The legal standard in this country is the capricious will of the political and legal oligarchy who clearly have no standards whatsoever besides pandering to the loud and influential voices who seek to “mold” (in the fungal sense) all standards whatsoever.“Biological reality” and “natural law” are not the legal standard in this country.
I’ll take capriciousness over pharisees and hypocrites.Of course not. The legal standard in this country is the capricious will of the political and legal oligarchy who clearly have no standards whatsoever besides pandering to the loud and influential voices who seek to “mold” (in the fungal sense) all standards whatsoever.
The culture in which a child is being raised must also be taken into account.The judge had no grounds on which to allege that the child’s well-being was at risk.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be averse to a judge proclaiming that a couple cannot adopt because Catholics are unfit to raise children on the grounds that a lot of people in the Bible Belt don’t like Catholicism?The culture in which a child is being raised must also be taken into account.
Is it fair to subject a child to being ridiculed or ostracized if the majority of people around him or her don’t accept the lifestyle? What if this was a predominantly Muslim area - should a child be used to prove a point or take a stand?
The “relevant authorities” don’t care about children or their futures in any real sense, which is why these so-called “authorities” have permitted the wholesale dismemberment of some 58 million (and counting) babies and the marketing of their body parts for profit.Based on the determination of the relevant authority, yes.
I would care more about the well-being of the child than my rights as a Catholic if I were going to continue to live in such an area.Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be averse to a judge proclaiming that a couple cannot adopt because Catholics are unfit to raise children on the grounds that a lot of people in the Bible Belt don’t like Catholicism?
Then the difference between you and I is that I fight injustice. A loving home that meets the standards of the relevant authorities is in the best interest of the child. Not bouncing her around in the foster system indefinitely just because one judge doesn’t like gays.I would care more about the well-being of the child than my rights as a Catholic if I were going to continue to live in such an area.
And, I suppose, you are the “relevant authority” to make that call on the basis of your prejudices with regard to those pharisees and hypocrites.I’ll take capriciousness over pharisees and hypocrites.
Define “injustice.”Then the difference between you and I is that I fight injustice.
You seem to have your own prejudices about the judge since you are ascribing to him a motive (doesn’t like gays) as the only reason he could possibly have for his decision. You are prejudging him despite a lack of evidence and your own predeliction to see things one way and not another. That is the very definition of “prejudice.”Not bouncing her around in the foster system indefinitely just because one judge doesn’t like gays.
The evidence is the ruling itself.You seem to have your own prejudices about the judge since you are ascribing to him a motive (doesn’t like gays) as the only reason he could possibly have for his decision. You are prejudging him despite a lack of evidence and your own predeliction to see things one way and not another. That is the very definition of “prejudice.”
I have to agree with you. It seems cruel beyond measure to take a child from a couple who’s already been given custody. I’m not saying I’m necessarily in favor of gay couples adopting children, either, but to give a child to a couple and then to take it away, is probably as damaging to the child as it is to the former adoptive parents. Early childhood trauma has permanent, lifelong effects.I feel bad for the couple who grew close to the kid and were forced to give them up. what ever happened to freedom of religion where no one can force it on people?
The ruling is based upon the findings of the judge. The findings for the ruling are the issue, not the “ruling itself.”The evidence is the ruling itself.
There is plenty wrong with the judge’s ruling. He did not judge fitness based on any of the criteria defined by law, disregarded the findings of the relevant authorities, disregarded the wishes of the biological mother, did not evaluate the circumstances of the specific couple, and instead went way beyond the scope of his authority and declared that an entire class of citizenry is unfit to raise children and refused to disclose the basis of this opinion. Disclosure or not, the basis is clear; personal prejudice. Its no different than denying a couple adoption for no reason other than their race or religion.The ruling is based upon the findings of the judge. The findings for the ruling are the issue, not the “ruling itself.”
You do understand what “begging the question” is, yes?
This could be turned around on you. Someone could claim that your objection to the judge’s ruling is the evidence that you are prejudiced against the judge because you are not permitting him any possible rationally defensible warrant for his decision.
Simply put, if you cannot allow any possible reason for the judge to justify his finding, your claim amounts to: “The judge is wrong because he is wrong.”
I fight injustice but not by using a child as the weapon.Then the difference between you and I is that I fight injustice. A loving home that meets the standards of the relevant authorities is in the best interest of the child. Not bouncing her around in the foster system indefinitely just because one judge doesn’t like gays.