[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I, for one, look forward to this inevitable step in the direction of Progress, and anyone who stands in the way of this progressive movement is a bigot by denying consenting adults the absolute right to raise these kids any way they want.
It’s like the next next Civil Rights Movement, you know.[/quote]
???
If they have a relative who is willing to step up, they do not have to be delivered to the coldest of all monsters.
That happened as a matter of course in the olden days, so I dont quite get how this is an invention of the progressive cabal.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The law specifically says multiple parents, no where in that does it imply multiple wives for one man.[/quote]
That’s even worse than polygamy.[/quote]
And again:
This law was made because a kid had two parents, both female, one went to prison, the other one to a hospital because she was very, very sick.[/quote]
Sounds like a wonderful situation.
Yes, period. Why the kid had two moms is beyond me.
Really?
Like, really really? You don’t see how the situation was messed up before we got to this point? His own father was not even considered his parent.[/quote]
Yeah, it was fucked up-
But, that does not excuse laws that make it impossible to unfuck them.
Well, no, not “obviously” - why don’t you inform us what is stopping them from adopting?[/quote]
You want the biological father to adopt his own child?
If that child is healthy and, God forbid, white, that could take years, IF he is able jump through all the hoops.
And yeah, white.
Apparently there is a hierarchy when it comes to adopting, and I did not bother to find out how sick a child has to be that it offsets skin color, its depressing enough as it is.
Well, no, not “obviously” - why don’t you inform us what is stopping them from adopting?[/quote]
You want the biological father to adopt his own child?
If that child is healthy and, God forbid, white, that could take years, IF he is able jump through all the hoops.
And yeah, white.
Apparently there is a hierarchy when it comes to adopting, and I did not bother to find out how sick a child has to be that it offsets skin color, its depressing enough as it is. [/quote]
The problem here is the state taking custody of children in the first place. Remove state intervention and there is no barrier preventing anyone willing to care for a child(without abusing them) to do so. Beyond that, their is the problem of the state intervening to subsidizing parents which contributes to an increase of children per parent. Further there is the problem of the state destroying the savings of retirees(and their children) and driving apart grandparents from the care of their families and visa versa.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The law specifically says multiple parents, no where in that does it imply multiple wives for one man.[/quote]
That’s even worse than polygamy.[/quote]
And again:
This law was made because a kid had two parents, both female, one went to prison, the other one to a hospital because she was very, very sick.[/quote]
Sounds like a wonderful situation.
Yes, period. Why the kid had two moms is beyond me.
Really?
Like, really really? You don’t see how the situation was messed up before we got to this point? His own father was not even considered his parent.[/quote]
Yeah, it was fucked up-
But, that does not excuse laws that make it impossible to unfuck them. [/quote]
You do understand how this law will not unfuck them, but just make it more and more strange?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…well, you have to decide if it is a slippery slope first, and then if it is whether it is worth sliding down…I’ve pointed out the slippery slope, and we’re headed down it.
All legislation is a potential slippery slope. That’s why it’s so necessary to legislate carefully. It’s also why I am in favor of time limits on laws not in the Constitution.
The smoking bans all across the U.S. is the perfect example of slippery slopes. As it was done for ‘health’ we have seen attempts to ban all sorts of behavior based on health. I submit New York for example with all of attempted food bans.
The legislation if passed, would probably be largely ignored, but were it’s used will be very, very messy.
Families are messy enough, now all we need is multi person custody battles. Of course, it’s the kids, like always who gets fucked.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The law specifically says multiple parents, no where in that does it imply multiple wives for one man.[/quote]
That’s even worse than polygamy.[/quote]
And again:
This law was made because a kid had two parents, both female, one went to prison, the other one to a hospital because she was very, very sick.[/quote]
Sounds like a wonderful situation.
Yes, period. Why the kid had two moms is beyond me.
Really?
Like, really really? You don’t see how the situation was messed up before we got to this point? His own father was not even considered his parent.[/quote]
Yeah, it was fucked up-
But, that does not excuse laws that make it impossible to unfuck them. [/quote]
You do understand how this law will not unfuck them, but just make it more and more strange?[/quote]
Strange I can live with.
Downright cruel as in letting children fall back to the state like an abandoned car, not so much.
Downright cruel as in letting children fall back to the state like an abandoned car, not so much.
[/quote]
If you were a young kid would you like some lunatic blue state judge to declare that your parents = four cross dressing pre-op transexuals, a “genderqueer,” a lesbian who is now a man and someone who donated to a sperm bank in Switzerland 25 years ago?
Downright cruel as in letting children fall back to the state like an abandoned car, not so much.
[/quote]
If you were a young kid would you like some lunatic blue state judge to declare that your parents = four cross dressing pre-op transexuals, a “genderqueer,” a lesbian who is now a man and someone who donated to a sperm bank in Switzerland 25 years ago?[/quote]
It was the biological father.
And, actually, I dont see how a left handed, cross-dressing crossfitter necessarily must be a bad,…, um, provider?