Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:08 pm    Post subject: A boy can legally have two fathers, judge rules --- UK Reply with quote

No wonder the family is in trouble with decisions like this. Instead of deciding who was the most equipped to be the father the judge created the fiction of "two" fathers.

It was bad enough when little Susie had "two mommies" now kids can have a mommy and two daddies.

And I recall an Ontario case that provided for two mommies (who had an SSM) and a father whose semen had impregnated one of the women.

Who needs comedians when we have the judiciary?

Quote:
A boy can legally have two fathers, judge rules in landmark case


In the case, the country's most senior family court judge, Sir Mark Potter, decided that a man who brought up the boy believing him to be his own child was entitled to parental rights - even though he has turned out not be the father.

The ruling means that the child now effectively has two fathers and that the person who raised him, referred to only as Mr A, has the same rights as the boy's biological parent.

The court ruled in the man's favour, despite the mother's plea that he will use his role as a father "in an officious and controlling manner, productive of strife rather than harmony"....

TWO DADDIES
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That case is loaded with absurdities, both from the judiciary and applicants. The second judge issued mother and son with a joint residence order, effectively ordering them to live with the non-biological father. This father originally kept tabs on wife and son with a network of hidden cameras in his home, which apparently none of the judges found very alarming. What happened to Britain?
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slippery slope, while considered to be a fallacy in many instances, does have practical application to some extent in this case. Next we move on to polygamy. Not one person I knew in my parents generation, the 40's, thought they would ever see this type of headline in their lifetime. So before you say no way, think for a minute. After or near polygamy comes pedophilia. Most certainly at some point after that bestiality must be ok. I do not even want to think of what perversions await my children if this world still stands. At some point a vast and powerful conservative backlash is going to occur and the rampant humanism that has gripped Western society since the 60's will ebb with a force unseen since the 'summer of love'. That is my hope, for if a revival does not occur certainly our sin will overtake us and even the righteous will not be able to hold back the judgement that will certainly overtake our nations.
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

:roll:

I'm not fully aware of the circumstances of this situation, so I hold judgment on whether I disagree or agree with the ruling.

But I fully believe that if a child is adopted by a same sex couple, they should be able to legally have "2 moms" or "2 dads".

Circumstances of divorce and remarriages with step-parents in the equation are a bit more tricky.

But in adoptive circumstances, in vitro via sperm donation.

This is what makes me some days feel like jumping on over to the liberals, when I have to read you ridiculous socons say that homosexuality and gay marriage are going to lead to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality being accepted by society.

Society has progressed in the sense it doesn't want to restrict the actions of consenting adults with rigid morals. Two men or two women having sex is consensual.

Pedophilia and bestiality is NOT consensual.

Honestly.

:roll:
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riley W wrote:
:roll:

I'm not fully aware of the circumstances of this situation, so I hold judgment on whether I disagree or agree with the ruling.

But I fully believe that if a child is adopted by a same sex couple, they should be able to legally have "2 moms" or "2 dads".

Circumstances of divorce and remarriages with step-parents in the equation are a bit more tricky.

But in adoptive circumstances, in vitro via sperm donation.

This is what makes me some days feel like jumping on over to the liberals, when I have to read you ridiculous socons say that homosexuality and gay marriage are going to lead to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality being accepted by society.

Society has progressed in the sense it doesn't want to restrict the actions of consenting adults with rigid morals. Two men or two women having sex is consensual.

Pedophilia and bestiality is NOT consensual.

Honestly.

:roll:


First - please don't say "when I have to read you ridiculous socons " - that's not necessary and thus - your painting everyone with a broad brush.

Also consider that the last reason to support a political group - is for things like this.

People are going to do what they want. So-called equality or not - people interact and they do their own thing - gay or straight - it's done all the same. Then invariably they expect family courts to make sense of the nonsense they end up in.

Some people are going to believe what they want. If people are so narrow minded to equate homosexuality with "pedophilia, and bestiality" then what can be said? They are hopeless. On the flip side are them certain gay people who effuse their sexuality on the straight world and expect that world to accommodate their sexuality - in all societal spheres.

So if people have their same-sex family arrangements - whatever - of course I think it should be a civil union and not marriage in the traditional sense. If they produced children then - whatever the situation - it has less to do with national politics and more to do with everyday private living. Some people make everyday private issues into political nonsense.

I personally don't think same sex couples should be adopting.

I would say that there is one very important reason that one must support the Conservatives - the reality that they won't sellout to the Islamists...we are in a time of emergency and we cannot become derailed from the nature of that emergency and who is dealing with it and - who is not. Liberals and NDP have no good position with respect to these issues and they never have. They have the history of hangin' out with [and pandering to] abusers.

I must say - I don't think it's fair to oneself [at 16] to decide that they are 'for sure' gay and that's that...people and situations change - we grow and we fall back - we explore other areas of our personality - as we grow and - to make a decision like this at that young age is so very limiting...just my humble thoughts...

Note: this was added later:

Homosexuality: Choice or Consequence?
Written By Ben Newman

Gay sympathizers insist that homosexuality is not a choice. On this point I completely agree. It is not a choice. No man I know or have heard of who deals with homosexuality, whether they reject and struggle against it or embrace it with pride, feels like they ever chose these desires.

It is not a choice, it is a consequence -- an unintended consequence of a lifetime of choices -- conscious, subconscious and unconscious. It is an unfortunate but natural consequence of choices made by a growing boy that were intended only to protect himself against rejection and hurt, to make himself feel safe, and to do what seemed most natural.

One can hardly fault a little boy for running away from male peers he felt were taunting and frightening and for preferring the company of girls he felt were accepting and easy-going. One can hardly fault a little boy for rejecting and protecting himself from a seemingly cold or harsh or absent or disinterested father, or for expressing his naturally artistic and sensitive talents while rejecting what for him are the frightening, unfamiliar and uncomfortable rough-and-tumble games of boyhood. After all, he is only trying to take care of himself, feel safe and be true to himself, as best as an innocent (and unguided) little boy knows how.

Little does he know that all of these perfectly understandable and innocent choices, in combination, and without intervention, can lead to horrendous unintended consequences. These choices can ultimately cause him to fail to discover his innate masculinity, fail to bond with his gender, and fail to develop a healthy gender identity as a man among men. And unable to find his own masculinity within, he can begin to seek it outside of himself, to envy it in other boys and men, and finally to lust for it sexually. His choices can have the very unintended consequence of causing him to see himself as the opposite of men -- to see other men as the opposite sex. And so, being their opposite, he naturally feels drawn to them sexually to give himself that sense of completeness, wholeness, balance and oneness that sexuality is designed to provide.

[...]

http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=119


Last edited by don muntean on Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:21 pm; edited 4 times in total
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riley W wrote:
I'm not fully aware of the circumstances of this situation, so I hold judgment on whether I disagree or agree with the ruling.


Having two "fathers" fighting over what is best for the kid is not preferable to the judge selecting the person best qualified to be the father.

Quote:
But I fully believe that if a child is adopted by a same sex couple, they should be able to legally have "2 moms" or "2 dads".


That's the legal reality now and that is not going to change any time soon. There is no political will in Canada to revisit the SSM issue. However I don't agree with the Ontario decision that a sperm donor creates a father in a meaningful sense. Obama is right. Getting a woman pregnant doesn't make you a father; being there as a part of the child's upbringing is what creates fatherhood.

In an SSM situation the sperm donor should only be part of the upbringing of the child if that is what the women want.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, society has already changed the definition of marriage by allows 2 of the same sex. Next will be how many can be in that partnership. Polygamy will be legal in Canada in 5 to 10 years. We already have some Muslim groups starting to pressure the government to allow polygamist marriages.
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Getting a woman pregnant doesn't make you a father; being there as a part of the child's upbringing is what creates fatherhood.


Absolutely true. In the more legal sense of the word the woman has to have the right to hold a man accountable for his actions, thus getting a woman pregnant creates the legal framework of fatherhood but doesn't entitle you to all the rights of a father until you recognize the offspring and ACT as a father... imho.

Quote:
Next will be how many can be in that partnership. Polygamy will be legal in Canada in 5 to 10 years.


I don't agree with polygamy on grounds of feelings, because I believe a true feeling of attachment and, lets say it, love can be felt, imho, for only one person at a time, and it's not something that can change in a matter of a few hours.

However from a more pragmatic perspective: why not? If a man can be a good father to his children, feed, clothe and ensure good quality of life for his family then why shouldn't he be allowed to, literally, spread the love?

Actually, why only polygyny? How about women being allowed polyandry? Can't a heiress have many husbands? An end to speculations about who's dating Paris Hilton. And probably a good way to ensure her offspring have less chances of following the mother's footsteps.

Considering her perceived financial troubles, I guess she'd welcome the proposal!
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riley W wrote:
:roll:

I'm not fully aware of the circumstances of this situation, so I hold judgment on whether I disagree or agree with the ruling.

But I fully believe that if a child is adopted by a same sex couple, they should be able to legally have "2 moms" or "2 dads".

Circumstances of divorce and remarriages with step-parents in the equation are a bit more tricky.

But in adoptive circumstances, in vitro via sperm donation.

This is what makes me some days feel like jumping on over to the liberals, when I have to read you ridiculous socons say that homosexuality and gay marriage are going to lead to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality being accepted by society.

Society has progressed in the sense it doesn't want to restrict the actions of consenting adults with rigid morals. Two men or two women having sex is consensual.

Pedophilia and bestiality is NOT consensual.

Honestly.

:roll:


On what basis should polygamy be outlawed but SSM be legally approved of?

Polygamy is consensual, so why shouldn't SSM lead to polygamy?

I think that you're a bit too quick to jump down the throats of social conservatives...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A boy can legally have two fathers, judge rules --- UK

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB