• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child


It is more than "popular assumption".

It may not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly by a preponderance of the evidence.

The debate over whether homosexuality is inborn or a choice is a good subject for a separate thread.
 

And, that man wouldn't have a snowman's chance in hell of getting custody of that kid in the event of a divorce, either.
 
apdst said:
And, that man wouldn't have a snowman's chance in hell of getting custody of that kid in the event of a divorce, either.
Click to expand...

No, but he would have a good shot at visitation rights.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Uh_ what does being a lesbian have do with this issues? I am not sure what the big deal is?
Click to expand...
Well the article came from a site (WND) which has thanked God for 9/11, denied the holocaust, hosted articles by known White supremacists, claimed that Obama had a gay affair with a convicted felon, and been forced to pay damages outside of court for intentional libel.

So there's your explanation as to why they think it's a big deal that she's a lesbian. If she had been black, Stormfront would have run an similar story (but they also would have mentioned her race and pretended it's an issue).
 
Dittohead not! said:
In a civil union, she would be analogous to the stepfather.

Did everyone notice that the fight is not about custody, but visitation rights? That makes quite a difference, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No, actually its about custody.
 
Something seriously was wrong with the biological mother for her to intentionally marry a woman and conceive of a child through AI and not expect her wife, the non-biological parent, to object to the child being taken out of state and having her visitation rights denied. This is the reason we need to have a federal marriage equality act. Try and tell me a heterosexual couple would be having state's rights cited in this instance if the couple had married in one state and moved to another.

I suspect there is a whole lot more to this story than first meets the eye.


'Things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise.; The Buddha
 
Last edited:

Not in Virginia.

And why do you oppose civil unions?
 
sometimes you amaze me. ;-)
 
EpicDude86 said:
I find that sad. Don't let tragedy get you down or else you're going to be one sad puppy.
Click to expand...
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?
 
liblady said:
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?
Click to expand...

Probably some nice yuppie couple in a city far away that can't conceive.
 
liblady said:
you might just be right. who knows.
Click to expand...

Eh, here's hoping that by some miracle that yuppie couple comes across this child and both 'mothers' involved in this case have mental breakdowns if said couple does arrive.
 
liblady said:
momentarily sad. and i don't have the stomach to research this..........i wonder who really has the best interest of the cild in mind?
Click to expand...

Divorce can be this way, regardless of the sexual preferences or affectional lives of the parents.

Parents who are mature enough to put aside their differences and make decisions in the best interest of the child are rare. Often the parents act out their anger and disappointment in each other through the child.

The obvious spin of the story coming from WND is 'how dare some lesbian upstart assert her parenting rights or criticise a "good Christian"?

Woe to the lesbian who dares to parent. May your relationship always be flawless and never result in divorce.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
No, actually its about custody.
Click to expand...

I posted a link from an actual reliable source showing that it was not, as claimed in the spurious source from the OP, about custody at all. If you want to go ahead and debate based on a source more questionable than the National Enquirer, then by all means do so. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
 

Yeah. "News" on WND isn't news, it's propaganda. I'm not even sure there is a court battle given their history. This is just another move on their part to kill common rights for all.
 
Tsunami said:
Not in Virginia.

And why do you oppose civil unions?
Click to expand...

I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman and it should stay that way. I do not buy into the argument made by closet gay marriage supporters that calling marriage by a different name somehow makes it different.
 
jamesrage said:
I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman and it should stay that way. I do not buy into the argument made by closet gay marriage supporters that calling marriage by a different name somehow makes it different.
Click to expand...

A civil union isn't a marriage, it's a civil union. Heteros can get em too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…