Texas Judge orders lesbian couple to split up or lose children

PBulldog2 wrote:

I don't believe that, based on personal experience. I believe, as you know, that a person is gay, lesbian or bisexual when they are born - they don't "become" gay, lesbian or bi. It is not a choice, in my opinion.

.

My personal experience, as far as family members who happen to be homosexual, is different from yours, I guess.
I have 3 very close cousins who happen to be homosexual. All of them agree that they don't really have a 'choice', per se, but they also are adament that they were not born that way.
Kimmie was violently raped when she was 14, and is afraid of a sexual relationship with a man.
Both Larry and Terry were molested by their uncle, Who was married for 30 years before coming home one day to tell his wife that he was homosexual. Not bi.
My aunt Blanche, who was their uncles mother, wanted a daughter. He was her last child. She grew his hair out, dressed him in dresses, and called him Polly. His name was Paul.
He also, IMO, was not born homosexual. Aunt Blanche did it to him. He died of AIDS many years ago. All very sad, but not uncommon stories, in today's world.
Interestingly, to me, they all live in California, and voted against same-sex marriage. And so did many of their friends. They are all very happy, in long term relationships, and have all the benefits of married couples. Except social security. They did all of this many years ago. Through lawyers.

As far as the topic..... None of them are raising children, but have not had any kind of negative impact on any family or friends. They all are the most loving, kind and sensitive people you could hope to meet. I love them a bunch

Bob wrote:If you were not mocked and bullied by your peers for being a child raised by a homosexual couple then I'm very happy to hear that and very happy for you that it turned out that way, PB.

I don't mean to discount how difficult it was, Bob. I was a young adult when my parents finally separated, but I had known what the problem was for over ten years by then. The hardest part, by far, was growing up in a home in which one parent was gay and the other straight. Now that was hell for both me and my siblings (I was the eldest.)

By the time my father established his relationship with his partner, all of us were adults except my brother. The judge gave him the option at 12 years of age to choose his home, and he chose to live with my father and his partner. I can't begin to tell you the pain that caused for my mother, but she didn't fight it. I don't suppose they had that morality clause in West Virginia at the time of their divorce.

My brother chose to stay with my father and his partner until he joined the Air Force after graduation from high school.

Dreamsglore wrote:
They should have been arrested for that.

For having an opinion contrary to the ungodly perverts he should be arrested? More evidence that the left wing is out of control and needs to be stopped. Nobody should be forced to accept something that goes against the laws of nature and God (compromise of religious beliefs). This is still the USA.

Dreamsglore wrote:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/18/1210052/-Texas-judge-orders-lesbian-couple-to-split-up-or-lose-children

He's a republican judge. How nice.

Figures.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
They should have been arrested for that.

For having an opinion contrary to the ungodly perverts he should be arrested? More evidence that the left wing is out of control and needs to be stopped. Nobody should be forced to accept something that goes against the laws of nature and God (compromise of religious beliefs). This is still the USA.

The left needs to be stopped. This is 'murica!

PACEDOG:

"ungodly perverts"

"goes against the laws of nature and God"

I rest my case (Pace, Milton, six of one half dozen of the other). lol

Like George Washington said Government is force, throbbing brutal and deeply penetrating force...screwing everyone it can...well it was something like that ...I paraphrased it....

Bob wrote:PACEDOG:

"ungodly perverts"

"goes against the laws of nature and God"

I rest my case (Pace, Milton, six of one half dozen of the other). lol

Yes, but isn't it nice that this is the USA, just like PacePup said?

Chrissy wrote:Thank you neko for clarifying the thread. seems no matter the sexual orientation in these divorce clauses, these people cant be living unwed together. That woman should have thought about that when she signed those divorce papers. A person would have to be desperate to sign a divorce agreement with that clause in there. People have the right to go on with their lives, or they should. and if the people getting a divorce are so damn moral, they shouldn't be getting a divorce while the children are young to begin with.

oh and a side note to all those people who wonder what those poor little kids go through having two moms.

let me sum it up from the little boys words next door when my then 5 year old son told him he had two moms... the boy simply replied. "COOL" that boy became his vest friend for the entire tme we lived in pcola and his mom me and my gf best friend. she is a catholic school teacher.fyi

and my teenagers, not a problem, all their friends thought it was cool too. matter of a fact my house has always been the go to house for hanging out. and yes, their parents also knew we were lesbians. so for those who wonder, wonder no more. this isn't 1950. times are different.

The clause in the divorce papers are standard law in Texas regarding parental responsibility. To use an child's response to the situation which the child has no understanding is absolutely absurd. Or a teenager's for that matter either. The party to which you align yourself to also has those beliefs. It's sad to be a member of a party that thinks you're amoral.

Nekochan wrote:It probably will be challenged, but not under religious discrimination.
If the two women were an unmarried heterosexual couple living together, the same law applies. The same morality clause applies, whether gay or straight. So in that sense,the law doesn't treat anyone unequally. BUT...Texas does not recognize gay marriage so the lesbian couple do not have the choice to get married to sideline the morality clause. However, this is not the judge's fault. The judge did the only thing he could do, under the existing laws.

This is the problem with the gay marriage issue. What law one state passes or recognizes, another state does not have to recognize. If a federal law or Supreme Court ruling forces all states to recognize and allow gay marriage, then the federal government will also have to recognize gay marriage when it comes to Social Security and other benefits. It's not an easy issue.

I know that applies to both persuasions but the law is based on religious beliefs. The fact that you can't have someone of the same sex over past 9pm is a religious moral law.

You can't have an opposite sex lover stay overnight, either. The law does not discriminate.

The issue and case that gays have is that they don't have a choice or opportunity to be married in the state of Texas.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
They should have been arrested for that.

For having an opinion contrary to the ungodly perverts he should be arrested? More evidence that the left wing is out of control and needs to be stopped. Nobody should be forced to accept something that goes against the laws of nature and God (compromise of religious beliefs). This is still the USA.

...............................

If I cut your dick off and make you suck it at gunpoint, does that make you gay...?

Bring it on MFer. As a proud part of the left you demonize, I look forward to your pussy effort to stop what amounts to an expansion of human rights.

Why do you think everyone should be forced to accept your fucked up ideology....?

You site The laws of nature......????? Homosexuality is rampant and yes, natural in the world of nature.

Your pious BS is what it it. Choke on it and die you POS.

The day you start speaking for God Almighty is the day I reject the very premise, Pharisee.

I know that applies to both persuasions but the law is based on religious beliefs. The fact that you can't have someone of the same sex over past 9pm is a religious moral law.


I think you are partially right now that you have qualified your earlier post, but cohabitation laws do have an objective criteria regarding potential harm to children. They have been in existence for hundreds of years and their roots most certainly do have religious input. However, a judge and the legislators when writing family law want the most stable homes for children which allows the custodial parent to create an environment which is stable and safe for the child. There are practical and experiential reason for restrictions on the custodial parent not living with folks they are not married too........this can create an environment which is detrimental to the child and create tension with the non custodial parent who worries about the behavior which may be going on in the presence of the child. So to conclude that it is solely religious beliefs, I believe misses the point that the courts and legislature also have experience where in the absence of guidelines children's best interest may not be served. My wife and I lived together prior to marriage, so this is not a moral thing to me, but simple common sense that guidelines in statute or a judgment of divorce do have objective criteria which should be complied with by the custodial parent.

2seaoat wrote:I know that applies to both persuasions but the law is based on religious beliefs. The fact that you can't have someone of the same sex over past 9pm is a religious moral law.


I think you are partially right now that you have qualified your earlier post, but cohabitation laws do have an objective criteria regarding potential harm to children. They have been in existence for hundreds of years and their roots most certainly do have religious input. However, a judge and the legislators when writing family law want the most stable homes for children which allows the custodial parent to create an environment which is stable and safe for the child. There are practical and experiential reason for restrictions on the custodial parent not living with folks they are not married too........this can create an environment which is detrimental to the child and create tension with the non custodial parent who worries about the behavior which may be going on in the presence of the child. So to conclude that it is solely religious beliefs, I believe misses the point that the courts and legislature also have experience where in the absence of guidelines children's best interest may not be served. My wife and I lived together prior to marriage, so this is not a moral thing to me, but simple common sense that guidelines in statute or a judgment of divorce do have objective criteria which should be complied with by the custodial parent.

How is it detrimental to the child? Unless they are having sex in front of the children how is this detrimental?

How is it detrimental to the child? Unless they are having sex in front of the children how is this detrimental?

Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that after my mother was widowed at 40, she had an alcohol problem and found liberation sexually as most 40 year old women did in the mid sixties. I did walk in when she was having sex with someone who was cohabiting in our home. Her behavior was about four years of total abandonment of parental responsibility, until she dealt with her alcoholism, and her behavior had very negative impact on my brother's life with serious behavior issues and school issues in first and second grade. During this period, if my father had not died and this was a divorce situation, my reporting on her conduct would have escalated the tension in any post decree situation, and my brother's issues would have brought tension to the post decree visitation. I was a sixth grader and did not adversely get impacted because I knew I had to raise her and my brother......I did a good job. She is sober, and my brother is extremely successful despite adult literacy problems which stemmed from his mother's four year melt down.

No, some people make very poor choices, and the courts setting these guidelines are experiential, and not moral. Stability and removal of tension between the custodial parent and non custodial parent just narrows the issues which may adversely impact the children. You assume that folks do not make poor choices, I could give you hundreds of examples of poor choices, but it would simply be cumulative......the truth is that courts make rational classifications and these changing lines will be the battlefront for the next thirty years.

2seaoat wrote:How is it detrimental to the child? Unless they are having sex in front of the children how is this detrimental?

Well, I can tell you from first hand experience that after my mother was widowed at 40, she had an alcohol problem and found liberation sexually as most 40 year old women did in the mid sixties. I did walk in when she was having sex with someone who was cohabiting in our home. Her behavior was about four years of total abandonment of parental responsibility, until she dealt with her alcoholism, and her behavior had very negative impact on my brother's life with serious behavior issues and school issues in first and second grade. During this period, if my father had not died and this was a divorce situation, my reporting on her conduct would have escalated the tension in any post decree situation, and my brother's issues would have brought tension to the post decree visitation. I was a sixth grader and did not adversely get impacted because I knew I had to raise her and my brother......I did a good job. She is sober, and my brother is extremely successful despite adult literacy problems which stemmed from his mother's four year melt down.

No, some people make very poor choices, and the courts setting these guidelines are experiential, and not moral. Stability and removal of tension between the custodial parent and non custodial parent just narrows the issues which may adversely impact the children. You assume that folks do not make poor choices, I could give you hundreds of examples of poor choices, but it would simply be cumulative......the truth is that courts make rational classifications and these changing lines will be the battlefront for the next thirty years.

Of course people make poor choices but you haven't answered the question. The same instance could have happened w/ the biological parents. The courts have made a moral choice and that is it in a nutshell. Biological parents drink, beat their children, exhibit poor parenting and so on. Whether the parents are married have no impact. Plenty of people live together w/o the sanctity of marriage and raise their children well. It is a moral taboo that has no bearing on the quality of the parents.

Hmmm....

Little house on a prairie....one room mud hut....8 children.

The effort to create scenarios leads us to an obvious conclusion, amiright...?


MYOB

Red Kneckerson wrote:Hmmm....

Little house on a prairie....one room mud hut....8 children.

The effort to create scenarios leads us to an obvious conclusion, amiright...?


MYOB

Pacefrog doesn't want human rights for everyone, just him and anyone who believes as he does. Fuck him with a hot poker.

Watcher wrote:

Red Kneckerson wrote:Hmmm....

Little house on a prairie....one room mud hut....8 children.

The effort to create scenarios leads us to an obvious conclusion, amiright...?


MYOB

Pacefrog doesn't want human rights for everyone, just him and anyone who believes as he does. Fuck him with a hot poker.

LOL!

Bob wrote:I think as long as we live in a society which has so little tolerance for homosexuality and is so bigoted against it that it's very unfair to the child to saddle him with the stigma of having two mothers or two fathers.
I can't imagine what that child has to endure outside the home. And yes I'm sure there are exceptions but they are only that, exceptions. The typical child raised by homosexual "parents" is probably made to go through hell. Especially in some locales like Texas or Milton.

I agree it can be tough on a child especially in an area like this where there is a lot of ignorance and religiosity.