Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Republican Texas judge orders lesbian couple to live apart or lose children

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
Sounds like the judge is just following the letter of the law, as stupid as the law may be he still has to follow it.
Quoting Obama, "Elections have consequences", you don't like the law there vote someone else in and have it changed or pick up and move to San Francisco.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
Sounds like the judge is just following the letter of the law, as stupid as the law may be he still has to follow it.
Quoting Obama, "Elections have consequences", you don't like the law there vote someone else in and have it changed or pick up and move to San Francisco.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I count my lucky stars that when my family came to USA we did not end up in Texas.

I think the only right thing to do here is to start a large petition asking the judge to step down, for moral reasons.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What makes a family?

I wasn't planning on mentioning my recent clairaudient conversation, well in this case i didn't reply kindly, i literally yelled abuse, i was so upset by what i heard.

I had connected somehow to a group of three, two males and one female, i heard the young woman, who said "they arnt even a real family" this was all it took for me to start lecturing the unknown voice about what it truly means to be a family.

im yelling at her in my mind that a family can be made up of any group of beings who love and protect each other,
Im yelling questions at her too fast for her to comment back, saying a family could be two old ladies who arnt related by blood but have been there for each other, are you telling me that a child adopted by a man and woman arnt family?, and that the old man and his dog do not make up a family?

At this point i felt she wanted to say something and i got a quick glimpse of her, she was slender and wearing a flowing gown, she had a slight smile on her face, i pushed that image aside and i wouldn't let her speak, i continued, listen up, i haven't finished, are you telling me that a man and a woman who have had children together naturally yet abuse them is a family? do you think two woman or two men who care and love each other arnt a family?

Well after about 5 minutes i stopped and calmed myself down.
the older male then said "only fun testing for you from now on".

Was that a test? did i pass? is this why she was smiling at me? was she laying a bait and i took it?

well thats my take on who makes up a family, its made up of those who care about each other. its not blood and its not race.

sorry if its a little off topic but i felt it was right to post it.

Love and harmony
Whateva



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Don't mess with Texas.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I thought Republicans were the party of small government and staying out of people's lives?

Or is that just an excuse they use when they want to be against a government program they don't like?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Uh, try the "tried and true method of ONE (1) male and ONE (1) female.

This gives the child a chance to have a balanced upbringing. This may be a new concept to you and I'm sure the justifications for otherwise will be spewed in response.

Of course, on the current trend where two lesbian women are giving their child ("responsibility") a drug which suppresses both Hormones so the child can "choose" it's sexual preference. ( California). Not a direction that makes much sense to me.

So His "whim" as you call it is, in fact, not a whim, but a tried and true system.

How dare he?? How dare he not....
edit on 20-5-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Uh, try the "tried and true method of ONE (1) male and ONE (1) female.

This gives the child a chance to have a balanced upbringing. This may be a new concept to you and I'm sure the justifications for otherwise will be spewed in response.

Of course, on the current trend where two lesbian women are giving their child ("responsibility") a drug which suppresses both Hormones so the child can "choose" it's sexual preference. ( California). Not a direction that makes much sense to me.

So His "whim" as you call it is, in fact, not a whim, but a tried and true system.

How dare he?? How dare he not....
edit on 20-5-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar


So what about people who are single parents?

Should their children be taken away from them?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by flobot
 


Nope. They shouldn't take kids away from single parents. But that's where I draw the/my line.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by flobot
 


Nope. They shouldn't take kids away from single parents. But that's where I draw the/my line.



But you just said that only 1 man and 1 women is a "proven" successful practice.

So I don't see how you excuse single parents.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I'm going to be the bad guy here.I think it's up to an individual to live and love how/who he or she chooses as long as it is not a danger to others..period.That said, and not forgetting the shameful divorce rate of strait couples, I have gay friends and have been around the gay culture due to my profession for many years.I'm just going to say it how I see it...if gay marriage were legal everywhere the entire court system would be clogged with gay divorce cases...LOL.Come on man, I'm a hairdresser so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...seriously....lol...seriously.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by flobot
 


Sure you do. You're just pecking at my view of it. LOL. Ok. for the record, a single parent is less than "ideal". It can and does work, one parent being better than none.

Somewhere a line has to be drawn. Acceptable, not acceptable. Will some suffer as a result of a "line"? Maybe, even probably. Oh well.

The kids are the priority, not gay rights. Do your thing, stay away from the kids.. JMHO.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by flobot
 


Sure you do. You're just pecking at my view of it. LOL. Ok. for the record, a single parent is less than "ideal". It can and does work, one parent being better than none.

Somewhere a line has to be drawn. Acceptable, not acceptable. Will some suffer as a result of a "line"? Maybe, even probably. Oh well.

The kids are the priority, not gay rights. Do your thing, stay away from the kids.. JMHO.




So, you're saying that a kid like Zach Wahls should have been taken away by his loving, caring mothers, just because you disagree with their sexuality? How is his family any different than yours? How did he have a horrible upbringing, just because his mothers are gay?



If you're so sure that to have a good upbringing for a child involves a mother and a father, please show the studies that agree with you on this. Please, I would like to see studies done that show a child is better off with a mother and father.

Or, are you just trying to control what other people do in their lives just because you think it's "icky"?
edit on 21/5/2013 by Dondylion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
How dare this judge determine on his own whims

FACT :
The Judge was ruling by Texas law.
Posters here on ats are following their emotions
not Texas law.
Obviously the judge could have given full custody of
the children to the father, but he didn't.
This IS A CUSTODY CASE between the parents !
The judge did his best to find middle ground yet people are
ready to bash him in a shark feeding frenzy with out thinking.
Like I said the judge could have given full custody of the
children to the disgruntled father, but this way neither gets
their 'agenda', children should not be used as pawns in divorce.
a lesson for both parents to think about


Stop sensationalizing this for your own agenda !,
. . . or else you are as bad as your own accusations.

_____________________
edit on 21/5/13 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Dondylion
 


How do you know that they're "loving and caring"? How do you know what the situation is?

Does this sound like it might have "political influence'? Seems like it might. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Oh well...

The courts have decided that "marriage" is a "right". Now a court goes the other way...deal with it.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Because he clearly states it is a loving and caring home in his speech. Do you honestly think he would have said that had it not been?

An old friend of mine from high school was brought up by two fathers. Guess what? She was the best, kindest person in the entire world. Her home life was one that every person strives for. It was an immaculate setting for her to grow up in.

Again, I ask you, where's your proof that same sex families are harmful to children? I would like to see your non-biased, peer reviewed sources for this.

I would also like you to tell me why two people of the same gender cannot successfully raise a family without your emotions involved. I would like a logical, non-emotional, non-God related argument regarding why their family shouldn't be considered as such and why they should have their children taken from them.

I'll be waiting.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
_______________________

Getting away from the original post but ,
speaking for myself an the sensible majority . . .
if a child needed to question say personal hygiene
they would be apt to ask a person of their same gender.
Example:
- a daughter asking her mom what it was like to
give birth.
How can two gay dads who adopt a girl
answer that ? Is this fair for a child to be deprived as this ?
NO , the child's needs MUST COME FIRST !

_______________________



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dondylion
 


You cite one example. And I believe it to be a true one. I also posted re the two In California who gave drugs to their kid to suppress sexual development. This is also true.

Incidentally, various groups in California, including gov't ones approved these actions!

The human body and it's sexual development, different for each sex are there for racial reproduction. This is fact, logical, without emotion and without "God".

It is also an empirical, scientifically proven, OBVIOUS fact.

There are arguments for both sides. My line is drawn at gays raising kids. Nothing will sway me from that viewpoint.

Your the one who entered in the emotional comment on "how dare he". different moral code than yours.

They can always go to California and live happily ever after.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sure people make politically charged decisions all the time, in areas where politics should not apply.

What I'm saying and the poster above who mentioned it in the first place is that treating everything as politically charged actually hurts the overall goal of having these 'case by case' basis judgements that we want to see in our justice system.

*snip*


How do we know, given only partial information, that there wasn't a reason in this case to order such a thing? It IS possible for children to be exposed to immoral activity, and it is possible that this was happening in this case. If something was happening that was detrimental to the children, then this could be a good decision. Without knowing all the facts, we can't really know if the judge was right or wrong. Since the court cannot release the information, and we have only one side, we should not rush to judgment here.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I find the idea that gay people "want to ruin children's minds and destroy families" VERY curious! What could possibly be the advantage of ruining children's minds and destroying families? There is none. What could be the motivation for gay people (or ANYONE) to want to do that? There is none.


Ask this woman, maybe?

link

I saw video on this, and she was pretty clear. No marriage pretty much means no traditional families, too. What her reasons are, I can't say, but she was clear on her motivations. Interesting that she stated what many said was the real goal all along, and were condemned for saying.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join