A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Well here's a pro gay marriage argument
Well here's a pro gay marriage argument  [message #60779] Sun, 31 January 2010 17:39 Go to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Shouldn't a couple who have kids have a legally binding committment to take care of them. Of course there is genetic parenthood and adoption, but marriage is important to like Christians and other folks. So why do they insist that parents should not be permitted to marry when they are raising a kid together? Surely their logic is screwed up.

Max



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
icon8.gif Here's One Example Of The Anti-Gay Marriage Argument Max:  [message #60781 is a reply to message #60779] Sun, 31 January 2010 19:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brody Levesque is currently offline  Brody Levesque

Really getting into it
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733



Illinois Judge Permits Mom to Take Children Far Away from Dad to Live with Lesbian Lover

Folks, this is a tear-jerker — a real-world by-product of the cultural elites’ myth advancing the supposed equality of “gay parenting.” If this rancid decision is left unturned, these poor children will be forced to live with immoral role models and all the confusion that entails — far, far away from their devoted father. (Maybe a couple of homosexual “uncles” from Portland could replace him….) Also, note the perverted “scholarship” at the University of Illinois — your tax dollars at work, Illinoisans! God help us, and God help these poor children: that they won’t become guinea pigs in the Left’s latest social experiment: intentionally fatherless, lesbian parenting. — Peter LaBarbera

I apologize for the lurid title, but this is a lurid story.

Every divorced father, every non-custodial parent, and every decent, fair, compassionate person should both tremble and be outraged by the recent feckless court decision of activist Illinois judge, John R. Kennedy.

The now-lesbian ex-wife of Mr. Taro Iwata took him to court in Urbana, Illinois in a successful attempt to take their two young children, with whom Mr. Iwata is very close, to Eugene, Oregon to live with her and her lesbian partner.

Eugene, Oregon–a stone’s throw from the lesbian mecca of Portland, Oregon–is 1,800 miles away from Champaign, Illinois, where both Mr. Iwata and his children currently live.

His ex-wife, Karen Kelsky, is a tenured associate professor of East Asian Languages and Culture and Anthropology at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). Kelsy has decided that her self-serving and disordered desire to live with a lesbian lover across the country trumps her husband’s natural and legitimate desire to be deeply and regularly involved in his children’s lives and trumps her children’s needs, desires, and rights to be deeply and regularly involved with their father.

And apparently Champaign County Judge Kennedy agrees, for he has decided that Kelsky may uproot her children, take them far away from their devoted father, and settle them permanently in a household defined by deviance.

According to attorney Jason Craddock, who represents Mr. Iwata, the Court found the following:
that the children’s best interests will be served by allowing the move because 1) the mother will be a “stay at home mom” (ah, yes, the quintessential picture of traditional domesticity: a fatherless home led by two lesbians) while her lover works (even though their standard of living here in Illinois is higher than their standard of living will be in Oregon); 2) the judge views the lesbian relationship as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage (even though neither the state of Illinois nor the state of Oregon views them as equivalent); 3) the judge found that the mother being with her lover will be a direct benefit that will enhance the children’s quality of life; and 4) the judge found that the presence in Oregon of the extended family of the lesbian lover was a factor warranting removal of the children in that neither the mother’s nor the father’s extended family lives close to Illinois or Oregon.

So now interactions with the extended family of a homosexual partner constitute a greater benefit to children than regular, frequent interactions with a loving, committed–and heterosexual–biological parent? That is a radical, subversive, insidious, pernicious, and stupefying idea. Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The Court went even further in its efforts to undermine the fundamental human right of both children and fathers to be intimately involved in one another’s lives: Kennedy decreased the remaining inadequate summer and holiday visitation times.

Attorney Craddock explains that,

Even from a “coldly” legal standpoint, this decision is subversive. It flies squarely in the face of decades of removal jurisprudence in Illinois, as Illinois courts historically and consistently give great weight to the relationship enjoyed between children and their non-custodial parents, and typically allow removal only where the visitation time would either remain the same or increase after the move. Also, Illinois courts have never allowed removal where a custodial parent desired to move to a place in order to move in with a paramour or when such a move would lower the family’s standard of living. Courts have without exception allowed removal only where the new spouse or fiancee of the custodial parent lived away from Illinois and where the standard of living would be increased.

This decision clearly constitutes an activist decision, with Judge Kennedy going boldly where the Illinois legislature expressly declined to go before: the Illinois “civil unions” bill presented in the House of Representatives was soundly rejected this past year. Our elected legislature apparently recognizes a legal distinction between heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples. Judge Kennedy has taken it upon himself to confer legal status where it decidedly does not exist.

This tragic, unconscionable, deliberate rupture in an essential relationship serves the unholy desire of Kelsky, who writes this about herself on the U. of Illinois faculty bio page (emphasis added):

My current work is on the lesbian community and the politics of transgenderism in Japan. I am at work on a book project entitled “The Personal is Personal: Reading the Lesbian in Contemporary Japan,” which is a cultural studies-based exploration of the major lesbian popular texts of the last twenty years, including autobiographies, zines, and pornography. I focus on the major sites of contestation around lesbian identity and subjectivity in this work, particularly around issues of butch-femme and sexual autonomy, coming out, privacy and visibility, and the question of sexual diversity. I have just finished a manuscript entitled “[Not] a Lesbian Feminist: Kakefuda Hiroko and the [Im]Possibility of the Lesbian Subject in 1990s Japan.”

Judge Kennedy’s findings reveal his likely underlying assumptions: he likely holds the unproven, highly arguable, a-historical theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, whereas in reality homosexuality is both ontologically and morally equivalent to polyamory or consensual incest.

He also likely holds the unproven, arguable, a-historical, erroneous theory that “gender” is irrelevant to both marriage and parenting.

Perhaps most troubling of all is that he has arrogantly decided that subordinating the relationship of father and children to the profoundly disordered relationship of mother and homosexual partner serves the best interests of the children.

It’s a wonder that Kennedy can sleep at night.

Mr. Iwata intends to appeal this execrable decision. Please pray for his victory.


[Political Cartoon Courtesy Of Tribune Media Corp. Used By Permission.]

[Updated on: Sun, 31 January 2010 20:35]

Re: Here's One Example Of The Anti-Gay Marriage Argument Max:  [message #60786 is a reply to message #60781] Mon, 01 February 2010 02:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



An ignorant article by a bigot.

But a confusing topic nonetheless. Custody battles are never clear-cut. It is hard to really know what is in the interests of the children.

I think on the balance the judge made the right decision. But I'm not sure why the father was given LESS visitation time. That doesn't make sense to me.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Well here's a pro gay marriage argument  [message #60787 is a reply to message #60779] Mon, 01 February 2010 03:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Yeah, apparently Christians prefer single-parent families to two-gay parent gay families. Despite the fact that single-parent families have been shown in studies to have worse outcomes for the children while there is no such evidence of that in two-gay parent families.

Being from a single parent family I don't think that there should be any law MANDATING two parents. That'd just be silly and potentially damaging (especially in some cases where the parents REALLY don't get along anymore).

But I understand your point. I'm not going to try and convince the Christians, using their own twisted logic though. I'd much rather stand up and say there is nothing wrong with being gay- there is no harm in children being raised by gay parents. Even if gay parenting WAS suboptimal there are plenty of suboptimal family situations. Divorce is suboptimal, being poor is suboptimal, having abusive parents is suboptimal, yet children are raised in those situations every day.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Here's One Example Of The Anti-Gay Marriage Argument Max:  [message #60789 is a reply to message #60786] Mon, 01 February 2010 03:59 Go to previous message
E.J. is currently offline  E.J.

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 565



Found this info on line, but have not been able to verify:

"Kelsky and her partner have lived in Illinois since July 2003 and have been the primary caregivers for the children. Iwata, who moved to Illinois as well, has had regular visitation. In July 2009, Kelsky's partner got a job in Oregon (where the children were born). After Iwata declined Kelsky's request to enter mediation to coordinate a joint move, she filed for removal. Kelsky and her partner even offered Iwata financial support to facilitate his return to Oregon to be close to his children. This offer generously included the offer to waive his one year of back child support....yes, he's one year BEHIND on his child support. He declined the offer.

On Dec. 31st the judge (having heard all the testimony rather than just what certain media outlets feel is important to report) ruled to allow the move, giving Iwata visitation during summers and alternating school holidays.

Now, it is Iwata's attorney that has taken his cause to the Christian media but decided to omit critical elements of the situation.....such as:
- Iwata has no work(as shown in court)
- he has no other relationships that tie him to Illinois (suppose this proves he may be a flight risk)
- Iwata has not held a steady job since coming to the US in 1989 for graduate school (as shown in court)
- that pesky child support issue!"



(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
Previous Topic: Homophobia Questionnaire
Next Topic: It's Time To Imprison All Gays
Goto Forum: