Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Kannap]

Why get their hopes up before crushing them by making them a worthless cog in the great capitalist wheel when we can crush them before they ever get hopeful?

I understand that you're joking and it's rooted in a legitimate criticism. The world is disordered. We've got billions of people with billions and billions of wants and needs. The satiation of which aren't even guaranteed because of resource scarcity. Then we go and amplify that because of the horrible way in which we treat each other. Really, the world is a mess. However, I'm not at all trying to suggest that we eliminate the hope that young people have in the future. Especially not when there's a message that everyone's got to hear.

So then you believe children in the foster care system or orphanages should be placed with healthy, safe, good parents regardless of sexuality. Sweet.

Wrap it up folks, we're done here.

[Sundiata]

You don't have to like my message but that's not at all what I am saying.

It kinda is considering you agree with the AG. Even if you improve the foster care system, you are still insisting on using the state to harm children and LGBT couples

The state has the legitimate use of force, as as individual I do not. I would never impose Christ upon anyone.

You where the one advocating for the state to impose religion on people by having no separation of church and state

Please, actively practicing Christians do not hate homosexuals or anyone who is attracted to the same-sex. It is not sinful to be attracted to someone of the same-sex. Furthermore, it's not my business as a Christian to call anyone a bad person because we're all sinners. That said, being a sinner should not be a point of pride. Choosing to be popular amongst sinners, even our own sinful selves, is the road to ruin because we're not putting the highest first. A person who is attracted to a person of the same sex is not a lesser person than the greatest or saints, let alone in the eyes of God.

No not all actively practicing Christians hate homosexuals, but many, such as yourself, attempt to harm them. That is not necessarily hate, that is disdain. You say this, but your actions say otherwise, including the part of trying to harm children because LGBT people want to have and raise children as part of a loving couple. The eye of god is irrelevant when it comes to you wanting to take actions that are actively harmful.

Come on man. I can't believe you think that I am attempting to harm anyone who isn't a practicing Catholic. That's really horrible to hear. I might be a sinner as we are all sinners. Hell, anyone of us could even be the Antichrist. But it is really a bridge too far to say that many actively practicing Christians like myself are trying to harm homosexuals. Really, do you think we're just a cult of psychopaths with no empathy or compassion for others? Do you think our desire to influence our society is rooted in some megalomaniacal sadism or hate for other people? Really?

[Geneviev]

What makes homosexuals marrying and having children "weak" for the US?

We're neglecting the quality of our foster-care system and our moral fiber by looking for a quick fix. When in reality, there's no easy way out at all if we're going to rectify the damage that has existed in America for so long.

Why should one belief be superior to others?

Because one belief is as good as it gets. There are degrees of nobility in other ways but ultimately, Jesus Christ is the way.

So what are you saying here, exactly?

That the church and state have distinctive but related roles and to separate them is the error of our times. The more Christians compromise for the sake of being popular and well-received, the more ground we lose.

There are many antichrists among us who would rather be popular and liked by sinners, even liked by our own sinful selves, than to tell people the truth.

Too many Christians choose being "nice" to themselves and others over being kind to themselves and others.

It's not just about popularity or anything. I, for one, like children, and I think that as a Christian and as a human being I should support what is good for children. Having good and loving parents is good for children, and their gender is basically irrelevant to that.

[Sundiata]

I understand that you're joking and it's rooted in a legitimate criticism. The world is disordered. We've got billions of people with billions and billions of wants and needs. The satiation of which aren't even guaranteed because of resource scarcity. Then we go and amplify that because of the horrible way in which we treat each other. Really, the world is a mess. However, I'm not at all trying to suggest that we eliminate the hope that young people have in the future. Especially not when there's a message that everyone's got to hear.

So then you believe children in the foster care system or orphanages should be placed with healthy, safe, good parents regardless of sexuality. Sweet.

Wrap it up folks, we're done here.

Yes. That's what I've been trying to say. We shouldn't be using the law to target homosexuals or people who are attracted to members of their own sex. There's bigger concerns on our plate.

[Neutraligon]

It kinda is considering you agree with the AG. Even if you improve the foster care system, you are still insisting on using the state to harm children and LGBT couples

You where the one advocating for the state to impose religion on people by having no separation of church and state


No not all actively practicing Christians hate homosexuals, but many, such as yourself, attempt to harm them. That is not necessarily hate, that is disdain. You say this, but your actions say otherwise, including the part of trying to harm children because LGBT people want to have and raise children as part of a loving couple. The eye of god is irrelevant when it comes to you wanting to take actions that are actively harmful.

Come on man. I can't believe you think that I am attempting to harm anyone who isn't a practicing Catholic. That's really horrible to hear. I might be a sinner as we are all sinners. Hell, anyone of us could even be the Antichrist. But it is really a bridge too far to say that many actively practicing Christians like myself are trying to harm homosexuals. Really, do you think we're just a cult of psychopaths with no empathy or compassion for others? Do you think our desire to influence our society is rooted in some megalomaniacal sadism or hate for other people? Really?

Not intentionally, no. But what you are advocating for by supporting this AG does indeed harm LGBT couples and their children.

I will give you an example, two married men, one is a member of the military and is the biological father of the the child. The other works here in the US and takes care of the child while the partner is overseas. While the military husband is deployed the child has an emergency and needs to be taken to the hospital. As a married couple the one at home can make medical decisions for the child. However what this AG is suggesting would remove the ability of the person at home from making medical decisions, and the person abroad might not be contactable fast. Any delay and the child can be permanently harmed, and yet you are advocating that the spouse not make medical decisions for the child.

Change the scenario, the military father in the above scenario dies. He has no close family due them either dying or refusing to accept his marriage. What happens to his son. In the scenario you support due to this AG he will be ripped from his remaining family member while he is in morning and forced into the foster care system. And the partner will likely not be allowed to adopt him because LGBT will be stripped of their parental rights.

Change the scenario again, one stay at home dad who is the biological father, and a working father. The working father gets insurance through his workplace, and through marriage, so does the son and the spouse. What you are supporting means that the son would lose insurance and so not be able to afford medical care.

That is what your support for the AG does.

[Kannap]

So then you believe children in the foster care system or orphanages should be placed with healthy, safe, good parents regardless of sexuality. Sweet.

Wrap it up folks, we're done here.

Yes. That's what I've been trying to say. We shouldn't be using the law to target homosexuals or people who are attracted to members of their own sex. There's bigger concerns on our plate.

Bigger concerns like subjugating the world under a global Vatican and forcing everybody to be Catholic. I'd probably lose my right to get married or have children along the way, but that's just collateral damage, right?

[Kannap]

Come on man. I can't believe you think that I am attempting to harm anyone who isn't a practicing Catholic. That's really horrible to hear. I might be a sinner as we are all sinners. Hell, anyone of us could even be the Antichrist. But it is really a bridge too far to say that many actively practicing Christians like myself are trying to harm homosexuals. Really, do you think we're just a cult of psychopaths with no empathy or compassion for others? Do you think our desire to influence our society is rooted in some megalomaniacal sadism or hate for other people? Really?

Not intentionally, no. But what you are advocating for by supporting this AG does indeed harm LGBT couples and their children.

I will give you an example, two married men, one is a member of the military and is the biological father of the the child. The other works here in the US and takes care of the child while the partner is overseas. While the military husband is deployed the child has an emergency and needs to be taken to the hospital. As a married couple the one at home can make medical decisions for the child. However what this AG is suggesting would remove the ability of the person at home from making medical decisions, and the person abroad might not be contactable fast. Any delay and the child can be permanently harmed, and yet you are advocating that the spouse not make medical decisions for the child.

Change the scenario, the military father in the above scenario dies. He has no close family due them either dying or refusing to accept his marriage. What happens to his son. In the scenario you support due to this AG he will be ripped from his remaining family member while he is in morning and forced into the foster care system. And the partner will likely not be allowed to adopt him because LGBT will be stripped of their parental rights.

Change the scenario again, one stay at home dad who is the biological father, and a working father. The working father gets insurance through his workplace, and through marriage, so does the son and the spouse. What you are supporting means that the son would lose insurance and so not be able to afford medical care.

That is what your support for the AG does.

Ah, but you see, Sundiata isn't the one harming LGBT people himself, he's only merely supporting somebody else doing it. Sundiata is totally guilt-free in being anti-LGBT because his hands are clean.

[Sundiata]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

[Celritannia]

So then you believe children in the foster care system or orphanages should be placed with healthy, safe, good parents regardless of sexuality. Sweet.

Wrap it up folks, we're done here.

Yes. That's what I've been trying to say. We shouldn't be using the law to target homosexuals or people who are attracted to members of their own sex. There's bigger concerns on our plate.

But you have also been saying it should not happen as well, and trying to support the Catholic Church being the state religion of the US.

[Celritannia]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

Just because you see something as "morally wrong" does not mean it is morally wrong.
Muslims and religious Jews believe eating pork is morally wrong, but do you still eat pork?

Science advances, and science is their to help benefit people.
IVF is not "morally wrong" in anyway.

[Neutraligon]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

Except the AG is not advocating against IVF.
Oh and IVF is not morally wrong.

[Sundiata]

Yes. That's what I've been trying to say. We shouldn't be using the law to target homosexuals or people who are attracted to members of their own sex. There's bigger concerns on our plate.

But you have also been saying it should not happen as well, and trying to support the Catholic Church being the state religion of the US.

Hold on.

I'm losing you and it's my mistake that I am. Before we get into the subject of same-sex marriage. It's important to understand that in relation to the OP, I am opposed to IVF and artificial insemination. That's immoral; it should also be illegal. Husband's and wives who are infertile and seek to become parents should adopt instead. Am I confusing you so far? I already explained twice why I am opposed to IVF and artificial insemination on moral grounds.

Please let me know if any confusion still persists on your part. It was my fault for not adequately including you in the discussion.

[Sundiata]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

Except the AG is not advocating against IVF.
Oh and IVF is not morally wrong.

Yes, but the case involves a homosexual couple who conceived a child through IVF.

[Celritannia]

But you have also been saying it should not happen as well, and trying to support the Catholic Church being the state religion of the US.

Hold on.

I'm losing you and it's my mistake that I am. Before we get into the subject of same-sex marriage. It's important to understand that in relation to the OP, I am opposed to IVF and artificial insemination. That's immoral; it should also be illegal. Husband's and wives who are infertile and seek to become parents should adopt instead. Am I confusing you so far? I already explained twice why I am opposed to IVF and artificial insemination on moral grounds.

Please let me know if any confusion still persists on your part. It was my fault for not adequately including you in the discussion.

No, you said you would like the US to have a state religion.

Diversity of belief doesn't mean equality of belief. We should be debating which way is supreme, not the question of state involvement into anything religious. Religious liberty is the wrong fight.

So there is no confusion there.

It's not up to what what people do or do not with their own lives.
You can be against it all you like, but to stop goes against the rights of people to chose.
By making it illegal, you would be stripping rights away from people, because of a religious authoritarian concept.

There is reason why IVF is immoral.

[Kannap]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

But your support of the AG's position does those things and means those things, regardless of how much you deny them. Once you realize that, perhaps you'll stop supporting the AG's position.

[Celritannia]

Except the AG is not advocating against IVF.
Oh and IVF is not morally wrong.

Yes, but the case involves a homosexual couple who conceived a child through IVF.

And why is that wrong, without citing your religion or "immoral" statements?

[Sundiata]

I think that the thread has progressed to the extent that we're all losing a sense of one another's particular positions on the matter. My agreement with the AG isn't because I want to prevent people who experience same-sex attraction to adopt because they experience same-sex attraction.

My initial position: IVF is morally wrong. Husband's and wives who are infertile should adopt if they're seeking to become parents.

Is that clear?

Just because you see something as "morally wrong" does not mean it is morally wrong.
Muslims and religious Jews believe eating pork is morally wrong, but do you still eat pork?

Science advances, and science is their to help benefit people.
IVF is not "morally wrong" in anyway.

If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.

[Celritannia]

Just because you see something as "morally wrong" does not mean it is morally wrong.
Muslims and religious Jews believe eating pork is morally wrong, but do you still eat pork?

Science advances, and science is their to help benefit people.
IVF is not "morally wrong" in anyway.

If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.

"My religion should stop you from being happy."

Stop spouting this nonsense that it is immoral.
This isn't the 1800s anymore.

[HeIIenic Empire]

Agreed

[Kannap]

"My religion should stop you from being happy."

Stop spouting this nonsense that it is immoral.
This isn't the 1800s anymore.

Happiness is sinful, God wants you to be miserable.

[Sundiata]

"my religion should stop you from being happy"

Celrit, come on.

God doesn't want to stop anyone from being happy. The Catholic Church does not want to stop anyone from being happy. Opus Dei does not want to stop anyone from being happy.

We're just offering a more definitive way to happiness.

[Sundiata]

"My religion should stop you from being happy."

Stop spouting this nonsense that it is immoral.
This isn't the 1800s anymore.

Happiness is sinful, God wants you to be miserable.

Come on man.

[Celritannia]

"my religion should stop you from being happy"

Celrit, come on. God doesn't want to stop anyone from being happy. The Catholic Church does not want to stop anyone from being happy. Opus Dei does not want to stop anyone from being happy.

We're just offering a more definitive way to happiness.

If your God is saying homosexuals marrying is wrong, and using IVF to make babies is wrong, then s/he is not wanting certain people to be happy.

[Neutraligon]

Except the AG is not advocating against IVF.
Oh and IVF is not morally wrong.

Yes, but the case involves a homosexual couple who conceived a child through IVF.

He is targeting specifically homosexual couples, he is not targeting the use of IVF. Opposite sex couples using IVF would not lose their parental rights.

[Sundiata]

Yes, but the case involves a homosexual couple who conceived a child through IVF.

And why is that wrong, without citing your religion or "immoral" statements?

Celrit, I didn't cite my religion when I explained why I thought IVF was immoral. I didn't cite it twice.