Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Telconi]

What is and isn't okay is subjective.

I disagree, opinions vary between people but ultimately, actual morality is an objective concern.

The fact that people express different morals would seem to disprove that.

[San Lumen]

And? Doesn't make it ok.

That's fair, but likewise wanting artificial insemination does not make it ok.

i see nothing wrong with wanting a child from your own linage and if another women consents to that I see no issue.

[Telconi]

That's fair, but likewise wanting artificial insemination does not make it ok.

i see nothing wrong with wanting a child from your own linage and if another women consents to that I see no issue.

You're not the entirety of the voting public in Indiana though. As a matter of fact, you're not any portion of the voting public in Indiana.

[Sundiata]

I disagree, opinions vary between people but ultimately, actual morality is an objective concern.

The fact that people express different morals would seem to disprove that.

People express morals rightly and wrongly.

[Telconi]

The fact that people express different morals would seem to disprove that.

People express morals rightly and wrongly.

Sure.

[San Lumen]

i see nothing wrong with wanting a child from your own linage and if another women consents to that I see no issue.

You're not the entirety of the voting public in Indiana though. As a matter of fact, you're not any portion of the voting public in Indiana.

And this matters why?

[Sundiata]

You're not the entirety of the voting public in Indiana though. As a matter of fact, you're not any portion of the voting public in Indiana.

And this matters why?

It doesn't.

[Telconi]

You're not the entirety of the voting public in Indiana though. As a matter of fact, you're not any portion of the voting public in Indiana.

And this matters why?

Because your opinions don't carry any validity in Indiana's government.

[Senkaku]

The fact that people express different morals would seem to disprove that.

People express morals rightly and wrongly.

Circling back a little ways in the quote chain: the fact of the matter is that IVF has been accepted by the state as legal for everyone, which means you've built your argument on sand. Yes, if it were illegal, then the state would have the right to enforce its laws equally on everyone in a manner consistent with the constitution... but it isn't. Straight people use IVF all the time too, so the argument the AG is making is clearly discriminatory.

First you have to get a sufficient majority of the electorate to agree with your nebulous ideas about IVF establishing "technological domination over human life" or whatever-- which we both know you can't, because most people think helping couples who can't conceive normally is a good thing and are far less concerned with your inhuman abstractions or conceptual justifications.

Furthermore, there's still the question of people who've already been conceived by IVF-- it seems to me that one could make a case that it's wrong for the state to be intervening in their lives, and only their lives, to inform them that only one of their parents is legitimate.

[The United Galactic States]

Except your explanations make no sense, and are authoritative. The state has no right telling what one shall do when the thing that one is doing harms no one.

Harm is not the only legitimate basis for law, morality is too. This isn't a question of imposing state power for its own sake. That should be clear.

But what makes things immoral? How is giving same-sex couples another option to have children immoral?

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

[The United Galactic States]

And? Doesn't make it ok.

What is and isn't okay is subjective.

No shit. That’s why we’re debating.

Even then, most people can agree that the state cutting in and discriminating based on sex and parentage, and cutting onto people’s lives authoritatively isn’t okay.

[The United Galactic States]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

This. Adoption isn’t always effective, and not everyone should have to use it. Proving same-sex couples another option to have children is great for those that have to deal with the risks and downsides to the adoption system.

[The United Galactic States]

i see nothing wrong with wanting a child from your own linage and if another women consents to that I see no issue.

You're not the entirety of the voting public in Indiana though. As a matter of fact, you're not any portion of the voting public in Indiana.

That’s the issue. Indiana is conservative as shit.

[San Lumen]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

I agree with Jessie Jackson better a child be raised by two men or two woman than having no parents at all.

[Sundiata]

Circling back a little ways in the quote chain: the fact of the matter is that IVF has been accepted by the state as legal for everyone, which means you've built your argument on sand.

IVF is legal, unjustly.

Yes, if it were illegal, then the state would have the right to enforce its laws equally on everyone in a manner consistent with the constitution... but it isn't.

The legality or illegality of IVF applies to everyone. The state is enforcing the same standard of law upon everyone, the sociological outcomes of the legal principle are a separate question. The law applies equally to all.

Straight people use IVF all the time too, so the argument the AG is making is clearly discriminatory.

How?

First you have to get a sufficient majority of the electorate to agree with your nebulous ideas about IVF establishing "technological domination over human life" or whatever-- which we both know you can't, because most people think helping couples who can't conceive normally is a good thing and are far less concerned with your inhuman abstractions or conceptual justifications.

The majority of an electorate can be persuaded to agree to moral conclusions that they once did not. How? Through targeted public relations campaigns, grassroots efforts, protest, and many other means.

Furthermore, there's still the question of people who've already been conceived by IVF-- it seems to me that one could make a case that it's wrong for the state to be intervening in their lives, and only their lives, to inform them that only one of their parents is legitimate.

There is not the question of people who have already been conceived through IVF if the law is not applied retroactively. The state is not intervening in their lives and only their lives, but the lives of all equally to prevent immoral outcomes and societal disorder.

[Sundiata]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

By opting for adoption instead of IVF? Yes, more people should adopt. We want more children to be adopted into quality homes.

[San Lumen]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

By opting for adoption instead of IVF? Yes, more people should adopt. We want more children to be adopted into quality homes.

And if they want to do it the other way they ought to be allowed.

[Sundiata]

Harm is not the only legitimate basis for law, morality is too. This isn't a question of imposing state power for its own sake. That should be clear.

But what makes things immoral? How is giving same-sex couples another option to have children immoral?

I already explained this twice.

[The United Galactic States]

Hmmm? Not surprised. Just another example of religious compassion is only for people in the same club.

Even Jessie Jackson once said better a child be in a loving home then in the system.

It is estimated there are over 13000 children are in foster care in Indiana. Many of which are looking for adoption.

Maybe the “Religious Freedom” types should focus on eliminating these numbers rather then being all “snowflake” over LGBT people giving children a loving home.

By opting for adoption instead of IVF? Yes, more people should adopt. We want more children to be adopted into quality homes.

We just explained that argument away. Adoption isn’t always the best option. Many children go long lengths of time without being adopted. Plenty of kids get adopted into shitty and abusive families. More people should adopt, yes, but even if lots of people adopted, the problem wouldn’t go away.

[Telconi]

What is and isn't okay is subjective.

No shit. That’s why we’re debating.

Even then, most people can agree that the state cutting in and discriminating based on sex and parentage, and cutting onto people’s lives authoritatively isn’t okay.

Evidently they can't as the state is doing that thing.

[The United Galactic States]

But what makes things immoral? How is giving same-sex couples another option to have children immoral?

I already explained this twice.

When?

[Sundiata]

By opting for adoption instead of IVF? Yes, more people should adopt. We want more children to be adopted into quality homes.

And if they want to do it the other way they ought to be allowed.

I disagree on ethical and moral grounds. I don't think that other means are conducive to a rightly ordered society.

[Ankras]

Trump-appointed federal judges already ruled against laws banning conversion therapy in Florida. I'm honestly completely prepared for the worst but I doubt this one will go far.

[Telconi]

By opting for adoption instead of IVF? Yes, more people should adopt. We want more children to be adopted into quality homes.

We just explained that argument away. Adoption isn’t always the best option. Many children go long lengths of time without being adopted. Plenty of kids get adopted into shitty and abusive families. More people should adopt, yes, but even if lots of people adopted, the problem wouldn’t go away.

Does IVF make the problem go away?