Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Esalia]

I see no problem with the underlined, especially because, if it wasn't for technology's control over biology, I would a) not exist in the first place, and b) would be dead several times over, or in severe agony.

However shit my life can be, I like living, and I also like not believing that my existence is inherently immoral.

I love technology too but there are ethical limits to what we do with it, especially to ourselves and others.

Indeed.

And I don't see IVF, or any of the various technologies that told my biology "no" when it attempted to fuck me over, immoral or unethical.

[Kannap]

For somebody who I would have assumed was pro-life, you're coming off as very anti-life.

Come on man, I'm not Thanos.

I didn't say you were, but you are evidently against the beauty of life and anti-family, considering you want to refuse some people being born or having families.

[Sundiata]

Come on man, I'm not Thanos.

I didn't say you were, but you are evidently against the beauty of life and anti-family, considering you want to refuse some people being born or having families.

Well, that's factually inaccurate. I've made clear my support for family, the miracle that is life, and the mystery of love on numerous occasions. I've also defined each of these things.

Come on man, that's not true.

[Neutraligon]

Except the entire point of the AG thing is not the IVF, they do not care about the IVF, they are specifically targeting LGBT parents regardless of IVF. If you say you are agreeing with the AG then the things I said about harm hold and you support it.

You're missing the bigger picture Neutraligon. Yes, I agree with the AG.

I am for conjugal relations within heterosexual marriage that gives rise to human beings. Those are the moral conditions for creating human life. This standard isn't driven out of a hatred for homosexuals, sadism, or a blind hunger for power. There's a larger goal at play here that I would make clear if it didn't deviate from the general point of the thread.

No I am not, you are missing what your agreement with the AG necessitates. Sure I am for that too, if the couple wants, I am also for IVF and surrogacy should the couple want a child and be unable to have one. Being for the one does not mean being against the other. No, those are not the moral conditions for creating life, those are possible moral conditions, as is having a child through AVF should a person be unable to have them. No, it is a standard driven by disdain for those who are unable to have children using that method.

AND you are still missing the point, which was that the AG was not talking about IVF, they where talking about rights being stripped from LGBT parents. IVF is basically irrelevant to the conversation. That you want to ignore the consequences of your "moral" views is not my fault.

[Kannap]

I didn't say you were, but you are evidently against the beauty of life and anti-family, considering you want to refuse some people being born or having families.

Well, that's factually inaccurate. I've made clear my support for family, the miracle that is life, and the mystery of love on numerous occasions. I've also defined each of these things.

Come on man, that's not true.

And you've made clear that you don't support families with LGBT parents and you don't support people having children in ways you deem "immoral"

Sure, I fully believe you support heterosexual couples and their god-given right to do anything they want, but there is a double standard you're playing here, no matter how much you deny it.

[Sundiata]

Well, that's factually inaccurate. I've made clear my support for family, the miracle that is life, and the mystery of love on numerous occasions. I've also defined each of these things.

Come on man, that's not true.

And you've made clear that you don't support families with LGBT parents and you don't support people having children in ways you deem "immoral"

Sure, I fully believe you support heterosexual couples and their god-given right to do anything they want, but there is a double standard you're playing here, no matter how much you deny it.

It's not a double standard. It's a universal standard that applies to men, women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike. Everyone deserves a shot at a good life. Come on man, look at my record.

I don't hate homosexuals and I don't dismiss the unique concerns that come with being a person who is attracted to members of their own sex. In fact, in my time here I've learned quite a lot. Look at my record and you'll see the record of someone who cares and is fighting the good fight with you. I don't look at homosexuals with disdain. That hurts to hear man.

[Celritannia]

I didn't say you were, but you are evidently against the beauty of life and anti-family, considering you want to refuse some people being born or having families.

Well, that's factually inaccurate. I've made clear my support for family, the miracle that is life, and the mystery of love on numerous occasions. I've also defined each of these things.

Come on man, that's not true.

Except when it comes to same-sex couples adopting, or using IVF.

[Sundiata]

Well, that's factually inaccurate. I've made clear my support for family, the miracle that is life, and the mystery of love on numerous occasions. I've also defined each of these things.

Come on man, that's not true.

Except when it comes to same-sex couples adopting, or using IVF.

Come on man, these things aren't arbitrary exceptions.

[SD_Film Artists]

And you've made clear that you don't support families with LGBT parents and you don't support people having children in ways you deem "immoral"

Sure, I fully believe you support heterosexual couples and their god-given right to do anything they want, but there is a double standard you're playing here, no matter how much you deny it.

It's not a double standard. It's a universal standard that applies to men, women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike. Everyone deserves a shot at a good life. Come on man, look at my record.

Look at my record and you'll see the record of someone who cares and is fighting the good fight with you. I don't look at homosexuals with disdain. That hurts to hear man.

Then why do you seem to want to remove things which makes their lives better at no cost to anyone else? Or is it the kind of 'care' where you want to improve their lives by 'curing' them?

[Sundiata]

It's not a double standard. It's a universal standard that applies to men, women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike. Everyone deserves a shot at a good life. Come on man, look at my record.

Look at my record and you'll see the record of someone who cares and is fighting the good fight with you. I don't look at homosexuals with disdain. That hurts to hear man.

Then why do you seem to want to remove things which makes their lives better at no cost to anyone else? Or is it the kind of 'care' where you want to improve their lives by 'curing' them?

Man, come on. Being a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not a pathology or a disease to be cured.

[Celritannia]

Except when it comes to same-sex couples adopting, or using IVF.

Come on man, these things aren't arbitrary exceptions.

If you are wanting people to be happy, then you will let them do things that make them be happy, or help children be happy in a loving adoptive family, whether they are same-sex or not.
By purposefully denying them these rights, you do not want them to be happy.

[SD_Film Artists]

Then why do you seem to want to remove things which makes their lives better at no cost to anyone else? Or is it the kind of 'care' where you want to improve their lives by 'curing' them?

Man, come on. Being a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not a pathology or a disease to be cured.

So you'd be ok if your son was gay?

[Esalia]

Except when it comes to same-sex couples adopting, or using IVF.

Come on man, these things aren't arbitrary exceptions.

Regardless of if they're arbitrary exceptions, they still are arguably anti-family and anti-life, just a specific type of family and a specific form of creating life.

[Kannap]

And you've made clear that you don't support families with LGBT parents and you don't support people having children in ways you deem "immoral"

Sure, I fully believe you support heterosexual couples and their god-given right to do anything they want, but there is a double standard you're playing here, no matter how much you deny it.

It's not a double standard. It's a universal standard that applies to men, women, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike. Everyone deserves a shot at a good life. Come on man, look at my record.

I don't hate homosexuals and I don't dismiss the unique concerns that come with being a person who is attracted to members of their own sex. In fact, in my time here I've learned quite a lot. Look at my record and you'll see the record of someone who cares and is fighting the good fight with you. I don't look at homosexuals with disdain. That hurts to hear man.

Except when it comes to IVF or same-sex couples adopting. The latter of which you are okay with heterosexual couples doing.

[Sundiata]

Man, come on. Being a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not a pathology or a disease to be cured.

So you'd be ok if your son was gay?

Yes. Come on man.

[SD_Film Artists]

So you'd be ok if your son was gay?

Yes. Come on man.

Yet if he wants a kid you're apparently not ok with him adopting. Would he make for a bad father?

[Necroghastia]

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.

So let me get this straight. IVF should be illegal because two people banging creates a bond with the child that can't be replicated through IVF?

[SD_Film Artists]

So let me get this straight. IVF should be illegal because two people banging creates a bond with the child that can't be replicated through IVF?

Yes; only the sanctity of an alcohol-fueled accident can give dignity to the birth of a new person.

[Necroghastia]

So let me get this straight. IVF should be illegal because two people banging creates a bond with the child that can't be replicated through IVF?

Yes; only the sanctity of an alcohol-fueled accident can give dignity to the birth of a new person.

if the biological bond is what's important though
why is sun advocating adoption as more moral than IVF?

[San Lumen]

Then why do you seem to want to remove things which makes their lives better at no cost to anyone else? Or is it the kind of 'care' where you want to improve their lives by 'curing' them?

Man, come on. Being a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not a pathology or a disease to be cured.

Yet you dont think they should be able to marry or adopt children?

[Ors Might]

why should it be illegal? Same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt either by the standard your using.

IVF should be illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because it runs contrary to the dignity of the human person by separating procreation from the conjugal act.

I really don't understand how its immoral based on what your said. If someone consents to such a procedure who are you to tell them otherwise?

Hypothetically, I would be the state. The state would tell them otherwise. Consent doesn't make an act morally right, just legally permissible, generally speaking. This isn't morally right and shouldn't be legally permissible.

I know this post is a bit far back but I can’t really ignore it. My parents had difficulty conceiving and thus had to resort to artificial means. The process was complicated but basically I’m what they call a “test tube baby”. They’re both my biological parents but I’m not a result of them having intercourse.

The question I want to ask is how the above harms human dignity, as you seem to have implied. Was my dignity harmed or was it the dignity of my parents?

[Thepeopl]

So let me get this straight. IVF should be illegal because two people banging creates a bond with the child that can't be replicated through IVF?

Can't be bothered to find the actual post. But.
sundiata did say that in IVF, more eggs are fertilised than being placed in the womb. And any fertilised egg is human life, and human life is sanctified.
So in their mind, IVF is immoral because many blastocysts are destroyed in this process. I countered with human life isn't sanctified because in the normal "natural " way of procreation about 90% of all fertilised eggs don't develop to a newborn.
Do people mourn those lost lives? No. Most aren't even aware of fertilised eggs going down the drain because they didn't attach themselves into the womb. Of those which did attach and fail to fully develop, some will be mourned. Not so much the blighted ovum itself, more the dream of how wonderful the child would have been.
Many "surprise" expecting parents are very relieved when the eggs don't develop any further. (They think the period was "just" late).

Anyway. This has nothing to do with LGBTQ parents being stripped of their parental rights.

Which is utter disgraceful. If you don't want to have non biological parents to not have parental rights, you should do a genetics test on every newborn, to ensure every child has the biological parents on the birth certificate. Nobody would be allowed to renege on their parental responsibilities. No child would be allowed to be adopted.
But that isn't what the AG wants. Because nobody in their right mind would agree with this system.

Just because the AG is bigoted, they want to strip only LGBTQ parents of their rights. Which is just wrong. They aren't doing this to protect children, they just want to strip a minority of their well earned rights.

[Sundiata]

Yes; only the sanctity of an alcohol-fueled accident can give dignity to the birth of a new person.

if the biological bond is what's important though
why is sun advocating adoption as more moral than IVF?

The biological bond is not primary there's several things that must properly precede it, like marriage. Otherwise everything is in disarray. Life and planning for it is a lot like building a tower out of from wooden blocks. It needs to be neat and orderly. Block by block. One piece at a time. But everything has an order, a place, and use.

[Grenartia]

And you've made clear that you don't support families with LGBT parents and you don't support people having children in ways you deem "immoral"

Sure, I fully believe you support heterosexual couples and their god-given right to do anything they want, but there is a double standard you're playing here, no matter how much you deny it.

It's not a double standard. It's a universal standard

That affects LGBT people differently and a lot more negatively than cisgender and heterosexual people. Claim its a "universal standard" all you want, but its effects are not evenly distributed.

[Celritannia]

if the biological bond is what's important though
why is sun advocating adoption as more moral than IVF?

The biological bond is not primary there's several things that must properly precede it, like marriage. Otherwise everything is in disarray. Life and planning for it is a lot like building a tower out of from wooden blocks. It needs to be neat and orderly. Block by block. One piece at a time. But everything has an order, a place, and use.

Life is not neat and orderly. Life is always improvised.
Sometimes things happen when we least expecting, and other times nothing happens when we expect it to.

Marriage should not be the penultimate goal, not is it for everyone.
But to deny people their rights to have children the best way they can is denying them a basic right.