• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

Not sure if this deserves a new topic, but it seems to fit into the current theme, so I'm putting it here for now.

But on Wednesday, a Utah judge decided to end this plan, ordering the girl removed from her foster home because he said she would be better off with heterosexual parent

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aying-shell-be-better-off-with-heterosexuals/

Also in this space, issues relating to recent changes made by LDS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hp-top-table-main_mormons-12am:homepage/story

Don't like presenting without offering a view of my own: I find both to be quite offensive. Especially troubling is how much power the decision makers have in either case.

Thx!

TomB
 

Funny how for some people what is in the best interest for a child is to remove it from a loving family and putting it at the center of a long judicial battle.

On a side note, doesn't a law that say parents need to be married to adopt a foster child discriminate against unmarried couples?
 

Not sure if this deserves a new topic, but it seems to fit into the current theme, so I'm putting it here for now.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aying-shell-be-better-off-with-heterosexuals/

Also in this space, issues relating to recent changes made by LDS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hp-top-table-main_mormons-12am:homepage/story

Don't like presenting without offering a view of my own: I find both to be quite offensive. Especially troubling is how much power the decision makers have in either case.

Thx!

TomB
Yup, that's some crap. Hope that judge gets smacked for that.


Funny how for some people what is in the best interest for a child is to remove it from a loving family and putting it at the center of a long judicial battle.

On a side note, doesn't a law that say parents need to be married to adopt a foster child discriminate against unmarried couples?
Yes, they are, and rightly so.
 

Also in this space, issues relating to recent changes made by LDS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hp-top-table-main_mormons-12am:homepage/story

Don't like presenting without offering a view of my own: I find both to be quite offensive. Especially troubling is how much power the decision makers have in either case.

Thx!

TomB

Thank you for using LDS instead of Mormon, with that out of the way...If you watched the video,which I will embed below [video=youtube;iEEMyc6aZms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEMyc6aZms[/video] Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explains and gives context to the changes in policy. He also points out that the same policy also has covered polygamist families, for example one of the daughters of the polygamist family on Sister Wives wanted to be baptized, but since she wouldn't disavow her family's lifestyle she wasn't allowed to get baptized. As for the "mass resignations" they did the same thing last when the leader of Ordain Woman was excommunicated, only it turned out that instead of thousands it was really only 1,001. Also, lawyer isn't even needed,all that is needed to resign from The Church is a meeting with the Stake President ( The person in charge of a geographical area). But folks who have an ax to grind with The Church will still do so no matter what, this just gives them a convenient excuse. (Full disclosure I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
 

Funny how for some people what is in the best interest for a child is to remove it from a loving family and putting it at the center of a long judicial battle.

I can elucidate the logic, though I don't agree with one of the premises...

If the family were loving, but living in a place or condition that was harmful to the child (say, the house is loaded with lead, or the parents had a harmful contagious disease) we can see removing the child from the family, right? Love does not overcome physical hazards.

In these people's eyes, homosexuality in the parents presents a hazard to the child. They are *wrong* about that, but they believe it to be true. Given teh premise, the conclusion is understandable. It is just that the premise is wrong.
On a side note, doesn't a law that say parents need to be married to adopt a foster child discriminate against unmarried couples?

Well, that's a bit more odd. Remember that a "couple" is not a legal unit unless they are married. Since there is no legal tie in a "couple", they, as a unit, can't enter into agreements like adoption. "Couples" come together and break up easily, and there's no legal ramifications to dissolving the relationship. When married people break up, the legal process handles disposition of the child, where a couple breaking up does not. This is terribly important to the welfare of the child.

A single person can adopt a child. It is more difficult, because a single person will usually have fewer resources - both monetarily, and in terms of time to devote to care.
 

Thank you for using LDS instead of Mormon, with that out of the way...If you watched the video,which I will embed below [video=youtube;iEEMyc6aZms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEMyc6aZms[/video] Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explains and gives context to the changes in policy. He also points out that the same policy also has covered polygamist families, for example one of the daughters of the polygamist family on Sister Wives wanted to be baptized, but since she wouldn't disavow her family's lifestyle she wasn't allowed to get baptized. As for the "mass resignations" they did the same thing last when the leader of Ordain Woman was excommunicated, only it turned out that instead of thousands it was really only 1,001. Also, lawyer isn't even needed,all that is needed to resign from The Church is a meeting with the Stake President ( The person in charge of a geographical area). But folks who have an ax to grind with The Church will still do so no matter what, this just gives them a convenient excuse. (Full disclosure I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

Re: The LDS recent rules changes. I don't have a problem with the policy towards adults. I might not agree with it, but it's their business.

What I have a problem with is the application of the rules to children, who are in no way a party to what their parents are doing.

To put it in terms which I can discuss more knowledgeably, it would be like the Catholic church denying baptism to an infant of a homosexual couple. Not that there aren't other conflicts in that case. I could see an argument that any minor should be kept out of this sort of issue until they can speak for themselves, but that is another question.

Thx!

TomB
 

Well, that's a bit more odd. Remember that a "couple" is not a legal unit unless they are married.
Not really. In Québec you get all the same rights* as a married couple or those in civil unions. Your considered de facto spouses. About a 37% of couples are in that situtation. Half are married and the rest are in civil unions.

Marriage doesn't convey anything special to couples, it is just a ritual, so there shouldn't be any reason why it gives special rights.

The law is just discriminatory and forces couples that has been together for 20 years to get married if they want to enjoy the same rights that a couple who just met and got married have.

"Couples" come together and break up easily
So do married couples. Marriage doesn't garanty anything.


*Except you're not automatically entitled to half of what your spouse's salary and belongings.
 
Last edited:

Re: The LDS recent rules changes. I don't have a problem with the policy towards adults. I might not agree with it, but it's their business.

What I have a problem with is the application of the rules to children, who are in no way a party to what their parents are doing.

To put it in terms which I can discuss more knowledgeably, it would be like the Catholic church denying baptism to an infant of a homosexual couple. Not that there aren't other conflicts in that case. I could see an argument that any minor should be kept out of this sort of issue until they can speak for themselves, but that is another question.

Thx!

TomB

Well, if you watch the video, Which I'm guessing you didn't, if you did then my apologies but he explains why children are included :

Elder Christofferson said:
It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.

In fact here : http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson
 

Well, if you watch the video, Which I'm guessing you didn't, if you did then my apologies but he explains why children are included :

In fact here : http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

I'll take a look when I can -- I can't listen to the video here at work.

This:

When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.

If I recount the specific items:

Formal blessing and naming;
Membership record
Assignment of visiting and home teachers.
Placement in primary (school?) and other Church organizations.

Barring a child from these seems to harm the child.

I'm reading this as a way to punish the child as a way to punish and pressure the parents.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...enjoyed-her-time-in-jail/page19#ixzz3rIqkKyTM

Thx!

TomB
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top