Pro-choice activist: Don’t stigmatize very non-traditional families
by Carder
Queer and trans folks have been making babies for a long time, and it’s rarely ever easy. Even when we create biological children, we have to fight to be recognized as their parents….
What can you do? You can visit MamasDay.org for messaging and amazing visuals that reflect the vast beauty of families like the one that raised me and the one that I and many others plan to create.
~ Bianca Campbell (pictured), advocating for “non-traditional families” and the difficulties they face with assistive reproductive technology, via RH Reality Check, May 5
May.08, 2015 6:00 am |
GLBT |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Why is this the only type of child-rearing that RH Reality Check is willing to celebrate — and on Mother’s Day, of all occasions?
Chesterton remarked on this, something like: “When we stop believing in the supernatural, all that is left is the unnatural.”
Why is this the only type of child-rearing that RH Reality Check is willing to celebrate — and on Mother’s Day, of all occasions? – I don’t believe that to be the case. Why do you say such?
Chesterton remarked on this, something like: “When we stop believing in the supernatural, all that is left is the unnatural.” – then Chesterton was obviously a dunce. When we stop believing in the supernatural all that is left is the natural. Those who persist in believing in the supernatural are behaving in a way indicative of something unnatural.
You’ve never heard of GK Chesterton.
I knew that already.
Sounds like you’re about as accurate as Chesterton then Del. I’d heard of him before you mentioned him a little while back. We had a short discussion about his proclamations then. I said something along the lines of that the more I heard them the less seriously I could take him. Obviously you’ve forgotten. Never mind.
Of course I have forgotten an exchange we may have had.
You’re lucky when I bother to read one of your posts.
Some Chesterton quotes:
I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.
Journalism consists largely in saying ”Lord James is dead” to people who never knew Lord James was alive.
A liberated woman is one who rises up and says to her menfolk, ‘I will not be dictated to,’ and proceeds to become a stenographer.
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
http://www.chesterton.org
The antidote of common sense for an insane world!
And that forgetfulness is leading you into error Del.
I always read your posts. Some lack any resemblance to the real world in any way and many are self-evidently exaggerations or complete misrepresentations of what is the true case. But they are always entertaining.
Many of Chesterton’s little lines are either defensive or just plain illogical.
Gay advocates are discriminating against the entire institution of marriage. They are imposing their choices on others. Reality- gays can get married they just can’t force others to participate. This is a form of discrimination. At least that is what it is being called. However, those not wanting to participate are not forcing their views on others. Its the other way around. The supreme court is going to vote on whether or not gays can discriminate and persecute others for discriminating against them in not wanting to participate in their discrimination against marriage.
It’s like the supreme court is issueing warrants to arrest people for not wanting to participate in the pagan rituals of others. And the first ammendment states clearly the government can make no legislation enforcing such biases. Of course you can discriminate against someone based on your religious preferences. Religion protects discrimination based on preferences. it protects parents who want to discriminate against places which threaten the safety of their children. it protects children, allowing state run agencies to discriminate against policies that endanger them. Religion discriminates against dangers, and discriminates, putting protective borders around cliffs people would otherwise veer off of, had they not seen the warning signs, enabled by laws which essentially discriminate against certain death. The supreme court is voting on good vs. evil. Who will they choose to empower? I wonder.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-thayer/why-the-next-supreme-cour_b_7121138.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices
ministers have a personal vested interest in trying to send a message regarding how they personally value the freedom of themselves as pastors to not only not participate in gay marriages, but to administer to those who choose not to based on personal beliefs.
Gay marriage advocates are targeting these people and hurting them. They are harassing them. They are ruining their businesses, and they want to tear them down and are terrorizing and tormenting them. Their are those that don’t but it’s the image of a family, not the family, that is up for sale here.
There is a website that lists the businesses that are contributing to the effort to dissolve the institution of marriage.
Goodness me. It really is time you started wrapping your head around some actual facts rather than what amount to urban myths and complete errors of fact.
Gay advocates are discriminating against the entire institution of marriage. – no. It is people like you who are doing the discriminating. Gay advocates are proposing nothing whatsoever that will change or impact on what you do. At all.
They are imposing their choices on others. – nonsense. Gay people choosing to get married imposes absolutely nothing on you at all. Nothing. Yet you would persist in imposing your choices on them.
Reality- gays can get married they just can’t force others to participate. – in some places they can get married. Not all. Yet. But they don’t and won’t force others to participate. Why do you make this false claim?
This is a form of discrimination. At least that is what it is being called. – the discrimination is being practiced by you and others like you.
However, those not wanting to participate are not forcing their views on others. Its the other way around. – those who stand in the way of marital equality are forcing their views on others. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you have the right to stop others. I don’t see you calling for people to not eat foods you don’t like.
The supreme court is going to vote on whether or not gays can discriminate and persecute others for discriminating against them in not wanting to participate in their discrimination against marriage. – you must live in an inverted world. The truth is that the supreme court is going to decide whether people like you can continue to discriminate against and persecute same sex folk or not. You are not and will not be forced to participate. But your ability to discriminate will be abated.
It’s like the supreme court is issueing warrants to arrest people for not wanting to participate in the pagan rituals of others. And the first ammendment states clearly the government can make no legislation enforcing such biases. – what a pointless thing to say. No one is forced into others rituals (despite the desire of some of faith that they could – and in some instances do). And that is because of the amendment.
Of course you can discriminate against someone based on your religious preferences. Religion protects discrimination based on preferences. it protects parents who want to discriminate against places which threaten the safety of their children. it protects children, allowing state run agencies to discriminate against policies that endanger them. Religion discriminates against dangers, and discriminates, putting protective borders around cliffs people would otherwise veer off of, had they not seen the warning signs, enabled by laws which essentially discriminate against certain death. – ah, here we have it again. What you are saying basically amounts to – “when we criticize and discriminate against you, we’re exercising our religious freedom. When you criticize us for discriminating against you, we’re being persecuted.”
The supreme court is voting on good vs. evil. Who will they choose to empower? I wonder. – you already know that isn’t true. They are not deciding between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. They’re deciding whether unjustifiable discrimination will be allowed to continue or whether all members of society will have equality. If it was by some strange circumstance a choice between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ then removing the discrimination against same sex folk would be the ‘good’ and allowing people to continue to discriminate on no basis other than their own distaste would be the ‘evil’.
ministers have a personal vested interest in trying to send a message regarding how they personally value the freedom of themselves as pastors to not only not participate in gay marriages, but to administer to those who choose not to based on personal beliefs. – yes. And? No one has or will force them to conduct same-sex marriages. You already know that. Thankfully some are a little more enlightened and do and will.
Gay marriage advocates are targeting these people and hurting them. They are harassing them. They are ruining their businesses, and they want to tear them down and are terrorizing and tormenting them. – you keep repeating stuff that is simply untrue. Why? It’s not going to make it true.
it’s the image of a family, not the family, that is up for sale here. – well that’s wrong too.
There is a website that lists the businesses that are contributing to the effort to dissolve the institution of marriage. – the problem you have here is that no one is seeking to dissolve the institution of marriage.