ThirstyJon’s Rant on Family
Posted by ThirstyJon in Kingdom Ideas - Worldview, News, Politics, and World Events, tags: Diversity, Homosexual Agenda, Homosexuality, News Commentary, Parental Rights, ThirstyJon RantWell friends, I just went on a Rant on another post in response to the comments there. It is important enough to repost here. 
Enjoy:
So, a court has told a biological mother that a another woman – who is neither the biological mother nor the adopted mother of the child has rights to have access to the child as a parent? And y’all (various commenters) don’t see the insanity in that? Have I mis-understood the situation? Do you have information that I don’t have?
All of you have children. What if someone who was a part of your life when your child was born won custody/parental rights in court and you could no longer protect your child from that person? How can you not see that this is nuts?
I don’t get it. I really don’t.
It is clear to me what this is all about. It is a direct attack on “what is marriage?” and “what are parents?” The truth is, we all know what marriage is and we all know what parents are. It is clear in natural law and clear in human tradition and very, very clear in Biblical teaching. There is an agenda from our Ancient Enemy himself to destroy the institution that is responsible for producing the future of the world by birthing and raising children. Some humans have gotten on board.
Sorry to be so black-and-white about it. No, acutally, I’m not sorry. Unless I have wrong information (which is always a possibility, sometimes more info about what is going on can clear things up) this is a pretty clear case.
ThirstyJon
P.S. When I have children (which I don’t) I want to be able to raise them according to God’s ways without interference from the State. The Bible commands parents to teach their children and raise them. It does not issue the same command to the State.
P.P.S. In this case it does not matter what the child wants. A mother has a right and a responsibility to protect her child from such insanity.
P.P.P.S. What is all this about how the other woman feels? As one human being to another, I care how she feels and I want her to be blessed by God. But that has nothing to do with the fact that a court is granting her RIGHTS here that she does not actually have in reality! We as humans do not have any right to re-define marriage or parenting according to our own standards. God set this stuff up in the Garden of Eden and we are sowing our own destruction if we ignore Him.
Entries (RSS)
Your ignorance saddens me. Climb off of your holier than thou self-righteous tower and let these innocent people be, will you?
Hello Greener Pastures,
Of what am I ignorant? Do you have some information about this case that I don’t have? I am interested in more accurate info if I am missing something here.
Just to be clear:
1) I make no assertion that I am holier than anybody. What are you talking about?
2) I make no assertion that I am righteous in and of myself. Again, what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the case we are discussing?
3) To what innocent people are you referring? I know of 3 people involved. There is the biological mother. Are you saying she is innocent? There is the Child. Most likely the child is innocent. There is the ex-lover. I don’t know if she is guilty of anything, but on what basis would you give anyone who is not the biological or adoptive parent “parental/custodial” rights?
Honestly, I think your statement is way off. You are using cliche’ words and phrases that have no meaning or bearing on this case. (“ignorance,” “holier than thou,” “self-righteous tower”) It sounds like you are stereo-typing me based on my opinion and judging me (and wrongly at that). I hope that is not the case, but that is what it sounds like. Feel free to clarify.
ThirstyJon
hey, now. i would like you to please *note* that in the previous post i DID say i agreed with the court’s decision, because i believe it was the RIGHT decision. i know you don’t like the “feelings” aspect much, but it’s an important part of who i am. no, it doesn’t sway my view of right and wrong but it does affect how i relate with the world (and primarily with the people) around me. so my feelings on the case may include empathy for the woman but that does not change the fact that i agree with the court’s decision. maybe you mistook my sympathy for the woman to mean that i disagreed with the verdict? i am in awe of your ability to keep your emotions out of the picture- i think our giftings are different and likely complement each other. it takes all kinds to make up the kingdom.
p.s. i DID read correctly that the courts have denied her parental rights, correct? your above post makes it seem like the courts ARE giving her rights, and i thought the article said they were NOT. just clarifying. i agree with the court’s decision NOT to give her rights.
Hi Jess!
Actually, the Vermont Court has granted parental rights to the lesbian non-parent and the Virginia Court is in the process of deciding whether or not they have to honor the Vermont Court’s decision.
The Article:
No need to apologize for having feelings. Have ‘em often and have ‘em strong! I was just pointing out that although relevant to Christian Compassion, they are not relevant to what is right and wrong in this case. And yes, I had thought you were saying that the lesbian non-parent should have parental rights. Thank you for clarifying that your position is otherwise.
ThirstyJon
ThirstyJon’s Response is in red:
If you are married and your wife has a child, you are legally a parent. You may or may not be the biological father of that child. If you are infertile she may have used a sperm bank, the lady might have had an affair, lotsa stuff happens and lotsa guys raise kids that aren’t biologically theirs. This is how it is and always has been.
Now whether you and your pastor (What does my “pastor” have to do with anything?) like it or not, when that child was born the birth mom and this other gal had a civil union in the state of Vermont, which carries pretty much the same legal weight as a marriage. So,,, legally, at the time of birth, this gal was a parent. If they both had stayed in Vermont we wouldn’t be having this convo, because unless the non-birth mom could be proven unfit she’d get full rights just like a divorcing dad.
This is a great argument against same-sex “civil unions.” This is a good reason to have the “Defense of Marriage Act” which will hopefully protect the mother and child from the law in Vermont because the law in Vermont will be in conflict with federal law. This is why, although not the best option, a federal marriage amendment is essential. This is a reason why “same-sex” marriage or civil unions are a serious problem.
What’s really at stake here is the constitution of the USA, and here’s why. Ever heard of the “Full faith and credit clause”?
Article 4, section 1.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”
Now this is pretty clear. It says that if you marry/divorce/adopt/whatever in Vermont, and you move to Virginia, the Old Dominion state has to recognise your situation.
Radical Rightists (To Whom are you referring?), who believe that Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous stretch of the Constitution, are wetting themselves trying to CONSTRUCT a legal argument that lets conservative states not honor civil unions issued to same sex couples in liberal states. The hypocrisy is thick enough to lube wheel bearings.
So,,, this will probably be a test case. If this gal loses, gay rights organizations will file 800 appeals. If she wins, conservative groups will do the same. Maybe it’ll get all the way to the US Supreme court and we’ll get this bull settled. Let’s see how it goes.
Oh boy, we’d better pass that marriage amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW – did you notice that you started out your other post with:
“Neutral. That is what we want our government to be on “religion.” We don’t want our government to favor one religion over another.”
and then in the very next post you tell us that that gal can’t possibly be any kind of parent because gay marriage is wrong wrong wrong because your God says so. Well what if my God says that the moon is made of cream cheese, and Luther Vandross is the messiah, and 2 gals make a dandy couple? Why should the gov favor your faith over mine? You just said “Neutral – that’s” etc. etc.
Actually, If you read the post again, you will probably notice that I was making a point that such neutrality is impossible. The structure of my argument went “we want neutrality…BUT, what about values?” The government can be “neutral” about how we will worship, what we will believe, what religious ceremonies we participate in, etc. It is impossible to be 100% neutral on everything regarding “religion” if you include world view in “religion.” We are as a society going to choose some values on which to base our laws. Those values will incorporate one or more perspectives on the world. We will be deciding whose view of marriage we are going to accept. Will we accept the Christian one? (One Man and One Woman in a Life Long Covenant of Love — other “religious” views and some “secularist” views also embrace this idea) Will we accept a Secularist one? (Whatever we want it to be). We will be deciding one way or the other. To decide that marriage can include “same-sex” marriage and parental rights for “same-sex” partners is not “neutral” towards Christianity, or to other belief systems. To decide that marriage is One Man and One Woman is to embrace some belief systems over others.
There is no neutrality here Casper. Will we protect children? Will we protect biological and traditional marriage (one man one woman) parental rights? We will or we will not.
If we tamper with what THE God set up all the way back to Adam and Eve, we will regret it, and our descendants will suffer for it.
ThirstyJon’s response is in red
A Friendly Rebuttal, I’ve been wanting to discuss this with one of you guys (One of “you guys”? Oh Casper.) for years:
(quotes of ThirstyJon between “”"‘s)
“”"To decide that marriage can include “same-sex” marriage and parental rights for “same-sex” partners is not “neutral” towards Christianity, or to other belief systems. “”"
How so? Nobody is trying to make southern baptist churches perform boy-boy weddings. (Why are you saying that? What does that have to do with anything?) Nobody is arguing that guys and girls shouldn’t get married anymore. (So? What is your point?) Tell me this – Massachusetts has same sex marriage. Vermont and several other states have civil unions for same sex couples. How has this affected your marriage? Other than a few news stories like this one, what impact have same sex unions had on you at all? (What are you trying to do here Casper? I believe you are building a straw man. When have I suggested that my concerns are related to how same-sex marriage or civil unions will affect me?)
“”"There is no neutrality here Casper. Will we protect children? Will we protect biological and traditional marriage (one man one woman) parental rights? We will or we will not.”"”
Your argument rests on a base prejudice. You obviously believe that being raised by a same sex couple is somehow dangerous to a child. This is not proven, or even indicated, by the results we’ve seen in the past. One anecdote from my own experience – a (male) neighbor of mine was married young and had a daughter. When the kid was about 4 the mom left to “find herself”, and Steve was left with his kid. Steve started dating a dude – they wound up a couple – the daughter was raised by 2 gay men. Guess what – she’s fine! She’s in college now and doing well. And before you ask – No, she’s not gay.
Actually, if you go back and read the context of the original post, what I want to protect children from is non-biological, non-adoptive parents having legal parental rights towards them.
Again, how does same sex marriage damage traditional marriage? I’ve been married for 20 years. I’m crazy about my wife, love her to pieces, and if the state of Ohio suddenly tells me I can marry some guy, I will not divorce D and go marry some dude. You know why not? ’cause I’m not gay! Saying that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage is like saying that boats are a threat to bicycles. (It is simple Casper. Either you believe God appointed marriage in the Garden as written in the book of Genesis, or you do not. Either you believe God knew what He was doing or you don’t. His testimony is more valuable to me than your testimony that you aren’t going to go marry a guy. Another straw man. When have I argued that people who want to be married to the opposite gender will change their minds because of the State legalizing it?)
“”"If we tamper with what THE God set up all the way back to Adam and Eve, we will regret it, and our descendants will suffer for it.”"”
One more time – nobody wants to tamper with your marriage, or mine. Descendents suffer? How so? Sodom and Gomorrah time?
Ya’ know, for a guy who “Thirsts” for “Freedom”, you sure want to put lots of restrictions on people… I’m just saying. (Some restrictions are essential to freedom. Among them are “Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness against your neighbor” I am committed to discovering God’s version of Freedom. I don’t desire to be free to do whatever I want.)
ThirstyJon’s Response is in red:
By “One of you guys” I meant one of you who uses “Defense of marriage” rhetoric. I really don’t understand your argument, and I was hoping you could explain it to me. As I’ve said, I’ve been happily married for 20 years – so I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the institution, and I honestly do not understand how 2 chicks next door getting survivor and inheritance rights will affect my marriage in particular or the institution of marriage in general. Please, make this logically clear to me if you can. I’ve asked several of my conservative friends, and they can’t seem to do it.
You continue to talk about whether or not individual marriages are threatened by fake ones, such as so-called “gay-marriage.” I have not argued that my marriage (or yours) is individually threatened.
God made marriage in the book of Genesis and we can observe throughout the Bible, throughout history, and throughout our society that the family is the unit where children are produced and nurtured and trained into adulthood. If you have worked with people on an intimate level, you will know that gender identity is a key part of the identity of any individual. “Male and Female He created them.” When a child is born, one of the first things observed is the gender. God made laws about sexuality and marriage in order to foster the best development of emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically whole people. That includes gender identity. Would you believe that modern man has come up with the bizarre idea that there are more than two genders? Freedom starts with healthy and whole individuals. We are foolish to come up with our own version of how to produce such individuals in contrast to the version that God so clearly displays to us. Upholding, even via force of the law of the land, the institution that is most responsible to produce healthy, productive and free male and female individuals is in the best interest of the happiness of all mankind and the fulfillment of mankind’s destiny to rule and manage planet earth.
In my first couple of paragraphs, I’m arguing with your assertion that “” “same-sex” marriage and parental rights for “same-sex” partners is not “neutral” towards Christianity”"”. I believe that it is completely neutral toward Christianity. As a Christian – do you tolerate people who are not Christians? Do you believe that you have the right to force your neighbor to be a Christian? To go to your church? Jews celebrate Passover, and that doesn’t bother you. Muslims celebrate Ramadan, and that doesn’t bother you. If secularists or Unitarian Christians wish to celebrate a same sex wedding, how would that affect you? I posit that it would not – and if it has no effect on Christians then it is “Neutral towards Christianity” by definition.
Again Casper, allowing someone to worship God according to their own conscience does not threaten the very foundation of human society. Allowing a group of people identifying themselves according to a chosen behavior to force the rest of us to recognize them as “married” and allow them to raise children and display a confusing and false definition of marriage to an already confused future generation would be foolish.
But your real goal is: “”"(what) I want to protect children from is non-biological, non-adoptive parents having legal parental rights towards them.”"”. Ok, if that’s the goal, and it’s not about the gay thing at all, then I look forward to your upcoming series on the disestablishment of the foster care system.
Are you saying that foster parents can show up after children are restored to their biological parents or are legally adopted and assert parental rights to decide the upbringing of the child? I haven’t heard that one before. If they can, we need to change that.
“”"It is simple Casper. Either you believe God appointed marriage in the Garden as written in the book of Genesis, or you do not. Either you believe God knew what He was doing or you don’t. His testimony is more valuable to me than your testimony”"” (Well I certainly can’t argue with your taste in mentors
). — Amen. 
What I believe about God and Marriage and the Garden are irrelevant to the topic, because we’re not talking about philosophy or Theology here, we’re talking about civil law. So you wish to base the civil laws on YOUR interpretation of scripture? My question is – why should YOUR point of view as a conservative evangelical Christian be the only one that matters? Why should others be cast aside? Is this just because you sincerely believe that you are right? Lots of people sincerely believe that they are right.
Of course, “sincerely believing that [whoever] is right” is not sufficient cause to pass civil laws. Having said that, I don’t accept that God’s Ways are not relevant to the making of civil law. Why would we not strive to discover the heart and mind of the Creator of all Mankind in the forming of our government? Many of those who came to America in the beginning did just that. English Common Law was based on and influenced by Christianity to a great extent. God gave Moses a civil law (as well as laws of worship) to Israel. While we are not bound to obey a list of laws in order to be reconciled to God, wouldn’t we be foolish to ignore the input of the only authoritative written text we have as a human race on the Mind of our Creator? The foundations of our government are not neutral to all religions. They very much favor Christianity. Deliberate efforts were made to prevent the government from establishing “religion” in the sense of taking away the rights of individuals and groups to worship and believe according to their own consciences; however, the more I am reading the more I can see that the intent of our Constitutions and Laws in the U.S.A. was not to remove Christian Ideas from Civil Government.
I know a Christian Unitarian minister who would happily marry two women or two men. Would you tell her that she’s not really a minister? Not really a Christian? Who are you to say so – to a beautiful human being who has loved and ministered to a flock for 40 years? She believes that God is filled with endless love, and understanding and forgiveness and acceptance – and if 2 women came to her and asked her to join them then she would, or would at least wish that she could. If you disagree then that’s your right, but it doesn’t necessarily make her wrong. And I guess I won’t see you at her church this Sunday.
It is not “love” to encourage people in ruining their lives. It is not “love” to redefine marriage outside of God’s intent. God does not accept things that we do to destroy ourselves. In fact, the Bible is filled with His Wrath against such things.
Your last paragraph states that you wish to be the judge of others, you wish to pass “restrictions on behavior” based on your interpretation of the Bible. Good luck with that. Personally I cannot do that, because I have something in my eye. I’ve read the book end to end several times, a couple of different translations, and I still don’t understand it well enough to trust my interpretation to tell other people how to live their lives.
I am sure that you thoroughly believe what you are saying, but it is a very clever deception to confuse the matter by making it sound like I am personally trying to impose my beliefs on others. Every single time we make a law we are deciding to impose some set of beliefs on others. “Thou shalt not speed.” “Thou shalt pay your taxes (on time).” “Thou shalt not murder.” “Do not torture or mistreat people just because they are your enemy.” “Don’t force someone to have sex if they don’t want to.” “Don’t persuade someone to have sex who is to young to make an adult decision.” “Don’t take somebody else’s stuff without their permission.” “Don’t hit people.” “Don’t keep people who need to sleep and work in the morning up all night with incessant noise and racket.” Etc., etc., etc., etc. The questions is, on what principles will we base our laws and from what sources will we seek wisdom as we form our institutions?
well i look like a giant doof. haha. guess i’ll have to brush up on my reading skills- somewhere along the lines, i had mistakenly read that the verdict was NO custody. no wonder you were raising an eyebrow my direction.
this has been an interesting case to follow- thanks for posting it.
“”"It is not “love” to encourage people in ruining their lives. It is not “love” to redefine marriage outside of God’s intent. God does not accept things that we do to destroy ourselves. In fact, the Bible is filled with His Wrath against such things.”"”
I know 2 guys who have been a happy couple for over 40 years, and I’ll tell them what you said. They’ll howl…
Ok, I quit. You’ll never budge, not even a little. Fun to argue though
However,,, Mark my words, like our progressive friends the dutch, we will someday have same sex marriage – and most people will look at the old days when only heteros could marry pretty much the way we look back on Jim Crow laws today – and you’ll swear that things are awful awful awful,,, But they’ll be fine. They usually are.
C