Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Why Are The Interests Of The Child Secondary To Some "arrangement"?
58 Answers
http://
Surely a child is better off with it's mother.
Surely a child is better off with it's mother.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
YMB //Oh dear, you have wound up the right-on brigade here TTT.
Dont you know you are not allowed an opinion that differs from them? //
Not sure where that's come from YMB.
I for one am frequently accused of being a right-on lentil-steamer, and I am perfectly happy to agree to differ with TTT on this, or indeed any other subject - there is not sign of anyone being 'wound up' that I can see.
Dont you know you are not allowed an opinion that differs from them? //
Not sure where that's come from YMB.
I for one am frequently accused of being a right-on lentil-steamer, and I am perfectly happy to agree to differ with TTT on this, or indeed any other subject - there is not sign of anyone being 'wound up' that I can see.
ToraToraTora
/// This is a perfect example of what we are talking about on another thread. I dare to differ from the trendy right on view, therefore I must be beaten into submission! ///
You have got it in one there TTT, had the discussion been about a straight father being better at bringing up a child than the mother, you would have had all the female ABers tearing you to smithereens.
But this involves homosexuality so all other views go out the window and the trendy 'right-on' views come to the forefront.
/// This is a perfect example of what we are talking about on another thread. I dare to differ from the trendy right on view, therefore I must be beaten into submission! ///
You have got it in one there TTT, had the discussion been about a straight father being better at bringing up a child than the mother, you would have had all the female ABers tearing you to smithereens.
But this involves homosexuality so all other views go out the window and the trendy 'right-on' views come to the forefront.
AOG - //ToraToraTora
/// This is a perfect example of what we are talking about on another thread. I dare to differ from the trendy right on view, therefore I must be beaten into submission!
You have got it in one there TTT, had the discussion been about a straight father being better at bringing up a child than the mother, you would have had all the female ABers tearing you to smithereens. //
Far be it from me to pre-empt any response from the ladies in our community, but the argument put forward unanimously by the ladies who have responded is that it is the interests of the child that are paramount here, not taking some sort of perverse 'women's lib' position to defend the mother at all costs.
Without exception, none of the ladies who have posted have tried to defend the mother in this circumstance - because they agree with the court that in this case, the mother is not the appropriate parent for the child being discussed.
// But this involves homosexuality so all other views go out the window and the trendy 'right-on' views come to the forefront. //
That only applies if you are determined to bend the discussion to the aspect of orientation, rather than suitability of the couple involved - which clearly you are, and so is Tora.
In that case, you need to acknowledge that it is your personal predjudices that are colouring your view of the situation, rather than seeing - as the court has done - that the suitability of parenting trumps sexual orientation any day - because that is what supports the needs of the child.
/// This is a perfect example of what we are talking about on another thread. I dare to differ from the trendy right on view, therefore I must be beaten into submission!
You have got it in one there TTT, had the discussion been about a straight father being better at bringing up a child than the mother, you would have had all the female ABers tearing you to smithereens. //
Far be it from me to pre-empt any response from the ladies in our community, but the argument put forward unanimously by the ladies who have responded is that it is the interests of the child that are paramount here, not taking some sort of perverse 'women's lib' position to defend the mother at all costs.
Without exception, none of the ladies who have posted have tried to defend the mother in this circumstance - because they agree with the court that in this case, the mother is not the appropriate parent for the child being discussed.
// But this involves homosexuality so all other views go out the window and the trendy 'right-on' views come to the forefront. //
That only applies if you are determined to bend the discussion to the aspect of orientation, rather than suitability of the couple involved - which clearly you are, and so is Tora.
In that case, you need to acknowledge that it is your personal predjudices that are colouring your view of the situation, rather than seeing - as the court has done - that the suitability of parenting trumps sexual orientation any day - because that is what supports the needs of the child.
andres - //Whatever 'arrangement 'had been agreed it seems a bit harsh to drag a child away from her mother after twelve months. Goodness knows what the baby is feeling let alone the mother. Unless there was evidence of cruelty or neglect I don't think the baby should have been given to the same sex couple //
I think the court would only ever take a child away from his or her mother if they felt it was not in the child's best interests to stay there, and I am equally sure that these decisions are made based on a large amount of evidence, and deliberation and consultation with appropriate individuals.
It is not - as advised by a couple of posters on this thread - done in order to lurch towards a 'PC / trendy position to avoid accusations of discrimination' - the welfare of children is far too important for such predjudices to be entertained for even a moment.
I think the court would only ever take a child away from his or her mother if they felt it was not in the child's best interests to stay there, and I am equally sure that these decisions are made based on a large amount of evidence, and deliberation and consultation with appropriate individuals.
It is not - as advised by a couple of posters on this thread - done in order to lurch towards a 'PC / trendy position to avoid accusations of discrimination' - the welfare of children is far too important for such predjudices to be entertained for even a moment.
I have just returned from a days work, and haven't the time to read all the posts here but this is a very unusual case, and if the Judge has decided to award custody to the two chaps, who are we to argue ? We know nothing about this case, apart from the press reports, but the Judge has seen all the evidence....why are we arguing with the ruling ?
AOG/youngmafbog/TTT
Grow up.
For God's sake...just...grow...up!
What on earth are you talking about? 'Beaten into submission'???
What does that mean? What - people disagreeing with you?
I find it pathetic when people are unable to put up a strong argument in defence of their position and start whining like children. Honestly - this is what I see on this thread...others (of varying political persuasions) disagree with you.
It happens to me, it happens to andy_hughes and it happens to naomi24. However none of us start bleating about the unfairness of it all.
If you post on a controversial topic and you find that people disagree with you, accept that others have ideas that are different from yours and argue your case.
Honestly, you've all been on AB long enough to know how to debate without turning into eight year olds.
Grow up.
For God's sake...just...grow...up!
What on earth are you talking about? 'Beaten into submission'???
What does that mean? What - people disagreeing with you?
I find it pathetic when people are unable to put up a strong argument in defence of their position and start whining like children. Honestly - this is what I see on this thread...others (of varying political persuasions) disagree with you.
It happens to me, it happens to andy_hughes and it happens to naomi24. However none of us start bleating about the unfairness of it all.
If you post on a controversial topic and you find that people disagree with you, accept that others have ideas that are different from yours and argue your case.
Honestly, you've all been on AB long enough to know how to debate without turning into eight year olds.
mikey444 - //I have just returned from a days work, and haven't the time to read all the posts here but this is a very unusual case, and if the Judge has decided to award custody to the two chaps, who are we to argue ? We know nothing about this case, apart from the press reports, but the Judge has seen all the evidence....why are we arguing with the ruling ? //
Tora's OP offers the point that a child is better off with his or her mother.
More enlightened thinking now makes decisions based on the best situation for the child concerned - obviously all cases are individual.
In this instance, the court has ruled that a male gay couple are selected as the most appropriate parents for the child.
This has met with almost universal agreement, apart from a couple of posters who have argued that the orientation of the couple is an issue in itself, and that in turn, defending the parental couple in this case is based on an unwillingness to criticise their homosexuality, coupled with a desire to be seen as being 'right-on / liberal'.
Neither of these arguments have gained any traction whatsoever.
Tora's OP offers the point that a child is better off with his or her mother.
More enlightened thinking now makes decisions based on the best situation for the child concerned - obviously all cases are individual.
In this instance, the court has ruled that a male gay couple are selected as the most appropriate parents for the child.
This has met with almost universal agreement, apart from a couple of posters who have argued that the orientation of the couple is an issue in itself, and that in turn, defending the parental couple in this case is based on an unwillingness to criticise their homosexuality, coupled with a desire to be seen as being 'right-on / liberal'.
Neither of these arguments have gained any traction whatsoever.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?...
News18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.