Gay couple raising a child.

Let's raise a hypothetical situation. Two women are together, and they conceive child through means other than IVF (If you want a FULL list PM me). If one of them gives birth, should they be allowed keep the child, even if the government says a man and a woman are required to raise a child. Should social services take their child away regardless?

I can't concieve a justification for not allowing them to raise a child.

If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law.

That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is violated.

Even if a child lives in an orphanage until age 18, that right would be upheld/honored.

Whether or not this would be the best condition for a child's emotional and spiritual development---as opposed to allowing gay in-vitro/adoption---is a completely different issue.

Slight correction:

By allowing gay adoption/in-vitro, that child's natural right is potentially (not automatically) violated.

You are advocating positive rights, that children have a right to parents.

...which is flawed in that this cannot be guaranteed to everybody, given orphans...

I'm not suggesting that everyone must have a mother and a father, but the right to having what's natural is a natural right.

While many can/will likely argue that homosexuality is natural, etc., without something more natural (heterosexual fertilization), at least for humans, a child cannot even exist (barring cloning, which wasn't mentioned in the first post).

Removing that possibility is potentially violating that child's natural right.

Please don't extend this to legalization of natural drugs, etc., based on my "right to what's natural" comment. For the integrity of the thread, please stay on point.

Biut such a right does not exist, and by trying to achieve this positive right, you are denying them their natural right to be raised by their mother.

At 8/15/2009 1:09:16 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
If the process was legal where and when they committed to it, then they should be grandfathered into any changing law.

That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is violated.

A child has a right to be raised by loving, responsible parents. On moral grounds, bigots and hateful people should no be allowed near children. Throwing children out on the street because you don't approve of what their consenting adult parents do in their bedroom is as immoral as one can get in my book. The utimate tyranny is to invade and destroy a responsible and loving family because of bigotry.

Righteousness of the master race majority is not a true right. Heterosexuals do not deserve a superior standing just because they were born heterosexual anymore than a man deserves to be superior because he was born male or a white person deserves the special privileges our society continues to provide to white people.

Even if a child lives in an orphanage until age 18, that right would be upheld/honored.

You deny a child a right to a loving family, you mean.

Whether or not this would be the best condition for a child's emotional and spiritual development---as opposed to allowing gay in-vitro/adoption---is a completely different issue.

Children brainwashed into religion without being exposed to all and allowed to make up their own mind have their emotional and spiritual development castrated.