Skip to main content

Homosexuality & the Rights of Children

'Regarding the rights of children: they undoubtedly will be involved in the question at hand, given that the men and women with homosexual tendencies will no doubt seek to adopt children.
It seems to me that the right of the child to a father or mother is absolutely being ignored in our society. I submit that the greatest discrimination in our day and age is against the most vulnerable who have no say and are not able to argue for themselves for the need and importance of both father and mother. The need for two parents, one of each gender, is an unwritten need of the child, but one which in justice cannot be ignored.
Our current trajectory to deny the child his right to a father and a mother from the moment of birth should come as no surprise. For more than 40 years, America has denied the child in the womb his right to protection against bodily harm (caused by abortion), owed to him as a scientifically verifiable member of the human species.  The same legal system that has condoned this now contemplates denying some of those that are allowed to be born a father and a mother. Having eliminated the first fundamental right, through abortion, in positive law, they continue down that path, logically consistent and undeterred.
It is, indeed, nothing  surprising  that, after U.S. law and its citizens have allowed the child in the womb to be massively exterminated in the most brutal fashion, the nation is proceeding to claim (as Bill O'Reilly now seems to be doing), that depriving children of a father and mother is also reasonable, or irrelevant. Indeed, if you grant that depriving him of the right to life is also acceptable.
But children have this ius (debt in justice) from us all: a mother and a father. Most can see the moral, social, and economic consequences of the lack of a father or a mother in the home. No one likes this. The family is breaking up and we are reaping the bitter fruit of these breakdowns in society. To now legislate for the institutionalized denial of a father and mother from birth, is to enshrine in law, that which from the outset is prejudicial and gravely disadvantageous to children. To deny a father and a mother to some children by law would be to institutionalize a situation we are in fact trying to correct in our society. For law to positively make this situation into an institution, are to deliver an unjust verdict on the fate of many children, from the get go. Fairness to all children should not be trampled so trivially.
Not to foresee the consequences of denying a child a father and mother is obtuse. It is not a question of having two adults in a family; it is a question of having a father (male) and a mother (female). To not see the difference is to deny that gender per se exists, since the implicit claim is that gender makes no difference. Indeed, good nuns can raise children, but as even Mother Teresa always stated, their love and care cannot replace the father and the mother. Mr. O'Reilly claims to love common sense, and I hope he can see this much. Why would you normalize in law, something that is so hindering child development in our society--namely the absence of a father and a mother? I argue that to set in law the possibility for this to be the fate of a child from birth is clearly a violation of justice against that child.
The innovators of society wish to deprive the child without an argument, of something most of us had and are grateful for, the just right to a father and a mother. This is the real discrimination of our days. Nothing in our empirical data or experience should lead anyone to believe that this absence will be a good for the child.
Furthermore, there are other problems one can easily foresee. Given that men and women in same sex arrangements would seek to have children who are at least partly genetically theirs, we can expect the continued and increased production of babies in laboratories, the destruction of embryos, and the freezing of other members of our species.  Trivialities as well, Bill?'

Comments

Deepali Chandra said…
Verdit on unheard vulnerable voice is never come as this world is governed by law, people make law,few people in power make law and rest have to follow. The few poweful aren't differnt because they never want to get the rightful thing to happen. Why? Simply because they favor the phenomeon of homosexuality. And but the truth regarding lab in this way its never been sympathetic to living being in the lab. some livig being has to go thrugh scientific cruiality to be soothing balm for others.

Popular posts from this blog

Situational Involvement of Consumers

There are two types of involvement that consumers have with products and services, Situational and Enduring. Situational involvement as the term suggests, occurs only in specificsituations whereas Enduring involvement is continuous and is more permanent in nature.

Decisions to buy umbrellas in India are driven by the onset of Indian monsoon. Monsoon rains arrived in India over the South Andaman Sea on May 10 and over the Kerala coast on May 28, three days ahead of schedule. But then, after a few days of rain, South India is witnessing a spate of dry weather. Temperatures are soaring in the north of India. The Umbrella companies in the state of Kerala are wishing for the skies to open up. So is the farming community and manufacturers of rural consumer products whose product sales depend totally on the farming community. The Met. department has deemed this dry spell as 'not unusual'.

India's monsoon rains have been static over the southern coast since last Tuesday because of a…

Prior Hypothesis Bias

Prior Hypothesis bias refers to the fact that decision makers who have strong prior beliefs about the relationship between two variables tend to make decisions on the basis of those beliefs, even when presented with the evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Moreover, they tend to use and seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts these beliefs.

From a strategic perspective, a CEO who has a strong prior belief that a certain strategy makes sense might continue to pursue that strategy, despite evidence that it is inappropriate or failing.


Ref : Strategic Management : An Integrated Approach, 6e, Charles W L Hill, Gareth R Jones

Wearing Cuba means Walking Cuba

There's something ethereal about wearing 'Cuba'. Suddenly its the streets of Havana, smoke filled and lit by the groovin', more than the lights. The bars are packed to hilt and dreamy women seem to glide by. The feeling's beyond magical.

How did I get there?

Before I explain, I gotta tell you about the power of brands to take you places. Brands bring with them an ability to prompt you to conjure up the unreal. They can transform your reality into fantasy. And consumers are more than willing partners to brands as the drudgery they face in everyday life begs an injection of fantasy. Brands that operate in a zone of the unreal do the conjuring act as there's nothing else that consumers can call for, while making judgements. For instance, what should I be judging the lip paint on? Its colour and tone or its ability to turn me into a diva?

Cuba's a perfume. The moment I wear it, I am traipsing the streets of Havana. Its smoke filled bars I see. Its music I hear and…