Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[Castiel]

We're not talking about abuse. We're talking about preference. Courts always prefer that the child lives with the natural parents.

You were talking about the preference above all else..and that is the issue...not that a court will prefer a family stay together (again, it wouldn't matter if the family was a single parent or the sexuality or gender of the parent) as that was never the point I was challenging...you would like it to be as your argument is based on that particular strawman.

This is what I will say, clearly and for the last time...

A court will or should above all put the welfare of the child above that of any relationship of the Parents. This, as RDM and others have said is the overriding factor in deterring what is best for a child.

The preference is that a child be with its biological parents. Nobody can provide any proof that this isn't the case.

And, guess what..nobody was...they were challenging that the preference is the overriding factor, when in actual fact it is the Welfare of the Child that is placed above all, not the biological nature of the relationship of parent and child...which is what you said.

The vast majority of children do live with their biological parents, even sometimes when they are horribly unfit.

Indeed they do and we see the failures of social services to address this challenged in court as well. Again, illustrating that the Welfare of the Child is put above all else and not the biological relationship of the parents to child.

I'm asking, again, for you to prove that the law, courts, etc wouldn't prefer a child be with its biological parents.

My assertion is that they would, you claim otherwise. So c'mon, let's see the proof.

Your assertion was that They would prefer above all other factors that they remain with their biological parents...and I have already shown that not to be the case, that above all the welfare of the child is their main concern...So you already have the proof, you are just trying to alter the argument to suit yourself.

What is he saying then? He said that biological parents > above all else.

Indeed he did.

That's really not what he's saying, but I agree with you nonetheless.

If you look at his original statement, he was saying that it is preferable above all other factors that a child remain with their biological mother and father. This is clearly not the case, while it is always a factor that keeping a family intact is a consoderation, it is not the factor that takes precedence over all others...that precedence is given solely to the welfare and well-being of the child.

this is his original statement Dirtychinchilla:

it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child.

He has since altered the context to omit the "above all else" which basically means he is arguing against something no one actually argued against, or would like it to appear so. All we have said is that the overriding factor is the welfare of the child, not the biological relationship with their parents, not as he would like you believe that we dispute that keeping a family together is preferable as long as it is in the best interests of the child. No-one is disputing that.

 

[Frightful Boar]

You were talking about the preference above all else..and that is the issue...not that a court will prefer a family stay together (again, it wouldn't matter if the family was a single parent or the sexuality or gender of the parent) as that was never the point I was challenging...you would like it to be as your argument is based on that particular strawman.

This is what I will say, clearly and for the last time...

A court will above all put the welfare of the child above that of any relationship of the Parents. This, as RDM and others have said is the overriding factor in deterring what is best for a child.



And, guess what..nobody was...they were challenging that the preference is the overriding factor, when in actual fact it is the Welfare of the Child that is placed above all, not the biological nature of the relationship of parent and child...which is what you said.

The vast majority of children do live with their biological parents, even sometimes when they are horribly unfit.




Your assertion was that They would prefer above all other factors that they remain with their biological parents...and I have already shown that not to be the case, that above all the welfare of the child is their main concern...So you already have the proof, you are just trying to alter the argument to suit yourself.

Haha, what a word twister. Still not proving that the courts would prefer the child live with people other than the parents.

You're just not getting my point and I think now that you've realised you've made a mistake and are just covering it up.

I don't have to qualify everything to the Nth degree to satisfy lackwits you know.

Nobody is going to say "The courts would prefer the child to live with its parents, unless they're abusive or drug addicts or incapable or any other long line of things that make them a bad parent."

When are you going to prove that the courts would prefer a child NOT live with its biological parents. My assertion is that they would, my only assertion in this discussion, and you assert I am wrong. Let's hear your proof.

EDIT: Oh you've added more. If you can't understand English you might think I said that "biological parents > above all else." but in fact I said that the preference is the biological parents. Are you able to disprove that statement which, outside of this forum it seems is perfectly normal, Tbyeah?

 

[Castiel]

Still not proving that the courts would prefer the child live with people other than the parents.

Being as no-one disputed that, the question is moot...what they did question is that the courts would put that above all other considerations, which they will not or should not.

EDIT: Oh you've added more. If you can't understand English you might think I said that "biological parents > above all else." but in fact I said that the preference is the biological parents. Are you able to disprove that statement which, outside of this forum it seems is perfectly normal, Tbyeah?

Here is what you said, in plain English:

it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child,

You clearly stated that above all other considerations it is preferable that a child remain with their father and mother. The challenge was that there are other factors that take precedence, such as the welfare of the Child.

You are the one who made the mistake and simply haven't the integrity to admit it, instead you would prefer to call others lackwits and so on to hide your own failures.

 

[tbyeah]

Your assertion was that it was preferable that they remain with their biological parents above all else. Which means that no matter the circumstances, they should stay with their biological parents. This is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[PMKeates]

I don't have anything vested in this argument.

it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child

Those words mean that a mother and father should raise their child above all other considerations, which is of course not true. What else could one construe it to mean? If you didn't mean to say that you should have chosen a different set of words.

 

[Frightful Boar]

it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child,

Yeah, that's what I said and it's true.

It is preferable that the parents be raising their child.

What you do, for self-esteem issues or something, is twist people's wording to some stuff that they don't mean.

Here's what I mean in easy to understand children's type phrasing

"When a baby is born, it's best that the baby's mummy and daddy look after it. And that's what most people like best."

There could be a billion weird factors that may mean this can't/shouldn't happen, but overall this is the preference of most people.

I don't know what you guys prefer because plainly you don't live in the real world or something.

 

[PMKeates]

Yeah, that's what I said and it's true.

It is preferable that the parents be raising their child.

but you just missed out the bit that makes your point invalid..

It may be preferable that the people raising a child are it's parents, but not 'above all else'.

 

[Frightful Boar]

Your assertion was that it was preferable that they remain with their biological parents above all else. Which means that no matter the circumstances, they should stay with their biological parents. This is demonstrably incorrect.

Nope, my assertion was that its the preference that they live with those parents. The rest of that stuff I didn't say.

Learn to read.

I don't have anything vested in this argument.Those words mean that a mother and father should raise their child above all other considerations, which is of course not true. What else could one construe it to mean? If you didn't mean to say that you should have chosen a different set of words.

No, I didn't say where I believe the child should live, I don't really give a ****. I'm saying that the courts prefer children are with their biological parents.

What's tough about that? If it's so ludicrous why can't someone show me where it says "Biological parents are only 2nd on the list, top is capable parents" or something similar.

 

[Frightful Boar]

but you just missed out the bit that makes your point invalid..

I just pulled that from Castiel's post. What are you talking about?

 

[PMKeates]

What's tough about that? If it's so ludicrous why can't someone show me where it says "Biological parents are only 2nd on the list, top is capable parents" or something similar.

It's totally the case that it's 1. Capable parents as defined by the various social services and 2. Biological parents.

If it weren't in that order, how could it ever be that children are taken away from their biological parents? Your argument is proven incorrect by the reality of what happens, which is that children are taken away from their biological parents where they are not deemed capable enough to look after them.

 

[Castiel]

Yeah, that's what I said and it's true.

It is preferable that the parents be raising their child.

But not above all other considerations...so your statement is incorrect, even if you did not mean it to be so.

I have no issue with the statement that it is preferable that children are raised by their Parents, however I do have issue with the statement that it is preferable above all else that children are raised by their parents and the reasons are that parents should not be raising their children if the welfare of that child is at risk. Therefore the welfare of the child is the preference above all else.

I have not twisted your words at all, you simply chose the wrong words if what you now mean is what you meant at the outset. Which given my initial response you should have agreed with it rather than calling it nonsense as all I stated was that the Welfare of the child is paramount rather than the biological relationship of their parents.

 

[elmarko]

Why do people feel the need to mask their prejudice under the guise of concern for children.

I mean really, it was coming from a bleeding heart softy I could almost half believe it - but as these objections come from usually the least caring & socially conscious people on the planet I can't help but be sceptical to their real intentions.

 

[PMKeates]

I mean really, it was coming from a bleeding heart softy I could almost half believe it - but as these objections come from usually the least caring & socially conscious people on the planet I can't help but be sceptical to their real intentions.

Who are they?

 

[Macro]

There could be a billion weird factors that may mean this can't/shouldn't happen, but overall this is the preference of most people..

As you're speaking on behalf of "most people" can you give us some proof or research you've conducted which has lead you to this conclusion?

 

[tbyeah]

ABOVE. ALL. ELSE.

You said this. Acknowledge it. Learn what it means. It is why your assertion is wrong.

 

[kedge]

"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

And you know where that comes from...

I fink i does aye, what about this one ...For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. Same> For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.


this too or ...Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

We could go on, but thanks for the vote of confidence in one of your previous post although i don't think i am a true Christian but if it tickles your fancy then knock yourself out chappy.

 

[kedge]

Does anyone think this story is a wind up?, i mean, bert and earnie on a cake for adults, seriously? for children yes but adults, ha ha got to see the funny side to that surely. Homophobia day and transphobia day?, can't be serious surely not? society is bonkers but i have to laugh sometimes though, lol.

 

[Tombo]

ABOVE. ALL. ELSE.

You said this. Acknowledge it. Learn what it means. It is why your assertion is wrong.

Whether or not the original statement was correct he has clarified his position, this is rather childish.

 

[elmarko]

Who are they?

The usual crowd - along with pretty much every single group you see online with similar views.

I simply don't believe their objections have anything to do with the wellbeing of adopted children & have everything to do with prejudice & bigotry.

 

[Castiel]

I fink i does aye, what about this one ...For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. Same> For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.

That just about sums you up, I agree...it seems that you do fit the person that 2 Timothy 4:3 is warning us of.

this too or ...Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

And Ephesians 5:11 describes eloquently what I and others are doing, for we are not taking part in your works and are exposing them for the errors they contain.

We could go on, but thanks for the vote of confidence in one of your previous post although i don't think i am a true Christian but if it tickles your fancy then knock yourself out chappy.

We could go on, but your scripture quotes have illustrated quite concisely and appropriately the respective relationship we have here....and I did not say you were a true Christian, just that by definition you are a Christian...whether you are a good one or not is up to others to decide.