U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   Sickening PC Courts Expose Children To Filth! (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/sickening-pc-courts-expose-children-to-filth-198492.html)

A_Wanderer 06-23-2009 07:22 PM

Sickening PC Courts Expose Children To Filth!

Eric Duane Mongerson and Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson were married for 21 years and had four children. The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in their divorce case that the children cannot be prohibited from visitation with their now-homosexual father.

The ruling would also put the children in contact with their father's homosexual friends. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the courts historically have looked to the best interests of children.

"In this case the court, in order to somehow perpetuate and further the interest of political correctness, has taken what's in the best interest of the child and turned it on its head," he contends.

Barber says there appears to be no consideration for the fact that children are very impressionable and could be harmed from exposure to a homosexual environment.

"Obviously it is not in the best interest of a child to be taken by his father and introduced to a group of people who are engaging in abhorrent sexual behaviors, who are modeling abhorrent sexual behaviors and celebration of that [which is] demonstrably dangerous from a medical, spiritual, and emotional standpoint -- modeling those behaviors for the child," Barber adds.

The Libery Counsel attorney notes that puts the mother in the position of determining how to counsel her children.
Divorce case exposes minors to homosexual environment (OneNewsNow.com)

Having seen similar attitudes explicitly stated here, I thought this could be interesting.

deep 06-23-2009 07:45 PM

I read the article you posted and the link
I did not see any thing that supported the title of this thread.

BVS 06-23-2009 11:00 PM

I know many on here that would agree with this title...

phillyfan26 06-23-2009 11:11 PM

How many people here really believe homosexuality is filth and that kids should be protected from their father simply because he's gay? I mean, really, let's be reasonable about those debating here on FYM. I know there are plenty of disagreeable opinions here, but how many really would agree with this Liberty Counsel nut? I think very few.

BVS 06-23-2009 11:16 PM

Besides Joe the Plumber?:wink:

Actually I could show you several quotes that align with this thinking, but one I can say has actually changed his view and to that :up:

yolland 06-24-2009 04:39 AM

I suppose from a certain mindset this might get framed as being somewhat of a 'freedom of religion' issue (for the mother).

This decision was certainly a victory for gay parents, however depressingly rudimentary, and that's something to celebrate. But particularly after browsing for a bit more background as well as the text of the decision, my main reaction was, Poor kids, getting so publically caught in the middle and on top of it being used as politicized pawns against their father in this way. Frankly both parents, and especially the mother, sound like spiteful and immature people who, several years on, have never really tried to develop a functional post-divorce relationship for their children's sake.

While the Court overruled the 'no gay acquaintances' restriction--it wasn't actually the case that the father himself couldn't see the kids, rather that he couldn't 'expose' them to any gay acquaintances, whether friends or his partner--their divorce agreement apparently still contains a 'paramour clause,' a rule that neither parent shall ever have anyone s/he's romantically involved with, but not married to, spending the night while the children are in the house. These clauses are more often enforced against gay parents--who of course don't usually have the option of circumventing them by getting married.

As for the "Liberty" Counsel spokesperson, he just sounds despicable.

JanuaryStar 06-24-2009 05:27 AM

I don't see the point in the thread-title here. What that counsel spokesman said, that is to be called filth. Judging other people's sexuality like that? Where does he get the right from? Oh wait, of course he'll have some 'sources' for that, sadly... :|

phillyfan26 06-24-2009 01:23 PM


Originally Posted by JanuaryStar (Post 6203749)
I don't see the point in the thread-title here. What that counsel spokesman said, that is to be called filth. Judging other people's sexuality like that? Where does he get the right from? Oh wait, of course he'll have some 'sources' for that, sadly... :|

A_Wanderer was being sarcastic.

MrsSpringsteen 06-24-2009 01:37 PM


BoMac 06-24-2009 02:11 PM


yolland 06-24-2009 03:04 PM

^ 'I will not' what??? :scratch:

Vincent Vega 06-24-2009 03:05 PM

I must not steal at ULOC.

deep 06-24-2009 03:10 PM

Uters Land of Chocolate

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com