Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Unsurprisingly, Iggy has a talent for reading only what he wants to:

All the same, this was a unique case because an adoption was being conducted under circumstances under which both of the parents were intending to share custody of the child, each, in a sense, holding on to their "share" of the custody rights.

All the same, if this were as simple as you want to pretend it is [i]the couple never would haved needed to go to court, let alone the supreme court to settle the issue.

   

Patrick, I am unable to understand why you marked the following portion in red!
This is certainly not applicable in the present case, since the child was NOT made a crown ward.

or the following:



This is certainly not applicable in the present case, since neither the children's aid society or a 'licensee' was involved.

or the following:


Again this is certainly not applicable in the present case, since neither the children's aid society or a 'licensee' was involved.

Of course, we could just dismiss your markings in red as an indication of intense mental confusion, but that would not be allowing you sufficient opportunity to display your mental prowess. So could you please tell us why you marked these portions?

   

Well, Patrick, we have three views presented by you here, which all say different things, so we are quite confused about what disturbs you in the present adoption system and what does not.

Certainly, the case went before appelate courts, and certainly no one pretends it is a simple case. But the point is that we are absolutely mystified about what exactly was your concern in this case. Just because you cut and paste a news article about a higher court case, does not mean you make much sense.

Perhaps you may like to go back to your first wordsAnd try again to tell us what exactly you really have a problem with?

   

Well, Iggy, we've determined that you aren't smart enough to understand a lot of things. However, you previously claimed that children could not be placed for adoption without the permission of both legal parents. The highlighted portions confirm they can.



Clearly, you don't read half the nonsense you post. Most of us are wise enough not to post anything that proves something we previously said wrong.

Not you though, you're somehow too "smart" for that.





Iggy, right now you need to ask yourself:

Has anyone, anywhere, in your entire life ever bought into your nonsense? Or do they just tell you you're stupid then laugh at you?

Next time it happens (as it is happening right now), believe them, and take it to heart.

A person could keep explaining what the issue of this case at hand was, but you clearly just aren't smart enough to comprehend it. I would suggest that our resident fraudulent "Harvard man" take some summer school classes, but I really am starting to think that the short bus would be more appropriate.

   

Patrick, the sections you have highlighted refer to the cases where the children are Crown Wards. This is a completely different situation, children become Crown Wards only in very extreme cases of family dysfunction.

So are you telling us that your problem is with the rights of biological parents of children who are crown wards?

   

I've made my point perfectly, clear, Iggy. Clearly, you're simply too stupid to understand.

   

I think only one point is perfectly clear, Patrick. There were two aspects of the case:

a. One was the decision of the court to allow three parents.

b. The other was the fact that the child was adopted by a lesbian couple. By allowing the continuation of the male father as legal parent, a major argument of the anti-SSM lobby was undermined. This argument was that a child needs both male and female parents!

You tried, with all your animal cunning, to define it as a problem other than an objection to SSM, but could not, because there was NO issue in the case, other than the lesbian couple.

   

Other than the fact that the law dictates that at least one of the parents must surrender their status as a legal parent in the case of an adoption? That's the issue. Unfortunately, you're both:

A.)Too stupid to understand this, and
B.)Too desparate to deflect the fact that you, yourself, are a confirmed homophobe onto someone else.

There's really no sense in spending a ton of time pressing this fact onto someone who is simply too understand the issue, and hell-bent on inventing homophobia where it does not exist.

   

Well that is a tautology, since 'adoption' means that someone is unable or unwilling to continue as a legal parent! If both parents wish to continue as legal parents, no adoption is necessitated. In the case of divorce, one parent gets custody and the other parent still continues to be the legal parent.

You seem to be wriggling and struggling to define it as if your objection was not due to the lesbian couple involved, but we can all see the elephant in the room, Patrick.

   

Our resident Ignatieff wannabe seems to be desperate to make this an issue of homophobia.

Unfortunately all he's done is demonstrate his complete and total ignorance of the law. Which is funny, because all he had to do was read the article to begin with:

On top of this, Iggy is clearly woefully uninformed about the concept of joint custody, which allows parents, in the event of divorce, to share custody of their children.

Under the conditions of joint custody parents essentially agree on what time the child will spend with each parent, and when, in the event where a court rules that custody will be shared and parents do not agree on said times, the court will arrange for the decision to be made for them.

Under conditions of joint custody, in the event of the death of one parent, custody would be left in the sole possession of the surviving parent. The spouse from the second marriage would have no legal authority to participate in decisions regarding what has essentially become their child.

This isn't an issue about homophobia, Iggy. I've said repeatedly that the law cannot treat marriages involving homosexual couples any differently that it treats marriages involving heterosexual couples. This is an issue of strengthening families.

Yet Iggy so desparately wants to make this an issue of homophobia. That's actually hilarious, coming from a known and proven homophobe.

An anti-semite too, as I recall!

   

So when you earlier gave a different portion of the news report as your real problem, you were just not telling us the truth about what bothered you?

   

Surprise, surprise: a desperation Hail Mary.

No, this is what I have always said the problem was: parents still involved with their children's lives, losing their status as legal parent of the child in case of adoption of said child by another party, be it the new spouse of a re-married divorcee, or by an individual to whom the parent was never married at all, yet still had a child with.

This is a question of strengthening families while defending parental rights, Iggy.

You're too desparate to paint your nemesis as a homophobe to recognize that. That, and just plain stupid.

   

But that is a fraudulent statement, since you have agreed (by not denying,) that the act does not deny these rights in any way, except in the case of children who are crown wards.

And the case of a Crown Ward is hardly a case of which you either evade or do not deny.

So you have no stated reason for concern which stands scrutiny and the real reason you are evasive about!

   

I keep wondering if, everytime you demonstrate that you are either as deceitful or just plain stupid as I think you are, I should take it as triumph, or weep for the possibility that you might actually reproduce, and pass your stupidity on to your children.

The "ward of the state" issue was brought up to show you that you don't know jack about adoption law. You, after all, claimed that a child could only be put up for adoption with the permission of the parents.

That was just plain wrong, as I demonstrated.

The act does strip at least one legal parent of their status as legal parent. Otherwise, this case would have never come before the supreme court.

There has been no evasiveness about anything. Do I really need to quote myself? OK. Here I go:





As always, we know how Iggy feels about open votes: he opposes them.





A person really can't be any more clear than this.

Which is why I've concluded that you really are just too stupid to understand. Really, the only reason why I continue to justify your stupidity with a response is because it's fun to watch someone who poses as an intellectual prove to us how stupid he really is.

   

A straight line to polygamy

David Warren
Citizen Special


Wednesday, January 10, 2007


My two standard themes -- the advance of Islamist fanaticism in the world, and the West's decline into decadence -- start coming together in the subject of polygamy.

We will have legalized polygamy in Canada very soon. This is thanks to a decision of the Ontario Appeals Court last week that so far no one has had the stomach to take higher -- creating, in law, three parents for one child.

But it was inevitable anyway, given the tastes and propensities of Canada's revolutionary courts, and the cliques in the law schools that are steering selected "hard cases" toward them for the express purpose of overturning the civilized norms of many centuries.

The people of Canada are entirely excluded from this power loop by judges who, as our Supreme Court chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, is happy to explain, must never be tainted by electoral politics, even to the degree of being approved by Parliament. Nor, as she has also patiently explained, must they be restricted to interpreting the law as they receive it. Nor, I would think, would she make them accountable to God (though she has yet to rule expressly on that issue). No, they are a law unto themselves.

The word for this is "oligarchy" -- where a faction, in this case of judges, rules a country and writes the laws at its own pleasure. Canada previously aspired to "democracy," in which the people wrote their own laws, through a Parliament they elected and a government they could replace. Since no one has yet proposed that Chief Justice McLachlin be impeached, I must assume there is no controversy over this, and that only I, and a few of my right-wing friends, regret the passing of democracy in Canada.

Polygamy follows "multiple parentage" as night follows day. It likewise followed from same-sex "marriage" -- for if the institution cannot be restricted to one man and one woman, how otherwise can it be restricted? At the time Paul Martin's Liberal government was rubber-stamping the decision of the same Ontario Appeals Court, to create same-sex "marriage" in Canada, we received blustering assurances that marriage would always be restricted to "two persons" -- even as the bureaucrats in Mr. Martin's own Justice Department were telling him that legal recognition for polygamous marriage was being made inevitable. Last week's "three parent" court decision simply hurries that process along.

The names of the plaintiffs in that case were suppressed by the court. I would be very curious to know who they were. Media reports have implied it was a perfectly normal new post-modern "loving" family unit, in which the child would benefit from the attention of two lesbian moms and one "natural" (i.e. sperm-donating) dad. But I will bet my pension they were in fact activists, recruited or volunteering for the cause. We'll see: for despite the incuriosity of our liberal media, the truth will out eventually. And it will be important that future generations, who inherit the social catastrophe that must follow from the destruction of the nuclear family, will be able to learn not just what was done through the courts while our generation slept, but how it was done to avoid waking us.

A civilized mind, heir to the deep "Judeo-Christian" tradition, is filled with horror at the thought of polygamy, which we associate with primitive tribes, and by extension with many other barbarous practices suppressed in Christendom centuries ago. Yet the intelligent student of social history will realize that nothing human is finally suppressed, and that the most primitive behaviour may suddenly revive, usually under some new guise of sophistry. It is why the civilized must be always vigilant -- not only against barbarians on their frontiers, but against barbarous desires arising within their own breasts.

Long ago, we realized the marriage formula "one man, one woman" must secure the hearth of our settled culture -- that no other arrangement could possibly end well. The centuries pass, and we manage to forget why we came to that conclusion, and start tinkering with it again. Civilized men and women have their own taboos -- founded in reason and historical experience -- and the one against polygamy is (or was) among the most powerful. Cross the essential taboo lines, dare others to cross, and the superstructure of any society comes down, whether that society be civilized or primitive.

The irony here is that a decadent lesbian-feminist ideology is being used to force "reforms" that create the conditions for the societal arrangements in the remoter parts of Somalia and Afghanistan. That will, given the rest of human nature, soon reduce women to chattels, while obviating the power in women to restrain the excesses of men.

Wake up, gentle reader. If you don't want polygamy in Canada, you had better start making a loud noise. For the internal enemies of our civilization have laid all the groundwork for this coup de grace.

source

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next