This is the logical thinking of the left.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sp..._com_US_Headlines_08_11_2012&utm_medium=email

How is this for Irony...Apparently in Canada, it will mess up the childs thinking if he finds out he has a father, causing him confusion and insecurity. wtf?

A judge in this small northern Ontario town has ruled that allowing a biological father access to his 22-month-old son, who is being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner, is not in the best interests of the child because of “the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child.”

Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity, Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane said, “Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [the father’s] status as his parent might mean. All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child is too great to ignore.”

 

There is no logical thinking from the left. The logic centers in their brains did not develop.

 

Reminds me of my wife... she knows only "what she wants"... consequences be damned.

 

Amazing the amount of married guys here who are passive aggressive against their mates. Very telling.

 

Amazing that you claimed to still be dating an ex GF who dumped you two YEARS earlier. Very telling.

 

Maybe she is trying to tell you something , you should try and find out what it is.

 

This was a poorly written article, but that is because it reflects the poor thinking of the judge. The real issue is the contract between the biological father and the two mothers; the case has nothing to do with the well being of the child. Why did the judge twist insert that issue into the case when the issues stem from the contract between the parents?

 

I do no know if the correct word is passive aggressive but I understand the observation...
so what is your conclusion.

 

its what passes for legal reasoning with activist judges...

they figure out the result they want and then then throw a legal tool at the case.


For instance in the Obamacare case.

the obamateam included throw away arguments because they knew their basic arguments were unconstitutional.

Roberts knew the decision he wanted so he found the closet legal tool .. taxes... combined that with the throw away argument and cobbled together a bunch of crap for both sides.

 

its the tell tale sign of activism...
you wonder why the hell the judge hinged the case on some misapplied law.

its what passes for legal reasoning with activist judges...

they figure out the result they want and then then throw a legal tool at the case.


For instance in the Obamacare case.

the obamateam included throw away arguments because they knew their basic arguments were unconstitutional.

Roberts knew the decision he wanted so he found the closet tool... taxes even though it did not really fit.