interesting article about a lesbian who had a child with her "partner" through artificial insemination...and she's now claiming the courts shouldn't have let her partner adopt her child (something she originally pushed the court to do).
Is the outrage she has raised among that homosexual community at all concerned with the child in this situation, or are they only irate over the fact that she seems to be pushing for something which could "set gay rights back a century"?
What seems even more interesting here is the morality of the situation. Are the people dictating to the court what should be allowed (and thusly moral), or is the court dictating to the people what is right (and thusly moral). Or are there just laws with morality floating out there somewhere in the air, sometimes being reflected in law, sometimes not?
Finally, how can those who have no moral authority outside themselves expect others to accept and adhere to the morality they prescribe when that individual, on the same grounds as the first, has established his or her own morality which conflicts with that of the first?
If everyone can determine his or her own morality, is there any absoluteness at all about morality? If there can be no absoluteness about morality, why do we even worry about the facade of maintaining it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment