Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay pride is a themed parade about deviant sex acts on public display. That's what they're proud of.

Silhouette can't stop fantasizing about 'deviant sex acts on public display'- she can't stop herself.

I have to wonder about what kind of sex he (or she gets) Probably little to nothing. So uptight !! Almost feel sorry, but no, not really.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The central theme of the racy Mardi Gras parades isn't deviant sex. It's Fat Tuesday. It's more daring participants taking the lead from pride parades un arrested lewd acts should be arrested.

Gay pride is a themed parade about deviant sex acts on public display. That's what they're proud of.

How many Gay Pride Parades have you attended?

And why??

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Here's the latest LGBT lawsuit trying to use a handful of lawyers in the judicial branch of government to legislate social policy with huge ramifications for 300 million people: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

2. We know from hundreds if not thousands of studies on child sexual predators that they embrace deviant sexuality, and that they prey on children mainly from broken homes (more vulnerable):
Grooming: How Child Molesters Create Willing Victims | NAASCA.org - National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Abuse

1. Identifying the possible victim
Children make ideal victims. They are naturally curious, easily led by adults, need lots of attention and affection, and are seeking to establish independence from their parents. Children from broken homes and troubled families are easy targets. The more unlovable the child feels and appears, the less likely the child is to tell on someone who displays love and the less likely anyone is to believe the child if the child ever tells. A child recently caught stealing or lying makes a particularly appealing victim.

3. No gay or lesbian person I know of has ever spoken out publicly about their well-known "pride" parades in public in front of children. So it kind of makes you wonder what they won't speak out about in private either:
(One of the much tamer photos you can google online Get it? "Public Parking"...)

4. To give the benefit of the doubt to the LGBT members: We hear a lot about "loving gay couples" adopting hard-to-place children. A noble act. This family may be just that. But I sure hope they don't plan on taking those kids to a "pride parade". Beyond that even, I hope (and challenge) either one of these men to come out publicly as well to vocally oppose any parent bringing their child to an LGBT "pride" parade". Gentlemen?
The Gay Couple Who Have Opened Their Home (And Hearts) To Special-Needs Kids

The question is, do you support gay or lesbians couples adopting children that are from broken homes, society's rejects or otherwise "unlovable" by many standards? Answer the poll.

Dear Silhouette
it depends on each situation, and whether each child is carefully matched to a parent or home best fulfilling healthy mutual relations.

In some cases, if parents are NOT suitable, it doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual, it just isn't right for those people and that child.

In other cases, it may still be the right match for those individuals.

For example the case of the young man whose photo went viral
after hugging a police officer at a Ferguson protest in Oregon,
this young man came from a troubled background and was
raised in a healing, healthy environment with two mothers:
Story behind the hug between cop, boy at Ferguson rally - CNN
An Adopted Boy Who Survived Abuse Has Touched the Nation With a Hug | LifeNews.com

I see it as spiritual chemistry. This is so sensitive, like choosing marriage partners, that counseling should be involved that works to heal people so there are no abusive situations or conditions that children are otherwise exposed to. If people cannot agree on beliefs about LGBT marriage and couples, I suggest that taxpayers be allowed to separate social benefits in order to fund the policies they believe in. If people in a state can agree on policy, then all taxes and benefits can be managed under one pool; but for those who disagree, and cannot resolve their matters of faith and belief, this should be separated from the state/public policy and allowed to operate independently such as through private religious organizations. One way people might agree, is that if marriages are going to invite and include all types of relationships, perhaps the citizens of that state could agree to make spiritual healing counseling and screening required to obtain a marriage license. This would apply to all couples applying for marriage or for adoption, in order to screen out any abusive conditions or disorders that are unhealthy and pose risk to safety and which require counseling to resolve to prevent risk of abuse to any person.

 

[Silhouette]

Straight out of the chute (syllabus of Obergefell) we find a fundamental problem Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage

Now some would argue, as I do, that the "character of marriage" and "the transcendental purposes of marriage" are the raising of children to fill the state's citizenry of the future. Saying there is "no difference between same and opposite sex couples" is ABSURD from the point of view of children who need both mother and father for girls' and boys' best psychological development.

"No difference"? Really? So a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father? For fuck's sake...

 

[rightwinger]

Straight out of the chute (syllabus of Obergefell) we find a fundamental problem Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage

Now some would argue, as I do, that the "character of marriage" and "the transcendental purposes of marriage" are the raising of children to fill the state's citizenry of the future. Saying there is "no difference between same and opposite sex couples" is ABSURD from the point of view of children who need both mother and father for girls' and boys' best psychological development.

"No difference"? Really? So a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father? For fuck's sake...

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

 

[Silhouette]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me. Here's what Obergefell said about children and marriage contracts:
They said they were intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage in general. In fact children were given an entire subsection of the marriage discussion as the "third" area of importance in their list of important ideas intrinsic to marriage contracts. Here, let's look again: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

They go further to tie in children HARD to the marriage contract parameters here where they basically say "marriage is for children's best interests":

__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

So how does a contract that banishes a boy from a father or a girl from a mother for life "afford ....children's best interests"? Are either mothers or fathers "unimportant" staples in a girl or boy's life? Where is that in case law? Do you have a link?

You aren't required to have children in order to marry, but you are required to provide the best framework in the statistical likelihood they come into your home. "Gay marriage" is the anti-framework of fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

 

[Skylar]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me.

Nope. The court explicitly contradicted you. Twice.

First in your assumption that procreation MUST be a condition of the right to marry:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate. Obergefell V. Hodges (2015)

And poof. Your entire series of assumptions collapses. You must literally ignore an explicit contradiction of your beliefs by the Supreme Court.

Second, when the court found that bans on same sex marriage harm children:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. Obergefell V. Hodges (2015)

You ignore the explicit findings of the court that your position harms children. And then laughably insist that because you ignore it, it doesn't apply.

Again, procreation can be -A- basis of marriage. Along with 3 other possible bases recognized by the courts. You've embraced logical fallacies with both arms, concluding that procreation MUST be the ONLY basis of marriage.

Which, of course, is blithering nonsense. No such mandate exists. You lose again.

 

[Syriusly]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me. Here's what Obergefell said about children and marriage contracts:
They said they were intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage in general. In fact children were given an entire subsection of the marriage discussion as the "third" area of importance in their list of important ideas intrinsic to marriage contracts. Here, let's look again: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

They go further to tie in children HARD to the marriage contract parameters here where they basically say "marriage is for children's best interests":

__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

s.

Thank you for providing additional quotes which highlight how denying marriage to gay couples harms their children.

 

[Silhouette]

(One of the much tamer photos you can google online Get it? "Public Parking"...)

Hope adoptive "gay parents" that use a contract to deprive boys of a father or girls of a mother for life won't be taking these kids to any gay "pride" parades. Tip: don't put that intent of "pride" on your adoption application...

 

[bodecea]

I have not been to a single gay pride parade & never will. However, they are infamous. And one need only use Google to see proof of their infamy.

Syriusly, do. you denounce these parades we find evidence of on Google?

I've been to many gay pride parades....they are mostly service groups, churches, military, politicians, sports clubs, even the boy scouts. The most racy parts are if a bar had a float but that's getting fewer and fewer of those.

 

[bodecea]

The OP doesn’t want kids to have homes. Sick.

Sad thing is....1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18....many by HETERO family members and friends.....and Alabama politicians.

 

[bodecea]

There are no unwanted kids. Waiting periods for adoption are in the length of years.

Only for infants....cute white infants with no health issues....

 

[Silhouette]

Sad thing is that "gay marrieds" possess a contract which upon its face guarantees the adoption agency of a real psychological deprivation for life: the promised absence of a father or promised absence of a mother. I wouldn't let a boy go into a home that promises no father. Nor a girl that promises no mother. Have the courts officially declared fathers and mothers as psychologically unnecessary yet? I'd like to see that link?

 

[bodecea]

As long as people publicly try to dehumanize them and take their rights without consequence, they’ll hold parades demonstrating they’re proud to fight for their right to exist.

Then why are deviant sex acts and sexuality in public the center feature of those "parades of pride"? They're telling the public "we are proud of extroverted acts of deviant sex in public". That is the name and the core context of these parades. That's problematic to their cause. Will you come out to denounce the central theme and displays of these parades or not?

They are not the center feature.....you admit to never having come to watch a Pride parade.....you just lie and lie and lie about something you've never been to.

 

[Syriusly]

(One of the much tamer photos you can google online Get it? "Public Parking"...)

Hope adoptive "gay parents" that use a contract to deprive boys of a father or girls of a mother for life won't be taking these kids to any gay "pride" parades. Tip: don't put that intent of "pride" on your adoption application...

Silhouette has been doing more of her "Parade Porn' surfing- and weirdly seems to be fishing for people to surf for porn with her.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't care what other people do....

It is none of my business what they wish to do in their own homes.

 

[Syriusly]

Sad thing is that "gay marrieds" possess a contract

That you constantly lie about. That is the sad thing.

 

[bodecea]

Another false premise of a thread, if the kids are unwanted then why do homosexuals want them, and fight other people for them?????

Actually, that's the entire point of the thread. Meditate Grasshopper...

You meant to discuss a false premise thus you based a thread on something that is false??????????????

Hint: they really want to get at unwanted/unloved kids to bring home. Read the whole OP's points taken together, not separated out of context as you would have them be. The circumstantial evidence (exposure to pride parades lewd sexual acts) taken with their zeal to get at unloved kids (read the stats on child predators and who they target specifically) makes for VERY shaky ground on which LGBTs stand to protest their being denied adoption of the very type of children that need the most rigorous screening of all (considering the points on who child predators zero in on).

You realize you are accusing me of everything you are accusing other gay parents of.

 

[Skylar]

Sad thing is that "gay marrieds" possess a contract which upon its face guarantees the adoption agency of a real psychological deprivation for life: the promised absence of a father or promised absence of a mother. I wouldn't let a boy go into a home that promises no father. Nor a girl that promises no mother. Have the courts officially declared fathers and mothers as psychologically unnecessary yet? I'd like to see that link?

The courts have declared that bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliate children:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. Obergefell V. Hodges (2015)

And your response to this explicit obliteration of your entire argument is to.......

...pretend it doesn't exist. Alas, pretending this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't exist that's not a legal argument, Sil.

You lose again.

 

[rightwinger]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me. Here's what Obergefell said about children and marriage contracts:
They said they were intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage in general. In fact children were given an entire subsection of the marriage discussion as the "third" area of importance in their list of important ideas intrinsic to marriage contracts. Here, let's look again: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

They go further to tie in children HARD to the marriage contract parameters here where they basically say "marriage is for children's best interests":

__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

So how does a contract that banishes a boy from a father or a girl from a mother for life "afford ....children's best interests"? Are either mothers or fathers "unimportant" staples in a girl or boy's life? Where is that in case law? Do you have a link?

You aren't required to have children in order to marry, but you are required to provide the best framework in the statistical likelihood they come into your home. "Gay marriage" is the anti-framework of fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

Exactly why gays were permitted to marry

The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384