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

[Silhouette]

...the banner of pride...The parade is not designed to display sexual behaviors- no matter how much you lie about it.

The parade is a celebration of people who are gay-

Pardon me but "gay" is the term for homosexual: those attracted sexually to the same gender (while also displaying repressed heterosexual urges such as dykes using dildos and men seeking each other's lower end for a hole..). That is an identity born purely from and nowhere else from sexual behaviors. So the parades are about and do in fact notoriously display public sexual behaviors...where children are anticipated to attend and see the pretty colored floats...and what's going on atop them...

 

[Silhouette]

You seem to remember all sorts of things the voices in your head say.

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

Why were you and your gang speaking out against polygamists marrying or adopting unwanted kids? Oh, that's right, y'all said it was because their behaviors and lifestyles were not suitable to child raising...

 

[Syriusly]

...the banner of pride...The parade is not designed to display sexual behaviors- no matter how much you lie about it.

The parade is a celebration of people who are gay-

Pardon me but "gay" is the term for homosexual: those attracted sexually to the same gender...... That is an identity born purely from and nowhere else from sexual behaviors. .

Nope- it is the identity of people attracted to the same gender.

Next.

 

[Syriusly]

You seem to remember all sorts of things the voices in your head say.

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

Why were you and your gang speaking out against polygamists marrying or adopting unwanted kids? Oh, that's right, y'all said it was because their behaviors and lifestyles were not suitable to child raising...

Feel free to find that quote from me- oh wait you are lying again

And again- Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

 

[Silhouette]

And again- Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

So do you or do you not believe that polygamists should be able to legally marry and adopt unwanted kids? They like lots and lots of kids and have plenty more adults to mind them and watch them. So they'd be the first pick of deviant minority lifestyles now with "new rights and class status" for the courts to approve....to ease the burden on orphanages for those unwanted kids.

Or is it your contention that only some privileged minority deviant lifestyles have special status to ignore majority regulation, while others are denied those same bennies? I take it that you understand the intent of the 14th Amendment in equal application of law?

 

[Syriusly]

And again- Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

So do you or do you not believe that polygamists should be able to legally marry and adopt unwanted kids?

Why is it you are unwilling to answer the question?

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

You know- the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents facing years without any family- perhaps to be aged out of the system without any family to love and support them.

Why is it you are unwilling to answer that basic question?

 

[Silhouette]

Why is it you are unwilling to answer that basic question?

More importantly, I notice you are VERY unwilling to answer the question about polygamists marrying and adopting unwanted kids. Now why is that Syriusly? Could it be that the courts wouldn't support their behaviors and lifestyles as marrying or being able to adopt unwanted kids? Why can the courts object to polygamy behaviors and lifestyles but not object to homosexual behaviors and lifestyles under the same legal questions???

(Hint: they can't. The 14th Amendment doesn't allow them to)

 

[Silhouette]

Sure we do. States create marriage rules for First Cousins (the few exceptions). States happily allow 80 year olds to marry- fully knowing that they will never produce children. One state tried to ban parents who owed child support from marrying(the few exceptions) but the Supreme Court told them no.

Again- there is no obligation to have children in marriage- none at all.

No obligation, sure. But statistical expectation, yes. Otherwise states would have no reason to incentivize marriage. Marriage isn't a compulsion to have children, it is a situation wherein the state has decided would be best for any children to arrive into. Hence the benefits they extend.

Meanwhile "gay marriage" remains anti-marriage in that it promises to default the states' terms and banish children for life from either a mother or father. So not only is it an illegal contract re: the Infancy Doctrine which protects psychological necessities to children, it also is in breach within the states it was created. Massive breach.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it you are unwilling to answer that basic question?

More importantly,to)

More importantly-

Why is it you are unwilling to answer the question?

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

You know- the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents facing years without any family- perhaps to be aged out of the system without any family to love and support them.

Why is it you are unwilling to answer that basic question?

 

[Syriusly]

Sure we do. States create marriage rules for First Cousins (the few exceptions). States happily allow 80 year olds to marry- fully knowing that they will never produce children. One state tried to ban parents who owed child support from marrying(the few exceptions) but the Supreme Court told them no.

Again- there is no obligation to have children in marriage- none at all.

No obligation, sure. But statistical expectation, yes. .

There is no statistical expectation that an 80 year old bride is going to have any children.

States have no expectation that marriage will result in children. States create marriage rules for First Cousins (the few exceptions). States happily allow 80 year olds to marry- fully knowing that they will never produce children. One state tried to ban parents who owed child support from marrying(the few exceptions) but the Supreme Court told them no.

Again- there is no obligation to have children in marriage- none at all

 

[Syriusly]

So not only is it an illegal contract re: the Infancy Doctrine which protects psychological necessities to children

There are no 'illegal contracts' re: the Infancy Doctrine- you are lying.

And if there was a psychological necessity to children under the Infancy Doctrine- that would mean that children would be obligated to pay for those psychological necessities.

Why do you want to force kids to pay for their psychological well being?

 

[Meathead]

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.

It is the welfare of the child that is tantamount. If, in the local community, there are no negative repercussions on the child, why not? If the child can be negatively affected, socially or otherwise, then no.

 

[Silhouette]

It is the welfare of the child that is tantamount. If, in the local community, there are no negative repercussions on the child, why not? If the child can be negatively affected, socially or otherwise, then no.

You quoted the OP so I presume you've read it and seen the pictures? It makes me wonder how you could read it and say if "there are no negative repercussions on the child, why not?" You think dragging kids to "pride" parades where men dry hump each other's assholes in front of kids is "no negative repercussions?"

Tip: I wouldn't put that on any adoption application.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The hate against LGBTQ and unwanted children continues from the far right.

Nothing says hatred against the most vulnerable of children, than putting them in the custody of immoral sexual deviants. The motive is obvious, handing over to predators the easiest of prey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the worst immoral sexual deviants are found among the heterosexual far right, Bob, as you well know.

 

[elektra]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, elketra is back.

 

[Silhouette]

Some of the worst immoral sexual deviants are found among the heterosexual far right, Bob, as you well know.

Sexual predators are mostly concentrated in the gay population. The propensity of gay men to molest boys is insanely outproportioned. Making that worse, they have now come out in "pride" on their deviant sex choices. And they're making these behaviors "binding in law" that others, including Christians, are being forced under duress to respect.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61074-4/references

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual
pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),
or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)......The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other

^^ Just since the onset of Dumont v Lyon all access to the Mayo Clinic's 2007 special article on pedophilia in full text has been banned. You're only shunted to the abstract and have to pay for the full article, which still exits in full text.

 

[Silhouette]

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...

 

[elektra]

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??????????????