TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
I love it!! Never heard that before. Made my day You do know that dealing with that one is a waste of time. S/he is, well.......wackadoo.codswallop.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love it!! Never heard that before. Made my day You do know that dealing with that one is a waste of time. S/he is, well.......wackadoo.codswallop.
Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?
Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?
Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, 1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?
Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.
Well now see that's interesting. Because it tells me that you may be associated closely with the case and that the questions highlighted above is one your side doesn't want answered honestly, from a purely objective legal standpoint. Because we both know the answers are 1."Yes" & 2. "Yes".I did answer the question. No.
I won’t be contributing further to this thread.
I see we got the thread dungeoned.
Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.
I see we got the thread dungeoned.
Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.
You tried that spurious argument before complete with links to phony studies which were easily discredited. We didn’t buy it then, we won’t buy it now.
Well see the thing is that it isn't important if you buy it or not. Maybe; though to the judge in this case it is important re: the briefs of the orphans he most recently granted a motion to intervene in this case to
Too bad. Then the defendants have lost the case already and the motions are literally...going through the motions. Wonder why the defendants' attorneys are throwing the case? Are they plants from the ACLU or just incompetent?I’ve read the briefs. They’re all about how wonderful the Catholic agency is. How much they helped these children. How they continue to provide ongoing help and assistance to families who adopt special needs kids. The gays have other agencies which will help them adopt. Don’t cut their funding....Not one word about whether or not gays should adopt. Not one word.
Judges don’t go on fishing expeditions, raising issues that neither side has raised. And even if someone raised this issue in an amicus brief, the judge would toss it out because it isn’t germaine to the root case.
This case is about public funding for the Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with gay couples. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm going to answer my own question here. .
Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?
I think all of your notions about adoption are completely whackadoodle and you need to drop your obsessions about gay adoption. They’re complete and utter codswallop.
As an adopted child, I had no counsel or rights when I was adopted. I was just grateful to be shed of my biological mother and any control she could have exercised in my life.
My father died within a year of my adoption. I knew he was dying when he adopted me. I didn’t care then and even though my mother and I had a financially difficult life after his death, I wouldn’t change a thing.
Had I been returned to my biological mother, I would have been beaten and raped by the pig she was married to at the time, just like my younger sister. You would have given me back to my mother to abuse as well because she had a home with two opposite sex parents.
It is better to have parents who love you, spend time with you and treat you well than it is to have parents of both sexes. Any fertile woman can have a baby and do what she wants with it until someone reports her and the authorities step in. She can marry a creep who abuses the child. It’s her right.
But in order to adopt, you have to prove you can provide a good home for the child. If you’re married, they check that your marriage is solid, neither of you are perverts and you can you support the child both financially and emotionally. There are no such restrictions on biological parents.
Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, 1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.
Well now see that's interesting. Because it tells me that you may be associated closely with the case and that the questions highlighted above is one your side doesn't want answered honestly, from a purely objective legal standpoint. Because we both know the answers are 1."Yes" & 2. "Yes".I did answer the question. No.
I won’t be contributing further to this thread.
1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?