Gay Adult Wants vs Children's Needs: Mississippi Weighs Gay Adoption

[Silhouette]

The universe Silhouette does not constitute 'we'.

What is most important for a child's psychology? As a parent I would say having good parents or a good parent.

What is most important for a child's emotional and financial well being? Having two married parents who are dedicated to raising the children the child well.

I guarantee you that a stunning majority of people, and many gay people too, believe that a child should have both a mother and father in their daily lives. Anything represented from you to the opposite is a bold lie. Now that that matter is cleared up..

..Your opinion is thinking about the situation from the adults'-wants POV. The majority of the world in contrast is thinking of the situation from the child's POV. Now, which frame of reference is more likely to be concerned with the wellbeing of children, understanding that one of the paramount edicts of good parenting is to put aside adult wants on many occasions in order to see to a child's needs?

Well Syriusly? Which point of view would make the better parent?

 

[mdk]

A majority of people believe you so much that only one state doesn't allow gays to adopt. lol. One. That law is presently being challenged and likely will fall.

You wouldn't know the edicts of being a good parent if it was poured in your lap.

Only because that was forced upon them by a new set of "civil rights" (for behaviors). Care to have a national referendum on it? No? Didn't think so..

Gays could adopt long before they could marry. There isn't a need to have a national referendum as almost every state allows gay to adopt. Soon to be all of them.

Too bad the only thing you can do about it is make delusional threads.

 

[Silhouette]

A majority of people believe you so much that only one state doesn't allow gays to adopt. lol. One. That law is presently being challenged and likely will fall.

You wouldn't know the edicts of being a good parent if it was poured in your lap.

Only because that was forced upon them by a new set of "civil rights" (for behaviors). Care to have a national referendum on it? No? Didn't think so..

Gays could adopt long before they could marry. There isn't a need to have a national referendum as almost every state allows gay to adopt. Soon to be all of them.

Too bad the only thing you can do about it is make delusional threads.

No, SINGLES could adopt. Near as I can tell, sexual orientation wasn't questioned. In "gay marriage", it's out there. And it advertises "we are going to legally disenfranchise children for life from either a mother or father".

The point I was making, as you know, is that a national referendum on both gay marriage and gay marriage adoption would BURY you're movement. And hence the reason you gaslighted five idiots in the US Supreme Court into believing your "behaviors = race" false premise..

Yeah, You clever cats played your violin strings long and well to get that one done.. Only, a Justice is supposed to be dupe-prone. Kennedy should hang his head in shame because at least he is on the fence about stuff. That he didn't consider children as part of the marriage contract, or that his decision would render them motherless or fatherless for life as a matter of binding law...without the possibility of parole...when he himself knew a mother and father...

...What a swine.

 

[mdk]

A majority of people believe you so much that only one state doesn't allow gays to adopt. lol. One. That law is presently being challenged and likely will fall.

You wouldn't know the edicts of being a good parent if it was poured in your lap.

Only because that was forced upon them by a new set of "civil rights" (for behaviors). Care to have a national referendum on it? No? Didn't think so..

Gays could adopt long before they could marry. There isn't a need to have a national referendum as almost every state allows gay to adopt. Soon to be all of them.

Too bad the only thing you can do about it is make delusional threads.

No, SINGLES could adopt. Near as I can tell, sexual orientation wasn't questioned. In "gay marriage", it's out there. And it advertises "we are going to legally disenfranchise children for life from either a mother or father".

No, gay people could adopt long before gay marriage. This is a fact you that you'll likely disregard b/c it doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative.

 

[Silhouette]

No, gay people could adopt long before gay marriage. This is a fact you that you'll likely disregard b/c it doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative.

Show me an adoption application that asks "are you gay"? The questions are for singles about financial status and criminal records.

 

[mdk]

No, gay people could adopt long before gay marriage. This is a fact you that you'll likely disregard b/c it doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative.

Show me an adoption application that asks "are you gay"? The questions are for singles about financial status and criminal records.

Like I said earlier, you'll disregard this fact b/c it doesn't buttress your narrative. Gay people could adopt long before they could marry. You couldn't do shit about it then and you can't do shit about it now.

 

[Silhouette]

Like I said earlier, you'll disregard this fact b/c it doesn't buttress your narrative. Gay people could adopt long before they could marry. You couldn't do shit about it then and you can't do shit about it now.

1. There is no such thing as "gay people". There are only people who do gay things habitually. Their habit cannot legally define them as a class of people.

2. PEOPLE could adopt kids as singles. This has nothing to do with people doing gay things. Again, show me the adoption application that says "check this box if you do gay sex habitually"..

 

[mdk]

Like I said earlier, you'll disregard this fact b/c it doesn't buttress your narrative. Gay people could adopt long before they could marry. You couldn't do shit about it then and you can't do shit about it now.

1. There is no such thing as "gay people". There are only people who do gay things habitually. Their habit cannot legally define them as a class of people.

2. PEOPLE could adopt kids as singles. This has nothing to do with people doing gay things. Again, show me the adoption application that says "check this box if you do gay sex habitually"..

1. Nobody gives a shit if you don't believe gay people exist. They exist despite whatever delusions you crafted to coddle yourself.

2. Gay people could and did adopt children long before the could marry. The fact you don't believe they did is just another example of your delusions.

3. You're irrelevant. Gays can marry in every state and adopt in all but one. Likely soon to be all. I hope it stings that your life's work as been an utter failure.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Nobody gives a shit if you don't believe gay people exist. They exist despite whatever delusions you crafted to coddle yourself.

2. Gay people could and did adopt children long before the could marry. The fact you don't believe they did is just another example of your delusions.

3. You're irrelevant. Gays can marry in every state and adopt in all but one. Likely soon to be all. I hope it stings that your life's work as been an utter failure.

1. People exist who do gay things; on that we can agree.

2. People adopted kids as singles. To present to an adoption agent with an identifier that "one does gay stuff" by showing up with the same gender as a partner, or declaring one even HAD a partner at all, would mean the agency could not have adopted to them "as a single person". You understand the formality of adoption applications and how rigorous they are, right? No adoption application I know of (and perhaps you can post one here if you disagree) says "check this box if you are gay" or words to that effect. If an agent had written knowledge on an application that the person was oriented in behavior to act gay, they would know the possibility of the complimentary gender showing up in that child's home as "mom" or "dad" would be deprived to that child for life. And as such, it would weigh upon the agent's decision...not that the people did gay sex, but that because that's what they did, the missing mom or dad would never show up in that child's life. That would affect the decision for sure.

3. How can a person be "irrelevant"? That states are doing things that systematically deprive children of what they need (a mom and dad) doesn't mean it is right or doesn't mean it can't be reversed. Look for changes when the GOP sweeps the dems under the rug again in 2016. Times they are a-changin' The pendulum has swung as far as it's going to go in your direction.



This boy needs a father as he is brainwashed by two lesbians to hate/reject his own gender by their daily example to him:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

1. Nobody gives a shit if you don't believe gay people exist. They exist despite whatever delusions you crafted to coddle yourself.

2. Gay people could and did adopt children long before the could marry. The fact you don't believe they did is just another example of your delusions.

3. You're irrelevant. Gays can marry in every state and adopt in all but one. Likely soon to be all. I hope it stings that your life's work as been an utter failure.

1. People exist who do gay things; on that we can agree.

2. People adopted kids as singles. To present to an adoption agent with an identifier that "one does gay stuff" by showing up with the same gender as a partner, or declaring one even HAD a partner at all, would mean the agency could not have adopted to them "as a single person". You understand the formality of adoption applications and how rigorous they are, right? No adoption application I know of (and perhaps you can post one here if you disagree) says "check this box if you are gay" or words to that effect. If an agent had written knowledge on an application that the person was oriented in behavior to act gay, they would know the possibility of the complimentary gender showing up in that child's home as "mom" or "dad" would be deprived to that child for life. And as such, it would weigh upon the agent's decision...not that the people did gay sex, but that because that's what they did, the missing mom or dad would never show up in that child's life. That would affect the decision for sure.

3. How can a person be "irrelevant"? That states are doing things that systematically deprive children of what they need (a mom and dad) doesn't mean it is right or doesn't mean it can't be reversed. Look for changes when the GOP sweeps the dems under the rug again in 2016. Times they are a-changin' The pendulum has swung as far as it's going to go in your direction.



This boy needs a father as he is brainwashed by two lesbians to hate/reject his own gender by their daily example to him:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

All but one state doesn't allow gays to adopt. One. Very few are buying the smear and bullshit you peddle concerning gay families. You don't know jack shit about the vetting process concerning adoptions but since when did being ill informed on a subject stopped you from pretending otherwise? It is, rightfully so, an intrusive process. If you think these agencies do not know whether or not the person adopting is gay or straight than you are living on another world. Oh well, you still can't do shit about it. lol

 

[Silhouette]

1. Nobody gives a shit if you don't believe gay people exist. They exist despite whatever delusions you crafted to coddle yourself.

2. Gay people could and did adopt children long before the could marry. The fact you don't believe they did is just another example of your delusions.

3. You're irrelevant. Gays can marry in every state and adopt in all but one. Likely soon to be all. I hope it stings that your life's work as been an utter failure.

1. People exist who do gay things; on that we can agree.

2. People adopted kids as singles. To present to an adoption agent with an identifier that "one does gay stuff" by showing up with the same gender as a partner, or declaring one even HAD a partner at all, would mean the agency could not have adopted to them "as a single person". You understand the formality of adoption applications and how rigorous they are, right? No adoption application I know of (and perhaps you can post one here if you disagree) says "check this box if you are gay" or words to that effect. If an agent had written knowledge on an application that the person was oriented in behavior to act gay, they would know the possibility of the complimentary gender showing up in that child's home as "mom" or "dad" would be deprived to that child for life. And as such, it would weigh upon the agent's decision...not that the people did gay sex, but that because that's what they did, the missing mom or dad would never show up in that child's life. That would affect the decision for sure.

3. How can a person be "irrelevant"? That states are doing things that systematically deprive children of what they need (a mom and dad) doesn't mean it is right or doesn't mean it can't be reversed. Look for changes when the GOP sweeps the dems under the rug again in 2016. Times they are a-changin' The pendulum has swung as far as it's going to go in your direction.



This boy needs a father as he is brainwashed by two lesbians to hate/reject his own gender by their daily example to him:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

All but one state doesn't allow gays to adopt. One. Very few are buying the smear and bullshit you peddle concerning gay families. You don't know jack shit about the vetting process concerning adoptions but since when did being ill informed on a subject stopped you from pretending otherwise? It is, rightfully so, an intrusive process. If you think these agencies do not know whether or not the person adopting is gay or straight than you are living on another world. Oh well, you still can't do shit about it. lol

Again, what if all but one state allowed child-trafficking? It could, should and must be revisited and thrown out for the sake of children. Any laws enacted that strip children of a necessity by their very language, for life, cannot be tolerated. They are in direct conflict with federal CAPTA guidelines. You cannot have two laws diametrically opposed, especially when the question of child welfare is at hand and one of them seeks to deprive a child for life of something vital to them.

So, gather your Rainbow-APA audited-group-think "feelings over numbers and facts" studies ( Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )and we'll pit them up against the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey, the largest of its kind: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY in a court of law to determine which of the diametrically opposed laws should remain and which should go.

 

[mdk]

Well, that didn't take long for you to start spamming. Too funny.

Why do you cite The Prince's Trust to me when you damn well that I reject all bullshit you invented about it's finding? Did you think since last week I was gong to change my mind about your lies? Not hardly.

Keep shouting at the rain you irrelevant little cad. lol.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, that didn't take long for you to start spamming. Too funny.

Why do you cite The Prince's Trust to me when you damn well that I reject all bullshit you invented about it's finding? Did you think since last week I was gong to change my mind about your lies? Not hardly.

Keep shouting at the rain you irrelevant little cad. lol.

That's why I keep posting the link to the actual study....so that people can tell who is telling the truth and who is gaslighting a new reality that shouldn't exist. I'm in favor of people reading the study, evidenced by my exhaustive effort to resecure it and make it available to the public again online. You on the other hand aren't as anxious for people to read the actual study cover to cover. I think actions speak louder than words here.

I get it, you don't like the Prince's Trust Survey because it is the largest of its kind and it relies on statistical facts instead of politically-correct rainbow-audited group-think...like the American Psychological Association now does for it's "official publicized "findings". (It didn't always, that changed between the 1970s & 1980s by a silent policy change of which the board was not advised or consulted about).

Cue at 4:00

 

[mdk]

Well, that didn't take long for you to start spamming. Too funny.

Why do you cite The Prince's Trust to me when you damn well that I reject all bullshit you invented about it's finding? Did you think since last week I was gong to change my mind about your lies? Not hardly.

Keep shouting at the rain you irrelevant little cad. lol.

That's why I keep posting the link to the actual study....so that people can tell who is telling the truth and who is gaslighting a new reality that shouldn't exist. I'm in favor of people reading the study, evidenced by my exhaustive effort to resecure it and make it available to the public again online. You on the other hand aren't as anxious for people to read the actual study cover to cover. I think actions speak louder than words here.

I get it, you don't like the Prince's Trust Survey because it is the largest of its kind and it relies on statistical facts instead of politically-correct rainbow-audited group-think...like the American Psychological Association does.

I don't have any issue with The Prince's Trust. I have issue with you lying about it's findings in a lame attempt to smear gay families. You shouldn't be so eager for others to read it as well b/c it only makes you look even more foolish. You hope people don't read it and just accept the nonsense you claim it finds.

Why do you think you're the only person that cites this study here when it comes to gay families? Others don't cite it b/c even the anti-gay folks here know you're delusional and full of shit.

 

[mdk]

Sil is like a child that learns a new word and insists on using it at every pass. Gaslighting seems to be that word. lol

 

[Silhouette]

I don't have any issue with The Prince's Trust. I have issue with you lying about it's findings in a lame attempt to smear gay families. You shouldn't be so eager for others to read it as well b/c it only makes you look even more foolish. You hope people don't read it and just accept the nonsense you claim it finds.

Why do you think you're the only person that cites this study here when it comes to gay families? Others don't cite it b/c even the anti-gay folks here know you're delusional and full of shit.

So let me get this straight, oh spin-doctor of gaslighting. I'm posting the link to the Prince's Trust Survey because I don't want people to read it. And your not posting that link means you do want people to read it? Did I get that right?

Hey, did you cue up the youtube at 4:00 minutes to see what the former president of the APA had to say about it no longer being a scientific institution? How it has been taken over by the gay movement?

 

[mdk]

I don't have any issue with The Prince's Trust. I have issue with you lying about it's findings in a lame attempt to smear gay families. You shouldn't be so eager for others to read it as well b/c it only makes you look even more foolish. You hope people don't read it and just accept the nonsense you claim it finds.

Why do you think you're the only person that cites this study here when it comes to gay families? Others don't cite it b/c even the anti-gay folks here know you're delusional and full of shit.

So let me get this straight, oh spin-doctor of gaslighting. I'm posting the link to the Prince's Trust Survey because I don't want people to read it. And your not posting that link means you do want people to read it? Did I get that right?

Hey, did you cue up the youtube at 4:00 minutes to see what the former president of the APA had to say about it no longer being a scientific institution? How it has been taken over by the gay movement?

You are posting the link and pretending it supports your false claims about gay families. It doesn't. Why do think nobody but you cites this study when speaking about gay families? Could it be that even your own allies know you are pulling these finding squarely out of your ass? lol

And no, I really do not care about some lame video that you claim supports your conspiracy theories about gays taking over the APA. Besides, you believe gays have taken over every organization across the world doesn't buttress your narrative. Again, who are people going to find more credible? Countless credible scientific organizations all across the world? Or some delusional internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the credible scientific organizations on this one.

 

[Silhouette]

And no, I really do not care about some lame video that you claim supports your conspiracy theories about gays taking over the APA. .

The "lame video" is of a man who was heading up the APA in various executive roles for over a decade when your cult was busy taking it over and throwing out their scientific principle for public positions...without even an up or down vote from the governing board. Your cult infiltrated the ranks of the APA and then simply "disappeared" their ruling principle (google: "Leona Tyler principle" which was a principle that any official position the APA took was to be backed up by hard science and not mere group-think from a small cloister of controlling individuals...ie: a cult).

The man in the video is Mr. Cummings, that ranking officer; telling the world what your cult did to the only source judges and other officials still mistakenly cite as "the best "science" on gay issues". That's like citing Jim Jones for "the best "science" on how to make Koolaide".

 

[mdk]

And no, I really do not care about some lame video that you claim supports your conspiracy theories about gays taking over the APA. .

The "lame video" is of a man who was heading up the APA in various executive roles for over a decade when your cult was busy taking it over and throwing out their scientific principle for public positions...without even an up or down vote from the governing board. Your cult infiltrated the ranks of the APA and then simply "disappeared" their ruling principle (google: "Leona Tyler principle" which was a principle that any official position the APA took was to be backed up by hard science and not mere group-think from a small cloister of controlling individuals...ie: a cult).

The man in the video is Mr. Cummings, that ranking officer; telling the world what your cult did to the only source judges and other officials still mistakenly cite as "the best "science" on gay issues". That's like citing Jim Jones for "the best "science" on how to make Koolaide".

Yeah, yeah, every organization that doesn't support your narrative has been taken over by gays. You are the very soul of confirmation bias. lol.

Your crusade against gay people and their families as been an utter and miserable failure.

 

[Silhouette]

Not every organization oh, sleight of hander... just the APA