Homosexual recruitment is working

[Syriusly]

Liberals typically have no children, or don't really love their children that much, so they don't understand what it is to be a father in today's world.
.

Blackrook once again accessing his primary source of information- pulling crap out of his ass.

Liberals typically do have children- I live in a city full of liberals having children. And as a father myself- yeah I understand what it is to be a father in today's world.

I teach my child to judge people on their words and actions- not on what color they are, or what religion they are, or how fat or skinny they are, and not on who they are attracted to. And I teach my child not to love a life in hate.

Our family is doing fine. My child is succeeding in life and is one of the best people I know.

Far, far better than Blackrook, who lives his life judgemental, bitter and hateful.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

Populations don't implode- they fail to reproduce. The primary reason populations fail to reproduce are two fold:

1. Practical contraception- because women don't like being pregnant all of the time and/or
2. Wealth- wealthy nations tend not to reproduce as much because having children is expensive.

Wow, talk about a semantic stretch! Yes, when populations FAIL TO REPRODUCE, they have an IMPLOSION OF NUMBERS, dude.
.

Except of course when they don't. In the United States our population is growing because we have immigration.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

Populations don't implode- they fail to reproduce. The primary reason populations fail to reproduce are two fold:

1. Practical contraception- because women don't like being pregnant all of the time and/or
2. Wealth- wealthy nations tend not to reproduce as much because having children is expensive.

Wow, talk about a semantic stretch! Yes, when populations FAIL TO REPRODUCE, they have an IMPLOSION OF NUMBERS, dude.

Don't blame homosexuals for us heterosexuals not having enough children- they are fighting for the right to get married and legally parent children- and adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Fags should be having children too and raising them appropriately. When you fuckers ditch out that is part of the problem.

That should be obvious.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they never recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

Examples? And please, please use Rome.

Rome did have a collapsing population in the Third Century that put it on a slippery footing downward for the next two centuries. While the civil wars,plagues and poor economic times had an impact for certain, the bottom line was Romans did not see any value to having more children and kep their numbers small, causing a spiraling downwards of their population, speeded along by the plagues, civil wars and chaos.
Crisis of the Third Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the Western Empire, had been ruined, their populations dispersed and, with the breakdown of the economic system, could not be rebuilt. Major cities and towns, even Rome itself, had not needed fortifications for many centuries; many then surrounded themselves with thick walls.

Minus a thriving economy that was simply depopulated into a trickle of its former glory, Rome could not economically sustain itself any further past the 5th century, and it played a delicate finesse game to get that far, until the Winter of 406.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

I find the murder of innocent women and children pretty offensive- yet "God" killed millions of innocent women and children in the Old Testament. I find the appeal to God in a nation with many 'Gods' to be pretty much no different than appealing to the tooth fairy.

Lol, God did not personally kill any kids. He did allow it to happen in most cases, and gave directions to his faithful in others. Given His omniscience, it is certain He had good reason that we today could not justify the use of such deadly methods due to our own insufficiency except in a few small cases.

Yes- good Christians have tried to impose their 'Christian morality' on everyone- with laws to forbid pre-marital sex, with laws about how adults could have sex, which adults could have sex- but I think we Americans should not be forced by law by a bunch of prudish, preaching do gooders to behave how they want everyone to behave.

Yeah, we did have the various Roman emperors who made Christianity the sole official religion of the Empire and that led to a sort of secular version of Christianity that the rulers of the West followed. And the families of these barbaric German princes are still with us today.
.

?????? What the hell does that have to do with procreation or laws telling Americans what kind of sex we can have?

 

[Syriusly]

[

Don't blame homosexuals for us heterosexuals not having enough children- they are fighting for the right to get married and legally parent children- and adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Fags should be having children too and raising them appropriately. When you fuckers ditch out that is part of the problem.

That should be obvious..

Homosexuals- or as you call them n*ggers- are having children and raising them appropriately also. Remember- they fought to have the right to marry so their children could have the same legal protections as my child has. They fight to be able to adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual biological parents.

When you fuckers fought against equal rights for homosexuals, you were fighting for harming their children- and that is obvious.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

Populations don't implode- they fail to reproduce. The primary reason populations fail to reproduce are two fold:

1. Practical contraception- because women don't like being pregnant all of the time and/or
2. Wealth- wealthy nations tend not to reproduce as much because having children is expensive.

Wow, talk about a semantic stretch! Yes, when populations FAIL TO REPRODUCE, they have an IMPLOSION OF NUMBERS, dude.

Don't blame homosexuals for us heterosexuals not having enough children- they are fighting for the right to get married and legally parent children- and adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Fags should be having children too and raising them appropriately. When you fuckers ditch out that is part of the problem.

That should be obvious.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they never recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

Examples? And please, please use Rome.

Rome did have a collapsing population in the Third Century that put it on a slippery footing downward for the next two centuries. While the civil wars,plagues and poor economic times had an impact for certain, the bottom line was Romans did not see any value to having more children and kep their numbers small, causing a spiraling downwards of their population, speeded along by the plagues, civil wars and chaos.
Crisis of the Third Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the Western Empire, had been ruined, their populations dispersed and, with the breakdown of the economic system, could not be rebuilt. Major cities and towns, even Rome itself, had not needed fortifications for many centuries; many then surrounded themselves with thick walls.

Minus a thriving economy that was simply depopulated into a trickle of its former glory, Rome could not economically sustain itself any further past the 5th century, and it played a delicate finesse game to get that far, until the Winter of 406..

Your own citation says no such thing- here is the only reference to population in the article- and it dons't say 'collapsing'- it says 'dispersed'

Aurelian reigned (270–275) through the worst of the crisis, defeating the Vandals, the Visigoths, the Palmyrenes, the Persians, and then the remainder of the Gallic Empire. By late 274, the Roman Empire was reunited into a single entity, and the frontier troops were back in place. More than a century would pass before Rome again lost military ascendancy over its external enemies. However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the Western Empire, had been ruined, their populations dispersed and, with the breakdown of the economic system, could not be rebuilt. Major cities and towns, even Rome itself, had not needed fortifications for many centuries; many then surrounded themselves with thick walls.

And why was the population 'dispersed'- because

In the years following the emperor's death, generals of the Roman army fought each other for control of the Empire and neglected their duties in preventing invasions from foreigners.

Internally, the empire faced hyperinflation caused by years of coinage devaluation. This had started earlier under the Severan emperors who enlarged the army by one quarter

The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency.

None of this was caused by 'population implosion'- though any population decreases were primarily caused by war and disease.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Lol, God did not personally kill any kids. He did allow it to happen in most cases, and gave directions to his faithful in others. Given His omniscience, it is certain He had good reason that we today could not justify the use of such deadly methods due to our own insufficiency except in a few small cases..

Oh yes God did personally kill kids.

13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.


29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities

You don't know your Bible very well do you?

But beyond that God did provide specific instructions to his followers to kill children- so he commanded his faithful to become the murderers of children.

1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”

And if God is omniscient- how could he grieve making Saul King?

Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

I am always amazed that Christians who want to get all moralistic about human behavior so easily dismiss your God's supposed actions which we would condemn if any human did them.

 

[Syriusly]

[
My wife and I tried to do our part, but she has a genetic disorder, polysystic kidneys, and we had three miscarriages.

Five shots at it is enough I think, but the impact of losing a child is very disheartening, three is almost unbearable and so we stopped having kids.

First of all on a personal level- my condolences to you and your wife- that must have been hell.

Now- down to business. You say that 'f*gs'- your n*gger term for homosexuals- aren't doing their obligation to contribute to the gene pool. My closest friend- who is gay- has fathered two children. He chose to father children- you choose to remain with your wife and not father children- that doesn't make either of you better or worse. But he has contributed to the gene pool- and you have not.

Your story- rather than support your 'theme' instead points out what idiocy it is. I presume you and your wife are good citizens and contribute to society even though you have not had children- why do you presume that gay men and gay women do not- whether they have children or do not have children?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Children are a gift from God, and we slaughter our own children, as a society, in a fit of madness.

The same societal madness that says that ass fucking someone is a legit way of copulating.

There are reasons that the great nations are not composed of a bunch of ass fuckers and stingy greedy merchants.

What children are we slaughtering?

We are not Rome- you know Ancient Rome that survived for so many centuries- practised infanticide. If an unwanted baby was born, it was perfectly legal to abandon the child outside the city. We don't 'slaughter' our children- instead we believe that women have control over their bodies, and can use contraception to prevent pregnancy and can have an abortion to end a pregnancy.

Why the hell do you care whether someone is ass fucking someone else? See, I don't go through my life caring whether you are ass fucking your wife or not- I don't give a thought about how other people are fucking. Why do you?

How do you know that great nations 'are not composed of a bunch of ass fuckers'? Where do you think the term 'Greek' came from?
Buggery was rather common place in Rome- which again endured longer than most empires.

Finally 'stingy greedy merchants'- every successful nation has been composed in large party by 'greedy merchants'- our own, Great Britain, Rome, China. Greed is another way of saying 'unbridled capitalism in action'.

 

[Syriusly]

Jim, your story is heartbreaking. So many loving couples want to offer children a loving home, but can't have children for whatever reason. And then we kill perfectly good babies these couples could adopt.

100,000

That is the number of children waiting for adoption in the United States every year.

33,000 of them will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.

Why aren't these couples adopting these children?

 

[Syriusly]

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

Blackrook- whose message to his children is:Give me grandchildren or I am no longer your father......

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon..

According to you mixed race couples were not a sin. According to many preachers and Christians at the time- and still- sex between mixed race couples is an abomination. As recently as 20 years ago when I was living in a Southern city, one of my young co-workers told me her minister was still telling the congregation that such relations were a sin.

I have no idea why you think that 'mixed race couples' signaled the end of marriage as 'primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children' other than perhaps you think that mixed race parents can't be good parents?

Oddly enough- unlike you- I don't spend my time obsessing over women having sex with each other, or with horses. And also unlike you- I can see a clear difference between two consenting adults having private consensual sex with each other- and a person abusing an animal.

The acceptance of mixed race couples signaled the end of marriage primarily for the children as it is obvious in todays society, even more so at the time, that children of mixed race couples have a much harder time in their lives, unless they become Democrat politicians, deny their white heritage.

Personally, I dont care about mixed race couples so much. Love does not always conform to our preferences, but if the welfare of ones children is important enough, one might draw a limit for ones own options.

When I was dating I had a few mixed race dates and after giving it some thought I decided I would restrict myself to only red-heads of Irish stock, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim, your story is heartbreaking. So many loving couples want to offer children a loving home, but can't have children for whatever reason. And then we kill perfectly good babies these couples could adopt.

100,000

That is the number of children waiting for adoption in the United States every year.

33,000 of them will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.

Why aren't these couples adopting these children?

How old are they? What racial breakdown?

My impression is that a huge majority of them are black kids and the leaders of the black community have been hostile to people adopting black kids unless the parents were also black.

Forget Amerindian kids, that is just stoooopidly problematic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

Blackrook- whose message to his children is:Give me grandchildren or I am no longer your father......

Of course Rook didnt say anything of the sort; that is just how it echoed in your cranial cavity.

 

[rdean]

Somewhere there are another dozen right wingers being recruited as we speak. Stalls, Airports, all kinds of places.