LESBIANS: What Will They Think of Next?

[GLASNOST]

What is very funny is that the runaway lesbian says that she should keep child because she gave birth to it. But according to the courts the other lesbian has equal rights to the child by law. Now the runaway claims that's all "politically correct" talk and shouldn't be respected. But for Christ's sake, her marriage to another woman and the child being legally both of theirs' is all due to politically correct laws on same sex marriages in the first place! In other words, if not for politically correct laws she would never have been allowed to marry another woman anyway!

I think true adoptions and blended families are exceptionally rare. Nobody loves a kid that didn't come from their loins and when the shit hits the fan, everyone retreats to biological relations only. Everything else is a fantasy

As someone who was adopted and who has taken in children not of my loins, you're full of shit.

Thank you for the quote. I am normally deprived from seeing anything from that particular source, so if you hadn't quoted it I would have missed the whole thing. Can you even imagine anyone having such thoughts inside their head? Your response to it is superb!

 

[Conservative65]

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

Difference is regardless of which parent the child goes with, it's a biological parent.

Are you a birther, a mind reader or the IRS? Were you a witness to the birth, serious question?

Don't have to be any of those or have witnessed it to know what I said is true based on the statement to which I responded. I'll explain but you'll need to pay attention.

When a couple gives birth to a child and that couple is male/female, the child is biologically both of theirs. If they split up for whatever reason and the child goes with one of those two, that child is with a biological parent. If it's a lesbian couple, ONLY one of them can actually be the biological parent although they may call the child theirs. That's simple biology that most people learn at a young age.

 

[Conservative65]

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

People that have abortions because they don't like the results of having spread their legs is why there are so many abortions every year. If, as you lefties say, the choice is the woman's to make, you can't pin the responsibility when it happens on anyone but the person making the choice.

"If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children instead of abortion them"

Prove it with objective, verifiable data.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What is very funny is that the runaway lesbian says that she should keep child because she gave birth to it. But according to the courts the other lesbian has equal rights to the child by law. Now the runaway claims that's all "politically correct" talk and shouldn't be respected. But for Christ's sake, her marriage to another woman and the child being legally both of theirs' is all due to politically correct laws on same sex marriages in the first place! In other words, if not for politically correct laws she would never have been allowed to marry another woman anyway!

I think true adoptions and blended families are exceptionally rare. Nobody loves a kid that didn't come from their loins and when the shit hits the fan, everyone retreats to biological relations only. Everything else is a fantasy

As someone who was adopted and who has taken in children not of my loins, you're full of shit.

Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....

Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.

 

[bendog]

A married lesbian couple broke up in Canada recently. Suddenly one of them took 'their' children and went on the lam, left the country. What's funny is that she is quoted as saying, "‘At some point the system needs to look at the straight facts and see that (the child) is better off with me."

One needs to look at the straight facts, is it? Seems to me that if she'd looked at the straight facts from the start, she wouldn't be in this predicament.

Lesbian mother from South Tyneside left her wife and 'abducted' their daughter | Daily Mail Online

Thread title made me hope for porn.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What is very funny is that the runaway lesbian says that she should keep child because she gave birth to it. But according to the courts the other lesbian has equal rights to the child by law. Now the runaway claims that's all "politically correct" talk and shouldn't be respected. But for Christ's sake, her marriage to another woman and the child being legally both of theirs' is all due to politically correct laws on same sex marriages in the first place! In other words, if not for politically correct laws she would never have been allowed to marry another woman anyway!

I think true adoptions and blended families are exceptionally rare. Nobody loves a kid that didn't come from their loins and when the shit hits the fan, everyone retreats to biological relations only. Everything else is a fantasy

As someone who was adopted and who has taken in children not of my loins, you're full of shit.

Thank you for the quote. I am normally deprived from seeing anything from that particular source, so if you hadn't quoted it I would have missed the whole thing. Can you even imagine anyone having such thoughts inside their head? Your response to it is superb!

Even worse, try being the victim of faux adoptive "love". I know people who were. And now people are speaking up online as well.

We're told that adoption is always wonderful, always a selfless act, never to be questioned, and anyone who does is demonized.....like you're doing. That's why victims of adoption have been reticent to speak up and tell the ugly truth about adoption. But that is now longer the case.

 

[GLASNOST]

Thread title made me hope for porn.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'll bare that in mind the next time I start a thread.

 

[bendog]

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack. The whole schtick about adoptive parents being less loving or capable is bs. And gay parents are no less able than straight. Courts already give biological parents priority in custody over non-biological parents (step parents.) Courts that formerly did not recognize marriage and divorce decrees from states with gay marriage now have to change.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack. The whole schtick about adoptive parents being less loving or capable is bs. And gay parents are no less able than straight. Courts already give biological parents priority in custody over non-biological parents (step parents.) Courts that formerly did not recognize marriage and divorce decrees from states with gay marriage now have to change.

With one glaring exception: they DO NOT PROVIDE EITHER A MOTHER OR FATHER, VITAL TO THE CHILDREN INVOLVED in any marriage. Yeah, I know...single parents...yadda yadda yadda... Marriage exists to remedy single parenthood with lures of benefits. It doesn't exist to AUGMENT single parent woes (the missing gendered parent) with lures of benefits!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....

Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.

Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.

And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.

Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.

My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.

So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.

 

[Dragonlady]

Even worse, try being the victim of faux adoptive "love". I know people who were. And now people are speaking up online as well.

We're told that adoption is always wonderful, always a selfless act, never to be questioned, and anyone who does is demonized.....like you're doing. That's why victims of adoption have been reticent to speak up and tell the ugly truth about adoption. But that is now longer the case.

So what you're saying is that unwanted children would be better off being aborted rather than being forced into adoptions.

 

[Silhouette]

So what you're saying is that unwanted children would be better off being aborted rather than being forced into adoptions.

No, what we are saying is "you don't remedy the woes of single parenthood (the missing gender parent vital to balanced modeling to children) via the lures of the benefits of marriage with two people of the same gender!"

Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago: to provide with BOTH VITAL genders, mother and father, for their balanced upbringing. Obergefell acted as if they don't even exist. It's like buying a car and having the USSC remove the engine and transmission and then telling you "what's your problem? This is still a car!" The USSC eliminated the reason for marriage in Obergefell at its heart.

 

[GLASNOST]

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack. The whole schtick about adoptive parents being less loving or capable is bs. And gay parents are no less able than straight. Courts already give biological parents priority in custody over non-biological parents (step parents.) Courts that formerly did not recognize marriage and divorce decrees from states with gay marriage now have to change.

With one glaring exception: they DO NOT PROVIDE EITHER A MOTHER OR FATHER, VITAL TO THE CHILDREN INVOLVED in any marriage. Yeah, I know...single parents...yadda yadda yadda... Marriage exists to remedy single parenthood with lures of benefits. It doesn't exist to AUGMENT single parent woes (the missing gendered parent) with lures of benefits!!

I agree 100% with this point. As I was saying in an earlier response .... 'we' admit that fathers who move on (and away) after a divorce are not doing their children any favours. In fact we often criticize them for being "dead beats". Yes, yes, yes. But then we guarantee a child will have no father in adoptions in lesbian circumstances. Are we not creating a double standard for the sake of political correctness?

And yeah .... 'who is to say that the heterosexual relationship will not end in a divorce anyway ..... yada, yada, yada" ... but we give a child no chance for a 'father/mother' (male/female) parent arrangement if we approve of same sex adoptions.

And then there are further complications as children grow up to be adults and feel a need to find their real parents in any adoption. Personally, I'd rather find out that my parents didn't want me, or they were drunks, or criminals .... than to be told, "Well, you have no parents ... you were born in a test tube" or "You are a product of a sperm donor and some fertile woman's womb, then handed over to your mother ....... or is she your father?"

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

This is completely false. It is not the difficulty with adopting that is the driving force behind abortions, it is poverty, and the lack of workplace support or protections in place for pregnant working women. 75% of women cite financial reasons for obtaining a divorce. 80% of abortions are performed on women who are living below the poverty line, or who's family income is less than twice the poverty line. Most of these women are in their 20's and 60% already have one or more children.

Once their employer finds out they're pregnant, they may be fired without notice or cause. There is no paid maternity leave so they can't even take time off for the birth and recovery, and until Obamacare became law, she would not have had medical insurance, because low wage jobs are the least likely to have paid benefits. We haven't even touched on the costs of feeding, clothing and paying for child care for the new arrival.

Every first world county has a lower abortion rate that the US. All make adoption complicated and difficult. But all have some form of paid maternity leave, universal health care, and job protections for pregnant mothers, and job security for those returning to the work force after mat leaves end. Once you remove the financial and job stability issues in carrying the pregnancy to term, and providing for the family during the maternity leave, many more women opt to carry their unplanned pregnancies to term.

But right wingers here, who claims to be horrified at the carnage of abortion, refuse to even consider these options to reduce abortions in the US.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....

Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.

Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.

And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.

Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.

My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.

So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.

There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....

Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.

Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.

And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.

Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.

My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.

So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.

No, I'm saying that circumstances didn't force them to decide between their natural children and you, or you would have been left out in the cold.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...

...silence... *crickets*

So can death, you idiot.

You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.

Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.

Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.

Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.

 

[Pop23]

So what you're saying is that unwanted children would be better off being aborted rather than being forced into adoptions.

No, what we are saying is "you don't remedy the woes of single parenthood (the missing gender parent vital to balanced modeling to children) via the lures of the benefits of marriage with two people of the same gender!"

Children were the reason marriage was invented over a thousand years ago: to provide with BOTH VITAL genders, mother and father, for their balanced upbringing. Obergefell acted as if they don't even exist. It's like buying a car and having the USSC remove the engine and transmission and then telling you "what's your problem? This is still a car!" The USSC eliminated the reason for marriage in Obergefell at its heart.

Your last paragraph is undeniably true.

Marriage was, in its earliest form, the way society tried to bring order to a very disorderly process (repopulating the species) that was fraught with danger for the participants and Society as a whole. The need to be able to have some order so that males did not run rampant and to keep the species from inter breeding was incredibly important and biological sound logic.

The inclusion of homosexual delusions have mucked up the process. The reality is that children are best raised in a delusion free household, which can not always be assured, but when it comes to sexuality, we should safe guard children from sexual delusions as much as possible. Our Government should be at the vanguard of that fight, but they have instead opted to enable the delusion for political reasons.

 

[GaryDog]

A married lesbian couple broke up in Canada recently. Suddenly one of them took 'their' children and went on the lam, left the country. What's funny is that she is quoted as saying, "‘At some point the system needs to look at the straight facts and see that (the child) is better off with me."

One needs to look at the straight facts, is it? Seems to me that if she'd looked at the straight facts from the start, she wouldn't be in this predicament.

Lesbian mother from South Tyneside left her wife and 'abducted' their daughter | Daily Mail Online

Shows that lesbian couples are no better than any other kind.

Indeed, they're people, for better or for worse.

Was this surprising to anyone?

 

[Dragonlady]

There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.

So you view forcing a child upon a woman who cannot afford to have or care for the child a good idea? Your view of women ("spreading her legs") is misogynistic and disgusting.

Having a baby is not punishment for promiscuity and shows your misogyny. Maybe men should be punished for having sex and getting women pregnant when they don't want to have a baby. Because the last time this kind of discussion came up, you guys were all about blaming the women for trapping men with pregnancy, or "spreading their legs". Either way, in your misogynistic view, a woman having an abortion is a slut who deserves to be punished.

How about actually ready up on who has abortions. 60% are married or in committed relationships. 80% are poor or low income.

How would you have felt if your wife told you that you could no longer have sex because she doesn't want more children?