Post June 2015: How to Adopt a Child if you are LGBT

[Skylar]

My dad loved me and my sister. My Mom and Step dad loved us too. There is not a box or formula that fits everyone when it comes to parenting and family.
..
.

So you did have regular contact with at least one dad and one mom. But you would institutionalize the lack of that for children into the future. Do you realize that in a gay home, a child will NEVER have regular contact with either a father or mother? That has be legislated out of their lives forever June 2015.

And? That doesn't mean they wont' have contact with good male or female rolemodels.

Worse, denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't actually change any of this. As denying same sex parents marriage doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children won't have married parents.

Which helps no child. And harms children by the 10s of thousands.

What you're railing against is same sex parenting. That is what you keep calling 'child abuse'. And there's no rational standard by which any sane person would come to the same conclusion.

 

[Silhouette]

My dad loved me and my sister. My Mom and Step dad loved us too. There is not a box or formula that fits everyone when it comes to parenting and family.
..
.

So you did have regular contact with at least one dad and one mom. But you would institutionalize the lack of that for children into the future. Do you realize that in a gay home, a child will NEVER have regular contact with either a father or mother? That has be legislated out of their lives forever June 2015.

And? That doesn't mean they wont' have contact with good male or female role models. Worse, denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't actually change any of this. As denying same sex parents marriage doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children won't have married parents. Which helps no child. And harms children by the 10s of thousands. What you're railing against is same sex parenting. That is what you keep calling 'child abuse'. And there's no rational standard by which any sane person would come to the same conclusion.

Being a male (or female) with a passing contact of a child is not the same as "adult male who contributes financially and physically and emotionally to a child's everyday needs" ( a father) . A child knows the difference between the passing attentions of a friend and the fierce dedication of a father. At least they used to. Now you want to make the former the rule and the latter the exception over time. That is a mistake that children will be paying for from now on.

 

[Skylar]

My dad loved me and my sister. My Mom and Step dad loved us too. There is not a box or formula that fits everyone when it comes to parenting and family.
..
.

So you did have regular contact with at least one dad and one mom. But you would institutionalize the lack of that for children into the future. Do you realize that in a gay home, a child will NEVER have regular contact with either a father or mother? That has be legislated out of their lives forever June 2015.

And? That doesn't mean they wont' have contact with good male or female role models. Worse, denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't actually change any of this. As denying same sex parents marriage doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children won't have married parents. Which helps no child. And harms children by the 10s of thousands. What you're railing against is same sex parenting. That is what you keep calling 'child abuse'. And there's no rational standard by which any sane person would come to the same conclusion.

Being a male (or female) with a passing contact of a child is not the same as "adult male who contributes financially and physically and emotionally to a child's everyday needs" ( a father) . A child knows the difference between the passing attentions of a friend and the fierce dedication of a father. At least they used to. Now you want to make the former the rule and the latter the exception over time. That is a mistake that children will be paying for from now on.

Your own Prince Trust study cited the value of good same sex mentors. And there's absolutely nothing that mandates that a child raised by a gay couple can't have good same sex role-models through such mentors.

A grandfather or grandmother, an aunt or uncle, a family friend, teacher, coach, pastor, older sibling, etc.

Your entire premise ignores even the possibility of such. And ignores your own sources. As the Prince Trust study cites such mentoring programs as providing exactly the kind of good same sex role model that you imagine these children lack.

Again......you don't know what you're talking about. You never have.

 

[Silhouette]

Your own Prince Trust study cited the value of good same sex mentors. And there's absolutely nothing that mandates that a child raised by a gay couple can't have good same sex role-models through such mentors.

A grandfather or grandmother, an aunt or uncle, a family friend, teacher, coach, pastor, older sibling, etc.

Well it's not "my own" study. I had nothing to do with it. It was commissioned in Britain by the Prince's Trust. It is the largest survey of its kind. And as to "just family friends now and then" being good enough, well it's better than nothing. Might improve the grim statistics they found some. But they did talk specifically about the more avidly-dedicated figures of "mother" and "father". BTW, how can a 3 generation all-male family line 30 or 40 years hence provide "a grandfather or grandmother"? Are you aware you used derivatives of the word "father" and "mother" in your "here's what could really matter" argument?

The only remaining article on the web that refers to the study and its findings:

Teenagers without parental role model are 67% less likely to get a job..Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342299/Teens-parent-role-model-67-cent-likely-job.html#ixzz3rDQ6vaP3

And ....interestingly enough, all searches for the old link on the Prince's Trust Actual survey show a page that has been disabled so no one can access it anymore.

Way to go assholes. If the information doesn't line up with the LGBT Agenda, it's just "disappeared". Remaking reality, one web link, one career, one lawsuit at a time... That should be the LGBT motto. Kids be damned.

 

[mdk]

Lies about The Prince's Trust!? How original! If your points had any merit you wouldn't have to willfully lie about the study's findings. Poor deluded and impotent Sil.

 

[Skylar]

Your own Prince Trust study cited the value of good same sex mentors. And there's absolutely nothing that mandates that a child raised by a gay couple can't have good same sex role-models through such mentors.

A grandfather or grandmother, an aunt or uncle, a family friend, teacher, coach, pastor, older sibling, etc.

Well it's not "my own" study. I had nothing to do with it.

You've lied about it for months. That makes it 'yours'.

Teenagers without parental role model are 67% less likely to get a job..Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342299/Teens-parent-role-model-67-cent-likely-job.html#ixzz3rDQ6vaP3

'


Note you're not actually quoiting the study. You're quoting an article about the study. The study says nothing of 'mother figures' or 'father figures'. It speaks of positive same sex role models.

Which the study itself finds can be met with mentoring programs. Obliterating your narrative that it can *only* be a mother or a father.

Again, Sil......you don't know what you're talking about. And never have. Nor does anything you're demanding help any child. But instead hurts tens of thousands of children for no reason.

 

[Silhouette]

Where did the link go to the Prince's Trust study? I want people to read every bit of it to check on the veracity of what I'm reporting. The UK Guardian still has an article about it, bit even they have removed the link they used to have to the Prince's Trust Youth Index Survey. I think it was 2010 or 2009's Youth Index Survey.

 

[mdk]

Where did the link go to the Prince's Trust study? I want people to read every bit of it to check on the veracity of what I'm reporting. The UK Guardian still has an article about it, bit even they have removed the link they used to have to the Prince's Trust Youth Index Survey. I think it was 2010 or 2009's Youth Index Survey.

Oh, please! You really do not want people to read the study anyway. After all, once they do, it will only further expose your duplicity concerning it's findings and your anti-gay narrative.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, please! You really do not want people to read the study anyway. After all, once they do, it will only further expose your duplicity concerning it's findings and your anti-gay narrative.

I absolutely want people to read the study. How else could they determine whether you or I am telling the truth since your stance is diametrically opposed to mine?

 

[mdk]

Oh, please! You really do not want people to read the study anyway. After all, once they do, it will only further expose your duplicity concerning it's findings and your anti-gay narrative.

I absolutely want people to read the study. How else could they determine whether you or I am telling the truth since your stance is diametrically opposed to mine?

It doesn't help your position that you're a known liar with an anti-gay axe to grind. This has been proven beyond a doubt countless times. Post the study or don't post the study. Either way, most people don't give a shit about the comforting lies you tell yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, please! You really do not want people to read the study anyway. After all, once they do, it will only further expose your duplicity concerning it's findings and your anti-gay narrative.

I absolutely want people to read the study. How else could they determine whether you or I am telling the truth since your stance is diametrically opposed to mine?

It doesn't help your position that you're a known liar with an anti-gay axe to grind. This has been proven beyond a doubt countless times. Post the study or don't post the study. Either way, most people don't give a shit about the comforting lies you tell yourself.

I am not a "known liar" you asshole. You are a known propaganda artist and an LGBT professional blogger spinning like a top on meth.

I WANT the people to read the Prince's Trust Youth Survey and you DON'T want them to read it. Which one of us is hiding something??

 

[mdk]

Oh, please! You really do not want people to read the study anyway. After all, once they do, it will only further expose your duplicity concerning it's findings and your anti-gay narrative.

I absolutely want people to read the study. How else could they determine whether you or I am telling the truth since your stance is diametrically opposed to mine?

It doesn't help your position that you're a known liar with an anti-gay axe to grind. This has been proven beyond a doubt countless times. Post the study or don't post the study. Either way, most people don't give a shit about the comforting lies you tell yourself.

I am not a "known liar" you asshole. You are a known propaganda artist and an LGBT professional blogger spinning like a top on meth.

I WANT the people to read the Prince's Trust Youth Survey and you DON'T want them to read it. Which one of us is hiding something??

No, you're known liar. It has been proven time and time again. I've always wanted folks to actually read The Prince's Trust b/c the findings you claim are total bullshit. Why do none of anti-gays fools here, save yourself, not cite the study you hold so dear? The reason is quite plain, even they know you're full of shit.

 

[Gracie]

My dad loved me and my sister. My Mom and Step dad loved us too. There is not a box or formula that fits everyone when it comes to parenting and family.
..
.

So you did have regular contact with at least one dad and one mom. But you would institutionalize the lack of that for children into the future. Do you realize that in a gay home, a child will NEVER have regular contact with either a father or mother? That has be legislated out of their lives forever June 2015.

3 generations from now we will see entirely male "family" lines with no mother figure, and no grandmother or great-grandmother. This is statistically so because of the way humans learn as children what "normal" means (from their "parents"). And from the overwhelming preference (over 95% I'd bet the house on it) of gay men wanting boys instead of girls to adopt. You know, since even the one who acts feminine (of which is partner is attracted to??) doesn't have his own womb.

We USED TO lament at a society about the 3 generations families missing male role models. And we have numbers of studies linking this lack to heightened delinquency in the children raised in those homes, their depression, elevated indigence, elevated criminal convictions. So our solution was to INSTITUTIONALIZE the 3-generation female-only family lines??

The "formula" that is at a minimum for a growing child's needs is to not have a home rife with at least one person pretending to be the opposite gender. Games of pretend are fun but not when they substitute for reality. A child needs both a mother and father. That's the formula because children are either male or female themselves.

Hogwash. Kids adapt. And they learn from either parent regardless of sex, just as they learn social behavior when at school by BOTH sexes.
Meh. Not worth arguing about it. Think what you want. My stance is....a child needs someone to love her/him. Give them a home where they will be loved. Period.

 

[Silhouette]

Hogwash. Kids adapt. And they learn from either parent regardless of sex, just as they learn social behavior when at school by BOTH sexes.
Meh. Not worth arguing about it. Think what you want. My stance is....a child needs someone to love her/him. Give them a home where they will be loved. Period.

There are known cases of children adapting being raised by wild dogs or even wolves. One was raised by chickens in the crawl space underneath a house.

Children aren't objects, pawns in your uber minority social experiment of "new upbringing". WE as a majority SOCIETY and custodians of the best way (mother/father) get to choose what elements we promote as "normal upbringing"...

The children who learned and adapted to their dog parents, ran around on all fours and barked. The kid raised under the house with chickens clucked, flapped his arms and pecked food from the ground. Children raised with gays will assume that ass-sex is normal and that a woman attracted to a woman who looks and talks and acts like a man is normal. We don't want that as normal in our society. They exist, just like the chicken and dog kids occaisonally pop up. But to be forced to promote that as normal is beyond the pale.

 

[Silhouette]

Structured family is the term for a family involving the two natural parents. If you want to apply a different nomenclature you'll need to provide a glossary.

Says who? Where are you getting your definitions?

Now you're becoming a childish contrarian.
You wanna change the terminology you need to provide a glossary.

So I need a glossary to define terms...and you can just make shit up?

Um, no. Show me where you're getting your definitions. Obviously, your standards would apply to you.

Nature. Man and woman make baby. Man and woman raise baby.

Nature doesn't have a thing to say about you making up a definition for 'structured families'.

If you're just going to make up definitions as you go along, don't bother telling others that they're going to need 'glossaries'. As double standards aren't particularly persuasive.

So beyond you citing yourself, do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?

Wow you sure like to beat people up Skylar. Something bothering you?

Witness how those with sober, logical rebuttals are having the shit beat out of them by "sane" LGBT online activists. Then of course offline they're pressuring judges to throw Christians in jail for refusing to play along (and have their eternal souls condemned forever). Ah, the old 1930's rise of the Nazis plays out right in front of our eyes. The first thing to go always when an overweening cult seeks to gaslight a society into submission? Freedom of speech..

 

[Silhouette]

Four Mississippi lesbian couples are pleading with a federal judge to declare the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples unconstitutional, according to The Clarion-Ledger.
The state is the last in the nation to have such a ban..“The law is clear. In 2015, there can be no question that it is unconstitutional for Mississippi to bar gay couples from adopting for no reason other than that they happen to be gay," Kaplan told the Ledger. "We are very hopeful we will get the order we want." WATCH: Ban on Adoption by Gay and Lesbian Couples Challenged in Mississippi | Advocate.com

"We will get the order we want..." Folks should really visit the link and read the whole article. It is an eye opener for sure.

What about the order the children want? That would be one reflecting the laws that also are clear: children must not be placed in a situation adverse to their best interests. A gay "married" home promises, guarantees, that the child will NEVER know either a mother or father for life. At least in single homes there is the promise of the parent finding the right spouse to provide the necessary balance and role modeling.

If the judge ONLY looks at adult's "wants", then yes, fatherless or motherless "marriages" will win. If the judge looks at what a child needs instead, there may not be a win for the adult whims..

 

[EverCurious]

~rolls eyes~ "Another Sil post." No joke; even my husband, who doesn't do political boards and isn't LGBT friendly, laughs when I say you've posted another anti-gay rant...