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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Well homosexual "marriage" does a lot more than that, doesn't it? It creates a psychological atmosphere of lies. Those lies will be uncovered by the children as they see one of their moms acting like, looking like and talking like a masculine figure and the other playing a woman's role. Eventually the child will reach the age of ten and see that their "parents" were actually just crazy. It would be like one of your parents wearing a goat's head costume every day you knew them; while every day they lived out the manifest lesson of "we're not into goats". This is crazy-making behavior to model in an atmosphere where children's minds depend on the adults in their midst to help them process the world's realities.

And how does denying same sex marriage help any child? Does denying same sex marriage magically make same sex parents into opposite sex parents?

Of course not. All it does is guarantee that these children will never have married parents. Which only hurts them. And helps no one. This is the great fallacy of your argument: it has nothing to do with what you're railing against.

Oh, and a same sex couple marrying and raising kids is a family structure. Nixing the nonsense idea that these families somehow cause 'unstructured families'.

It's the aspect of legal marriages and the privilege for adoption that creates potential problems for children. The increased odds that some will be forced into unstructured family situations by law.

A same sex couple marrying and raising kids isn't an 'unstructured family situation'. Nixing your entire argument.

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.

 

[Skylar]

And how does denying same sex marriage help any child? Does denying same sex marriage magically make same sex parents into opposite sex parents?

Of course not. All it does is guarantee that these children will never have married parents. Which only hurts them. And helps no one. This is the great fallacy of your argument: it has nothing to do with what you're railing against.

Oh, and a same sex couple marrying and raising kids is a family structure. Nixing the nonsense idea that these families somehow cause 'unstructured families'.

It's the aspect of legal marriages and the privilege for adoption that creates potential problems for children. The increased odds that some will be forced into unstructured family situations by law.

A same sex couple marrying and raising kids isn't an 'unstructured family situation'. Nixing your entire argument.

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.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's the aspect of legal marriages and the privilege for adoption that creates potential problems for children. The increased odds that some will be forced into unstructured family situations by law.

A same sex couple marrying and raising kids isn't an 'unstructured family situation'. Nixing your entire argument.

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.

 

[Skylar]

A same sex couple marrying and raising kids isn't an 'unstructured family situation'. Nixing your entire argument.

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Appleburg Brickmellow.

Now what did either of our posts have to do with anything being discussed?

Yours, nothing. Mine was perfectly relevant.
Homonazi eugenics. Since they can't mate they need to find ways to create 'families' they think will be ideal.
Meanwhile they contribute to the growing social demise problem caused by unstructured families.

Eugenics has to do with 'improving the genetic quality of the population'. Which has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Nazis obviously weren't supporters. And 'homo' means same.

So what relevance did your two word post have to do with anything we're discussing. I suppose you could claim that 'homo' was short for 'homosexual'. But the rest is just gibberish.

Homozazi are homos who force their agenda onto others like the fascists they are.

And by 'force their agenda', you mean get married? Raise kids?

Legal mandate forcing recognizing a personal irrelevant relationship and forcing children into a home based in that irrelevant personal behavior, yes, that force.

The ignorant, ridiculous social right, and their unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

This and like threads demonstrate that the Obergefell ruling was in fact correct, the progeny of over a century of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation, it's clear that the rights of gay Americans remain in jeopardy and in need of safeguarding by the Constitution and its case law.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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'.

Are you so brainwashed by Marxist ideology that you can't even comprehend the absurdity of that statement?
Man and woman make baby. Man and woman are parents of baby. The structure begins there. It can't get any more logical. If you want to branch out beyond that with no logical basis then anything goes and definitions are completely moot.

 

[Skylar]

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'.

Are you so brainwashed by Marxist ideology that you can't even comprehend the absurdity of that statement?
Man and woman make baby. Man and woman are parents of baby. The structure begins there. It can't get any more logical. If you want to branch out beyond that with no logical basis then anything goes and definitions are completely moot.

Or....I just don't accept your made up definitions. As you're nobody.

One of the two.

 

[Silhouette]

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...

Indeed!

Which is why all of us are wondering why your cult decided to coerce 5 people on the Supreme Court make up a new definition of marriage, not in the Constitution, yet federally imposed upon the states as if it was in the Constitution...and all that without the input of children: the most important people in the marriage contract and the only reason states were involved in incentivizing people to get married: to make sure the most children possible would have BOTH a mother and a father.

Your new made up term for "father" in a lesbian "marriage" is the woman who dresses, talks and acts like a man. Your new made up term for "mother" in a gay male "marriage" is the one who lisps and wiggles his hips more than the other one. Speaking of making up definitions as you go..

The Supreme Court (the judicial power) just made up that it gets to add language to the Constitution (the legislative power) that was never there before: (just some of their favorite) deviant sex behaviors = race. The Supreme Court just made up that it gets to legislate!

 

[Skylar]

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...

Indeed!

Which is why all of us are wondering why your cult decided to coerce 5 people on the Supreme Court make up a new definition of marriage, not in the Constitution, yet federally imposed upon the states as if it was in the constitution...and all that without the input of children: the most important people in the marriage contract and the only reason states were involved in incentivizing people to get married: to make sure the most children possible would have BOTH a mother and a father.

What cult?

And what coercion?

Remember, you're batshit crazy. It tends to mandate a few follow up questions when fleshing out your latest hallucination.

 

[Silhouette]

The cult that parades around like the guy in my signature in front of children. Unless you're trying to argue that people are born with an innate genetic component that makes them do lewd acts in front of kids in public?

 

[Silhouette]

In the past, and perhaps in some areas of the country still today, gay couples have lied in order to adopt. Usually with one partner adopting and the other pretending to be a roommate or a friend. But it is necessary to realize the importance of honesty when adopting. It is legal to omit information, it is not legal to lie when asked a specific question. Lying in this instance is considered fraud and may be cause for an adoption to not occur or for an already established placement to disrupt. ... 6 Things Gay Couples Should Know About Adoption

Would that be because lying is a bad thing for a parent to display who wants to raise children? Like the lie that one of the kids two mommies that dresses up and acts like a man "is the same thing as having a father"?

Many studies have been done on same sex couples in order to see how children in these unions are being raised. The studies are often biased based on who has done the research. Gay and lesbian groups show positive results, while religious or conservative groups show negative. Many of the concerns are centered around understanding sexual orientation and if children will develop problems from having gay parents. But research has not found a single study showing that children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect. Still there are other concerns:

Except all the studies out there that show both a mother and father in a home provides the best advantage for children later in their life. Just those studies.. Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...and the amicus briefs filed against gay marriage by adult children raised in gay homes who say it's a bad idea...link in my signature....

 

[Pop23]

Sil apparently isn't aware that gay people could adopt/raise children long before they could get legally married.

First, your lack of concern about the kids involved and how the gay lifestyle will affect them is telling. "Cry me a river bitches" is directed at the kids...I'm all grown up so this doesn't directly affect me.

Second, the only way gays could adopt is if they lied on the adoption application; and usually only very sick and medically impared children. Singles are absolutely not preferred. Though I think the practice of "letting the standards relax" when it comes to sick kids is grotesque. "Hey Johnny, too bad you're in a wheelchair, but these nice men Chuck and Dave want to take you home with them and well...we can't afford to keep you here so...off you go.."

We are very concerned about children. In fact, when gay couples want a child we have to actively adopt or go thru invitro procedures to have a child. NONE of our children are oopsies or the result of one-nite-stands.

So the two groups are remarkable different.

Interesting.

 

[Skylar]

The cult that parades around like the guy in my signature in front of children. Unless you're trying to argue that people are born with an innate genetic component that makes them do lewd acts in front of kids in public?

What cult?

And if crazy behavior in front of kids defines an entire sexual orientation a cult.......then Spring Break makes a cult out of heterosexuality by your own standards.

But of course you only apply your bizzarro standards to gays. As they are the focus of your irrational obsession.

 

[Skylar]

In the past, and perhaps in some areas of the country still today, gay couples have lied in order to adopt. Usually with one partner adopting and the other pretending to be a roommate or a friend. But it is necessary to realize the importance of honesty when adopting. It is legal to omit information, it is not legal to lie when asked a specific question. Lying in this instance is considered fraud and may be cause for an adoption to not occur or for an already established placement to disrupt. ... 6 Things Gay Couples Should Know About Adoption

Would that be because lying is a bad thing for a parent to display who wants to raise children? Like the lie that one of the kids two mommies that dresses up and acts like a man "is the same thing as having a father"?

So you wouldn't object to a same sex couple adopting if they told the truth about their relationship.....by say, getting married?

Except all the studies out there that show both a mother and father in a home provides the best advantage for children later in their life. Just those studies.. Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study never mentions gay parenting. Or gays. Or gay marriage. With every single example it offers being *single* parents. Same sex couples raising children aren't single parents. But two parents.

Worse, the Prince Trust study doesn't say that a child has the best advantage with both a mother and father. You made that up. Worse for you, the Prince Trust study cites mentoring programs in which good same sex role models are provided. Explicitly contradicting your assertion that ONLY a mother or a father could provide those role models.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to make up false 'findings' to support them. Yet you just did.

 

[mdk]

I am surprised it has taken this long for Sil to trot out The Prince's Trust and lie about it's findings. lol

 

[Skylar]

I am surprised it has taken this long for Sil to trot out The Prince's Trust and lie about it's findings. lol

Though ironcially it does make Sil an unsuitable candidate for adopting a child per her own 'lying is a bad thing for a parent to display who wants to raise children' standard.

 

[Silhouette]

I am surprised it has taken this long for Sil to trot out The Prince's Trust and lie about it's findings. lol

People can read the survey for themselves, the largest survey of its kind.

 

[Skylar]

I am surprised it has taken this long for Sil to trot out The Prince's Trust and lie about it's findings. lol

People can read the survey for themselves, the largest survey of its kind.

And they will see that your claims don't exist. By your own admission, the Prince Trust study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It never so much as mentions same sex couples, gay parenting, gay marriage.....or anything else you've attributed to it.

Worse, the Prince Trust study cites *mentoring programs* as a source of positive same sex role models. Utterly destroying your assertion that ONLY a mother or father can provide such a role model.

Again, Sil....you know you're lying. We know you're lying. And you know we know you're lying. So what is the point?

There is none. You're merely self soothing, telling yourself comforting little lies, where you're both the source and the audience for the nonsense you keep spouting. Its why I call these 'thumb sucker threads'. As they are little more than rhetorical binkys.

 

[mdk]

I am surprised it has taken this long for Sil to trot out The Prince's Trust and lie about it's findings. lol

People can read the survey for themselves, the largest survey of its kind.

If I were you I wouldn't be pushing people to actually read this study. When they do, they will reach the same conclusion that they rest of have after finishing the study and that conclusion is that you are lying through to teeth about it's finding to smear gay people. You're pathetic.

 

[Silhouette]

filled up another page. Looks like I'll have to repost.