same sex marriage

[froggy]

Lemmie ask ya something fuckstick...........

How many heterosexual couples LET THEIR KIDS WATCH 'EM HAVE SEX?

Generally, none, as that is considered child abuse ANYWHERE.

Epic fail. Try again.

how my accidently walk in?

You know........I've had 3 stepfathers, been in 4 foster families, and the ONLY TIME that I accidentally caught someone having sex was my foster sister and the number of boyfriends that she had.

Never caught the parents, as most of the people I lived with had some sense of discretion.

and i guess in the middle of hot lovemaking your discrete.

 

[JD_2B]

i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.

Just another example of why homos adopting children is a terrible form of child abuse.

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

 

[froggy]

i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.

Just another example of why homos adopting children is a terrible form of child abuse.

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

 

[eagleseven]

You just naturally knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...

Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a what?!?!

 

[froggy]

You just naturally knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...

Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a what?!?!

were you considered the slow child?

 

[eagleseven]

You just naturally knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...

Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a what?!?!

were you considered the slow child?

I wasn't fantasizing about sex at the old old age of 6, no...

 

[froggy]

You just naturally knew about the birds and the bees? Because it was quite a shock to me...

Everybody doesn't have a peepee? Girls have a what?!?!

were you considered the slow child?

I wasn't fantasizing about sex at the old old age of 6, no...

did you ride the short bus?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Just another example of why homos adopting children is a terrible form of child abuse.

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

Don't you mean what kind of ridicule they are going to receive from people who think like YOU Froggy?

You know, I lived through sexual, mental, and physical abuse from age 8 until 12. During that time, I knew gay people (both men as well as women), and the only ones that abused me were good Christian and Catholic heterosexuals.

Matter of fact, the worst beatings I've ever gone through, as well as having to endure some of the other forms of abuse, came at the hands of a devout Catholic.

 

[froggy]

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

Don't you mean what kind of ridicule they are going to receive from people who think like YOU Froggy?

You know, I lived through sexual, mental, and physical abuse from age 8 until 12. During that time, I knew gay people (both men as well as women), and the only ones that abused me were good Christian and Catholic heterosexuals.

Matter of fact, the worst beatings I've ever gone through, as well as having to endure some of the other forms of abuse, came at the hands of a devout Catholic.

well you said the magic word catholic look how many children they abused. but you honestly think their peers wouldn't give them a hard time, wake up.

 

[Setarcos]

i think the child abuse would be the children seeing two men or two women having sex in their home.

Lemmie ask ya something fuckstick...........

How many heterosexual couples LET THEIR KIDS WATCH 'EM HAVE SEX?

Generally, none, as that is considered child abuse ANYWHERE.

Epic fail. Try again.

how my accidently walk in?

IDK. How did you walk in? I thought your mother and I locked the door.

 

[froggy]

Lemmie ask ya something fuckstick...........

How many heterosexual couples LET THEIR KIDS WATCH 'EM HAVE SEX?

Generally, none, as that is considered child abuse ANYWHERE.

Epic fail. Try again.

how my accidently walk in?

IDK. How did you walk in? I thought your mother and I locked the door.

oh no you've broke the golden rule.

 

[JD_2B]

Just another example of why homos adopting children is a terrible form of child abuse.

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

Foster kids DONT get ridiculed and treated like shit by their peers, as it is??


If I was a foster kid, I would take the ridicule and "abnormal" life of having two loving same sex parents, who want me, and take care of me, over no family at all, any day of the week.. and I doubt that there is much speculation there.

 

[froggy]

Good grief, you two- HOW on EARTH is seeing two men or two women having sex going to somehow be MORE abusive to the child than seeing a man and a woman doing it???

That is like comparing walking in on your old and baggy assed grandparents humping, as opposed to your older brother and his gf going to town. What is the fucking diff?

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

Foster kids DONT get ridiculed and treated like shit by their peers, as it is??


If I was a foster kid, I would take the ridicule and "abnormal" life of having two loving same sex parents, who want me, and take care of me, over no family at all, any day of the week.. and I doubt that there is much speculation there.

thats where foster parent should be checked, checked, and checked every month and the social workers held accountable as well as the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.

 

[Setarcos]

the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.

Source?

 

[JD_2B]

in their eyes a man and woman would be normal. and think about what ridicule other kids would put them through in school when they found out what their parents were. i hope judges have enough sense to think of the child before placing them in that sitiuation.

Foster kids DONT get ridiculed and treated like shit by their peers, as it is??


If I was a foster kid, I would take the ridicule and "abnormal" life of having two loving same sex parents, who want me, and take care of me, over no family at all, any day of the week.. and I doubt that there is much speculation there.

thats where foster parent should be checked, checked, and checked every month and the social workers held accountable as well as the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.

Oh SUUUURE they are... You are just saying that because, in spite of foster parents having to pass background checks and have their ducks in a neat little row, and really be found competent to care for a child, somehow or other the dinky 800 dollars a month they get, is somehow going to have them raking in the riches???

Riiiiiight..

And I have no problem with gay adoptions. I wasn't even referring to homosexual foster parents- I was saying (I did not make myself clear enough, sorry) that gay adoptive parents would be better than being stuck in a foster care system, because you have a point: So many kids get treated like crap, molested and abused in foster care..

Sylvia Marie Likens.. murdered by a caregiver (not a foster mom, but a caregiver that the family picked out- its a little different, but the mom was in it for the money)

And at least 102 children have died of abuse or neglect AFTER child welfare agencies were involved, between 1993 and 2002- So an average of 10+ kids die per year, at least.. so apparently kids in foster care are already at a higher risk of abuse than children in the general populace as it is- This is NOT because the current foster parents are GAY, either, lol- these are heterosexual parents who molest, injure,and kill kids.

Governor's policies put state's kids at risk

Laura Knaperek
My Turn
Aug. 29, 2005 12:00 AM

As a member of the Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Families,I am appalled at how the state is "protecting" children from harm and neglect, and how the watchdogs of children have turned away from the brutal truth.

From testimony heard by the committee over the past three months, it is clear that the same system that is authorized to stop abuse seems to be one of the worst abusers.

When Gov. Janet Napolitano started yanking kids out of their homes into government-funded and regulated institutions at the beginning of her administration, the situation for kids in Arizona became worse than ever.

Nearly 10,000 children have been taken from their homes, with about 6,500 in foster homes and another 1,500 in a group-home setting. Amazingly, 280 are suspected runaways, children taken from bad homes and put into situations that caused them to flee

Between April 2004 and March 2005, 13 children under state care died. Six of those children hadn't reached their first birthday.



The governor declared her top priority would be the safety of children. That is what all of us want. Unfortunately, for 10,000 children and their families, the governor falsely equates child safety with child removal.

Richard Wexler, a former investigative reporter and director of the National Center on Child Welfare Reform, and a few other voices, including mine, have warned what the outcome of "safety" vs. "reunite" would mean for kids.

Data prove that the best way to keep most children safe is to provide the help needed to keep families together.

Removing children from their homes can be detrimental. Children in foster homes are three times more likely to be physically abused. The rate is 10 times higher in group homes. Children in group homes are 28 percent more likely than children in the general populace to experience sexual abuse.

Deaths in Foster Care

 

[froggy]

Foster kids DONT get ridiculed and treated like shit by their peers, as it is??


If I was a foster kid, I would take the ridicule and "abnormal" life of having two loving same sex parents, who want me, and take care of me, over no family at all, any day of the week.. and I doubt that there is much speculation there.

thats where foster parent should be checked, checked, and checked every month and the social workers held accountable as well as the foster parents most of them are in it for the money anyway.

Oh SUUUURE they are... You are just saying that because, in spite of foster parents having to pass background checks and have their ducks in a neat little row, and really be found competent to care for a child, somehow or other the dinky 800 dollars a month they get, is somehow going to have them raking in the riches???

Riiiiiight..

And I have no problem with gay adoptions. I wasn't even referring to homosexual foster parents- I was saying (I did not make myself clear enough, sorry) that gay adoptive parents would be better than being stuck in a foster care system, because you have a point: So many kids get treated like crap, molested and abused in foster care..

Sylvia Marie Likens.. murdered by a caregiver (not a foster mom, but a caregiver that the family picked out- its a little different, but the mom was in it for the money)

And at least 102 children have died of abuse or neglect AFTER child welfare agencies were involved, between 1993 and 2002- So an average of 10+ kids die per year, at least.. so apparently kids in foster care are already at a higher risk of abuse than children in the general populace as it is- This is NOT because the current foster parents are GAY, either, lol- these are heterosexual parents who molest, injure,and kill kids.

Governor's policies put state's kids at risk

Laura Knaperek
My Turn
Aug. 29, 2005 12:00 AM

As a member of the Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Families,I am appalled at how the state is "protecting" children from harm and neglect, and how the watchdogs of children have turned away from the brutal truth.

From testimony heard by the committee over the past three months, it is clear that the same system that is authorized to stop abuse seems to be one of the worst abusers.

When Gov. Janet Napolitano started yanking kids out of their homes into government-funded and regulated institutions at the beginning of her administration, the situation for kids in Arizona became worse than ever.

Nearly 10,000 children have been taken from their homes, with about 6,500 in foster homes and another 1,500 in a group-home setting. Amazingly, 280 are suspected runaways, children taken from bad homes and put into situations that caused them to flee

Between April 2004 and March 2005, 13 children under state care died. Six of those children hadn't reached their first birthday.



The governor declared her top priority would be the safety of children. That is what all of us want. Unfortunately, for 10,000 children and their families, the governor falsely equates child safety with child removal.

Richard Wexler, a former investigative reporter and director of the National Center on Child Welfare Reform, and a few other voices, including mine, have warned what the outcome of "safety" vs. "reunite" would mean for kids.

Data prove that the best way to keep most children safe is to provide the help needed to keep families together.

Removing children from their homes can be detrimental. Children in foster homes are three times more likely to be physically abused. The rate is 10 times higher in group homes. Children in group homes are 28 percent more likely than children in the general populace to experience sexual abuse.

Deaths in Foster Care

and there's people who say(even some on this board) that we don't need to change in the system that america is just fine the way it is. yeah right.

 

[betchamad]

Marriage is better a man and a woman,not a man and a man,or a woman and a woman.Marriage have too goals,one is having bady and creat a family tree,two is the couple united into one. Genesis 2"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " Genesis 9"And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein." This tells us,one,the marriage is the result of the love between a man and a woman,and this love will be blessed and turn two people into one will.The second,the marriage is not just a rights for happiness,but also a duty,it demonds the couple having their childs and make the mankind growth,and this request two opposite sex person to complete.The point is same marriage isn't blessed by God,it is not just unnature.

 

[logical4u]

Actually, I didn't. It's the person that quoted me (and changed my post) that did it. That's against the rules by the way. Sorry about the confusion, but some idiots on here do that.

Back to the gays...............

Anyone heard that Washington DC is going to legalize gay marriage? I also think that "don't ask, don't tell" needs to be repealed. Matter of fact, most of our allies allow gays to serve openly in their military (Britain, Canada, Israel, etc).

Nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory answer by the way........why is it that gay marriage and partnerships threaten straight people? Is it because they are insecure with their own sexuality? Is it because they think they have the right to something, and because of their own confused ideas about it (sex and marriage, see the latest DC scandals for that), they think that they have to protect it from people that will fuck it up, or........worse yet..........show the straight bigots how wrong they've been?

Legalize gay marriage, repeal don't ask don't tell.

And this is coming from a straight man who served 20 years in the military!

1.
Gay marriage, once accepted would give homosexuals (more) access to the NEA and possibly the new healthcare requirements (to be mandated by the gov, shortly). It will be used by "radicals/extremists" to push the homosexual lifestyle onto children (their future "victims" of seduction) as perfectly "acceptable". (please notice that I did not include all homosexuals in that statement) Doing this would reduce the gene pool/available breeding stock (if it is true that homosexuals are only attracted to their sex, and would not be able to contribute to making children "naturally". (I know, your arguement, some couples go to great lengths to have children) If this did happen and homosexual couples chose to have children using artificial and medical assistance, healthcare costs would increase exponetially.
This is a direct threat to the well being of families. People that are blessed with children want those children to grow and become productive in society as well as having families of their own. If those same children are "indoctrinated" into believing homosexuality is a good thing, it could end families permanently (no more children from that line, naturally).
It will be harder for families to protect their children from influences they feel would not help their children develop to become "productive".
2.
"Typically", homosexual communities are not family oriented. The public "celebrations" are events most "family" oriented people avoid like the plague. If homosexual partnerships became "socially legal/acceptable", there would be more "homosexual" communities where immorality, lewdness, and perversity would be on public display non-stop. "Those communities" would become magnets for crimes and violence that the taxpayers (especially the taxpayers trying to earn a living to raise their families in peace) would be forced to pay, due to the new-found legitimacy of the neighborhoods, the police would not be able to do their jobs without "sensitivity" training, and when they finally got to the community, harrassment from people that want to behave in a lawless manner, since they pushed "their" way of life onto society. It would corrupt society at an accelerated rate and reduce the standard of living for every citizen (resources would have to be used on peacekeeping, increased medical costs and increase utility costs for communities).
3.
Children with homosexual parents would be more numerous. Given the immoral nature of homosexuals, it will be extremely hard to raise children in a "secure" environment. How can children trust a parent that pretends they are something they are not (the opposite sex)? How can a child feel confident in who they are, if they grow up around people that still haven't figured it out and send mixed signals about integrity? The mental health costs for these children could become astronomical.

You're like the Soup Nazi of logic............."No Logic 4 U!".

First, gays aren't really interested in "turning" kids. Matter of fact, most of them are pretty basic type people who live pretty much alongside everyone else. Generally speaking, if you do live next to gays, you'd think they were just like you until they told you. Reducing the gene pool, reducing breeding stock? Who the fuck are you anyway, one of Hitler's cronies reincarnated? That's the same kind of language that a nazi would use.

And your fear mongering on the healthcare system just because YOU are scared of your own sexuality (otherwise you wouldn't fear it in others) doesn't mean others are.

As far as a gay community not being family oriented? Ever been to Provincetown MA? If not, I recommend going. You'd see how much "perversion and lewdness" is going on........

Not much, because they keep it out of the public sight (generally). But, one person's perversion is another person's turn on. Trust me.........because if you went to some of the places in Europe (which incidentally, are considered family friendly), you would see stuff that would make most Christian conservatives from here start yelling about sin.

No Logic 4 U, please.........pull your head outta the fire and brimstone and quit judging the sprituality of others.

Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons. California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).
Homosexuals, typically do not cruise the nursing homes for prospective "partners". They often use deceptive means to "trick" a "target"; many of these "targets" are between the ages of 18 & 35, the prime ages for producing children. You are offended by the term breeding stock, but, it is the truth, if people are removed at the prime productive years, not only are they less likely to produce healthy children, but they are less likely to become involved parents (I am aware there are always exceptions, I am speaking generally), making children from a homosexual relationship to receive less "moral" care than children from a married relationship (exceptions, of course). It seems you don not have an arguement here, only disagree with the terminology I used.

Your example of places in Europe that would offend Christians, IS, my point about the homosexual communities here (there are exceptions) that flaunt their lifestyle in the public eye. You can demonstrate exceptions, not the norms (is Provincetown a mostly homosexual community?). San Fran parks became so notorious of a sexual activity place, that it made prime time TV as a place not to take small children if you did not want them to witness homosexual sex in public places. Parades, demonstrations, public events with large portions of homosexuals are typically lewd and perverted.

"Scaremongering" about healthcare costs maybe a better way than pretending unhealthy lifestyles will not have any affect on health care costs at all. Can you demonstrate how homosexuals stay healthier than those that are not? Many (again there are exceptions) homosexuals in that prime breeding age do not purchase insurance on their own. Many do not work in positions where the company pays health care insurance. To have these people, making the same lifestyle choices (similar to people that have multiple sexual partners making bad decisions), would logically, drive up healthcare costs for everyone.

As far as my language being like a "nazi", I feel that is your way of ignoring the arguement and insulting me. How about presenting a hard look at what homosexual marriage being made legal would do to this, currently disintegrating, nation?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bet You're Sad........might wanna read your Bible again.........

Lesbianism isn't prohibited there.

 

[paperview]

Look, you asked, I gave you reasons and you "selectively" disqualified the reasons. California schools expose children to homosexual lifestyle as "acceptable" not tolerated; that is "turning" children. (Teaching them a behavior is acceptable when a large portion of society sees it as "tolerable" is indotrinating children into the homosexual lifestyle is respectable).

Homosexuals, typically do not cruise the nursing homes for prospective "partners". They often use deceptive means to "trick" a "target"; many of these "targets" are between the ages of 18 & 35, the prime ages for producing children. You are offended by the term breeding stock, but, it is the truth, if people are removed at the prime productive years, not only are they less likely to produce healthy children, but they are less likely to become involved parents (I am aware there are always exceptions, I am speaking generally), making children from a homosexual relationship to receive less "moral" care than children from a married relationship (exceptions, of course). It seems you don not have an arguement here, only disagree with the terminology I used.

Your example of places in Europe that would offend Christians, IS, my point about the homosexual communities here (there are exceptions) that flaunt their lifestyle in the public eye. You can demonstrate exceptions, not the norms (is Provincetown a mostly homosexual community?). San Fran parks became so notorious of a sexual activity place, that it made prime time TV as a place not to take small children if you did not want them to witness homosexual sex in public places. Parades, demonstrations, public events with large portions of homosexuals are typically lewd and perverted.

"Scaremongering" about healthcare costs maybe a better way than pretending unhealthy lifestyles will not have any affect on health care costs at all. Can you demonstrate how homosexuals stay healthier than those that are not? Many (again there are exceptions) homosexuals in that prime breeding age do not purchase insurance on their own. Many do not work in positions where the company pays health care insurance. To have these people, making the same lifestyle choices (similar to people that have multiple sexual partners making bad decisions), would logically, drive up healthcare costs for everyone.

As far as my language being like a "nazi", I feel that is your way of ignoring the arguement and insulting me. How about presenting a hard look at what homosexual marriage being made legal would do to this, currently disintegrating, nation?

That has to be one of the biggest piles of horseshit I had read in a while.

Congratulations.