Sins of the fathers??

[MissileMan]

I think the underlying issue you are resisting to understand is:


People living a homosexual (or rapist, or any other sexually deviant lifestyle) should be kept as far away from kids as possible. It's inherent in those lifestyles to allow one's sexual desires to define who they are. Those lifestyles HARM the participants, sometimes irreparably...and can cause dramatic, catastrophic issues for children. Whether adoption, or thru surrogates, Homosexual-living adults should be forbidden to supervise the development of children.

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say...I happen to think you a mistaken.
Who do you think you are to suppose you have the right to decide if someone is allowed to have a child? Feel free to count yourself among the pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous assholes I alluded to earlier.

 

[dmp]

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say...I happen to think you a mistaken.
Who do you think you are to suppose you have the right to decide if someone is allowed to have a child? Feel free to count yourself among the pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous assholes I alluded to earlier.

Spend 10 minutes on Google, and allow yourself to be educated. If you are honest with yourself, you'll change your views.

Perhaps you can answer why Liberals enjoy insults and name calling during a debate?

 

[no1tovote4]

I think that adopting in this country is simply too expensive. Two gay men have more money (usually) and are better able to afford the adoption. This makes the system skewed in an odd way.

I don't believe that they should not be allowed to adopt at all, but I don't think the system should make it easier for them than a poorer couple that might have adopted them if they could.

 

[5stringJeff]

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say...I happen to think you a mistaken.
Who do you think you are to suppose you have the right to decide if someone is allowed to have a child? Feel free to count yourself among the pompous, sanctimonious, and self-righteous assholes I alluded to earlier.

Actually, the state informs many people that they are unfit to be parents, for various reasons: abuse, crime, abandonment, etc., all of which are harmful to the child or detremental to the child's upbringing. All -=d=- (and I) are saying is that homosexuality should be added to that list of reasons that people shouldn't be parents, because it is detremental to a child's upbringing, as shown in one of Merlin1047's earlier posts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, the state informs many people that they are unfit to be parents, for various reasons: abuse, crime, abandonment, etc., all of which are harmful to the child or detremental to the child's upbringing. All -=d=- (and I) are saying is that homosexuality should be added to that list of reasons that people shouldn't be parents, because it is detremental to a child's upbringing, as shown in one of Merlin1047's earlier posts.

MissleMan has a history of ignoring any facts presented.

 

[Merlin1047]

Now you're having trouble understanding what you yourself have written. You asked what will happen when homosexual men have their own biological children with surrogate mothers or lesbians have their own children by way of sperm donors. This is a totally separate issue from adoption, but you seem to want to prohibit it too.

You ask me where it says in the constitution that homosexuals have rights. I'll ask you where in the constitution is says homosexuals are to be denied rights.

Well it appears that we will, once again, be unable to reach a consensus on this issue. That is hardly surprising since most people hold rather strong views on this subject. But that's perfectly alright as I really wasn't expecting to convince anyone anyway.

If I have accomplished nothing else, I hope that I have made it plain that there are supportable and rational reasons for people to oppose the normalization of homosexual relationships within our society. The pro-homosexual view cannot claim sole possession of the high ground in this argument. Nor can the pro-homosexual lobby continue to label all those with anti-homosexual views as bigots, Jesus "freaks" or "homophobes". One can come to the conclusion that the acceptance of homosexual unions does not benefit either our nation or our society. And that conclusion can be based on factual evidence and rational thought.

 

[MissileMan]

Spend 10 minutes on Google, and allow yourself to be educated. If you are honest with yourself, you'll change your views.

I have looked around. Do you suppose it is mere coincidence that the only negative information about gay adoption is found on sites with an anti-gay agenda?

Perhaps you can answer why Liberals enjoy insults and name calling during a debate?

I have no idea...why don't you ask a liberal?

 

[MissileMan]

MissleMan has a history of ignoring any facts presented.

Tell you what...you present some real evidence, not conjecture or opinion, but real evidence that a higher percentage of children raised by homosexual parents wind up screwed up, and I'll change my stand.

 

[OCA]

There's just no pleasing you people. You bitch about homosexuals raising children because you say they want to produce more homosexuals. When they try to raise the kids as straight Christians, you bitch because you say they are just trying to grab attention. If the kids aren't homosexual, why should there be a problem with their acceptance at a Catholic school. I hear a lot of talk from you guys about acceptance and tolerance but apparently it is reserved only for those just like yourselves. Besides, the Catholic church has no problem with pedophilic, boy-diddlers...why should they have a problem with two boys who aren't diddling anybody?

There should be no adoption from HLCP perversionists then this problem wouldn't exist, I mean we don't let heroin addicts adopt, why HLCP? Same shit different stench.

 

[OCA]

I'd like to hear your justification for saying this. From personal (though admitedly limited) experience, I would say that homosexual couples want kids for the exact same reason hetero couples want them. To be honest with you, since it is so much harder for a homosexual couple to actually get kids, and since they are screened when they try to adopt, I would say that the average homosexual couple has a stronger and healthier desire for kids than the average heterosexual couple where a kid is only a broken condom away.

HLCP's should not be allowed to adopt simply because of their exhibited behavior and propensities towards wrong decision making in their lives.

 

[OCA]

Neither is idolatry or, Judaism for that matter. Nobody who has denied Christ as their savior is technically behaving acceptably in the eyes of the Christian Church. Would you then say that Jews, Muslims, and Hindus shouldn't be raising kids either?

Talking about extremism, they shopuldn't be allowed simply because of their abhorrent behavior. Listen we all know its wrong, to argue otherwise is laughable and to want children in that kind of situation is even more laughable.

 

[OCA]

Adopting and raising a child or children is one of the ultimate acts of charity. In most cases, it is an act of great sacrifice. I can't believe the pompous, sanctimonious assholes in this forum who would sully such an act because they don't like the adoptive parents lifestyle. Ask the kids if they'd rather be in an orphanage...I'll wager NOT!

What's really pissing you off is these acts of self-sacrifice fly in the face of your arguments that all homosexuals are self-serving; that these acts are being performed by those who you consider unredeemable.

Why is it that you jump to the conclusion that the parents have some hidden agenda? Why is it not possible that the kids were adopted from a Catholic- run orphanage and they are trying to keep the kids in a school environment they are accustomed to? Is it the Christian way to always think the worst of people?

The act of adoption by HLCP's is nothing more than political and social grandstanding, deny it but that don't change the fact. These queers knew it would come to this and they relish it the way they relish cock and sin.

 

[OCA]

Tell you what...you present some real evidence, not conjecture or opinion, but real evidence that a higher percentage of children raised by homosexual parents wind up screwed up, and I'll change my stand.

Do some research here slick, its all over this board. Facts upon facts of the HLCP's dangerous lifestyle choice.

 

[dmp]

I have looked around. Do you suppose it is mere coincidence that the only negative information about gay adoption is found on sites with an anti-gay agenda?

Cause and effect. People research how destructive a Homosexual lifestyle is, and those with common sense realize the facts support what I'm claiming.


Your argument here is retarded; because the same is true: "Do you suppose it is mere coincidence that the only positive information about gay adoption is found on sites with a pro-gay agenda

I have no idea...why don't you ask a liberal?

No true conservative is pro-gay. Impossible.

 

[MissileMan]

Cause and effect. People research how destructive a Homosexual lifestyle is, and those with common sense realize the facts support what I'm claiming.


Your argument here is retarded; because the same is true: "Do you suppose it is mere coincidence that the only positive information about gay adoption is found on sites with a pro-gay agenda

On the national front, the American Academy of Pediatrics, with 55,000 members, has now thrown its support behind second-parent adoptions for homosexual and lesbian couples.

So all 55,000 of these doctors have a pro-gay agenda? Seems to me that pediatricians would be pro-children.

No true conservative is pro-gay. Impossible.

More absolutes? I'll wager that I am more conservative than you are on most issues.

 

[MissileMan]

Do some research here slick, its all over this board. Facts upon facts of the HLCP's dangerous lifestyle choice.

You forgot to read the question sparky.

 

[dmp]

So all 55,000 of these doctors have a pro-gay agenda? Seems to me that pediatricians would be pro-children.



More absolutes? I'll wager that I am more conservative than you are on most issues.

ahh - so it's pick and choose conservativism...eh? Buffet Style?


No - that's one organization commenting, NOT all those doctors. It could be they are speaking for 1% or 90% of those doctors; but yeah - I do believe there would be at least 55,000 people, doctors or not, in this nation who are naive enough to buy into homosexual action groups' lies. Seems like one certain MissileMan has drank gallons of their kool aide.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

People living a homosexual (or rapist, or any other sexually deviant lifestyle) should be kept as far away from kids as possible. It's inherent in those lifestyles to allow one's sexual desires to define who they are. Those lifestyles HARM the participants, sometimes irreparably...and can cause dramatic, catastrophic issues for children. Whether adoption, or thru surrogates,

Comparing homosexuality to rapists is completely invalid, as is comparing homesexuality to child molestation (something you didn't do directly but is often brought up by other people). I think, however, I'm beginning to understand the fundamental difference between how I view homosexuality and how others here view it. I view homosexuality as a relationship between two people of the same gender. You seem to view it only in terms of sex. As a heterosexual, I spend maybe 1% of my time actually having sex with my wife. I don't define my relationship with my wife in terms of our sex life since 99% of my time with her is spent doing things that true homosexual couples do: talking, laughing, watching tv, cooking dinner, going skiing, etc. Are some homosexual relationships only about sex? Yes, but so are many heterosexual relationships. I'm certainly not saying that homosexual couples are better than heterosexual couples, but they certainly aren't any worse. Some are good, some are deviant, JUST like heterosexual relationships.

Homosexual-living adults should be forbidden to supervise the development of children.

To be honest, I would much rather see a loving homosexual-living couple raise children than some of the excuses we have for heterosexual parents. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it wouldn't surprise me if homosexual parents are better, on average, than heterosexual parents simply because it is so much harder for them to have kids. There are a SCARY amount of really, really terrible heterosexual parents out there because it is just so easy for scum to have kids. If it was truly about the kids, we would be helping FAR more kids if we licensed who could procreate rather than worrying about a small fraction of gays who want to adopt.

 

[MissileMan]

ahh - so it's pick and choose conservativism...eh? Buffet Style?

I think we've stumbled onto where you and I really disagree. You believe in order to be a real conservative, or real Christian, or real American, or decent human being that every single value and position on every issue has to come from the far-right, Christian dogma. I believe that an individual is able to be for, against, or even neutral on any given issue according to their understanding of it and their own conscience, without blindly following the herd (or flock, if you prefer).

 

[OCA]

You forgot to read the question sparky.

No slick, you asked for evidence and hard facts and those have been on this board for over a year now has we have been discussing the HLCP blight on America for a long time now, its up to you to do the research, we are not your bitches.

And i'll reiterate what D said, you cannot be conservative and be pro HLCP, the same as you can't be pro abortion and pro child, they cancel each other out, at best you are a fence rider er...moderate.