Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems. And one of those problems is population decline if LGBT is indeed a culture/behavior and the premise that they are a "race" is a false one they've been riding on for far too long: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html Cultures have a way of expanding. And perhaps this is why in just the same exact years this big gay push has been seen, there has been an alarming spike in the youngest of "gay" males coming down with HIV:
Hmm....just in the same years as the big gay marriage/gay culture push. Monkey see, monkey do.
A state has a right to be concerned about that.
But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":
And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]
And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]
Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?
...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic [re-read the Clinical Psychiatry News quote above just before..then..]:
States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.
Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...
Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.
They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.
Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.
Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/index.html
Hmm....just in the same years as the big gay marriage/gay culture push. Monkey see, monkey do.
A state has a right to be concerned about that.
But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":
ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]
And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]
Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?
...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic [re-read the Clinical Psychiatry News quote above just before..then..]:
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...
...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.
Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...
Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.
They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.
Last edited: