Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
First, I cant help but once again notice the double standard. You are upset over people being "childish" and then start telling people they have a small penis. Not sure what your penis fixation is about, but clearly childish in a discussion about raising kids.
Second, you've admitted you put children in homes where they were hated. Yet, it's everyone else who hates children because we want them in the best possible home.
Yea I admit, I fell into the childish standard of Del and Des. My bad.
Secondly, no one in the field intends to do so, but it happens. There was too many cases and too little resources (financially) to do better background and investigative research on Foster parents. So children were placed, not because of intent, but more so because lack of resources. So it did happen. No doubt. As far as the best possible home, I have to say again, 99 percent of the bad homes children were placed in were hetrosexual ones. You do that math. How could you say with absolute certainty that homosexual ones would be worse? You can't.
That's because 99% of the homes children were placed in WERE HETEROSEXUAL HOMES.
If there are 100 homosexual foster homes, and 100 heterosexual foster homes, those odds of children being abused would likely be very similar in both homes.
PEOPLE are abusive. Not sexual preferences.
A child to a life of foster care, and institutions, verses a loving home they could have with a homosexual couple? If so why?
Easy choice, go with the real love and keep that old, vengeful fuckhead Jehova out of it.
And don't get me started on Allah!
Next question please.
Heterosexual homes without question.Sodomites should not be allowed near kids. PERIOD!
Yea I admit, I fell into the childish standard of Del and Des. My bad.
Secondly, no one in the field intends to do so, but it happens. There was too many cases and too little resources (financially) to do better background and investigative research on Foster parents. So children were placed, not because of intent, but more so because lack of resources. So it did happen. No doubt. As far as the best possible home, I have to say again, 99 percent of the bad homes children were placed in were hetrosexual ones. You do that math. How could you say with absolute certainty that homosexual ones would be worse? You can't.
That's because 99% of the homes children were placed in WERE HETEROSEXUAL HOMES.
If there are 100 homosexual foster homes, and 100 heterosexual foster homes, those odds of children being abused would likely be very similar in both homes.
PEOPLE are abusive. Not sexual preferences.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
Yea I admit, I fell into the childish standard of Del and Des. My bad.
Secondly, no one in the field intends to do so, but it happens. There was too many cases and too little resources (financially) to do better background and investigative research on Foster parents. So children were placed, not because of intent, but more so because lack of resources. So it did happen. No doubt. As far as the best possible home, I have to say again, 99 percent of the bad homes children were placed in were hetrosexual ones. You do that math. How could you say with absolute certainty that homosexual ones would be worse? You can't.
That's because 99% of the homes children were placed in WERE HETEROSEXUAL HOMES.
If there are 100 homosexual foster homes, and 100 heterosexual foster homes, those odds of children being abused would likely be very similar in both homes.
PEOPLE are abusive. Not sexual preferences.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
Hurricane Ike said:You are a stupid fag.
Yea I admit, I fell into the childish standard of Del and Des. My bad.
Secondly, no one in the field intends to do so, but it happens. There was too many cases and too little resources (financially) to do better background and investigative research on Foster parents. So children were placed, not because of intent, but more so because lack of resources. So it did happen. No doubt. As far as the best possible home, I have to say again, 99 percent of the bad homes children were placed in were hetrosexual ones. You do that math. How could you say with absolute certainty that homosexual ones would be worse? You can't.
That's because 99% of the homes children were placed in WERE HETEROSEXUAL HOMES.
If there are 100 homosexual foster homes, and 100 heterosexual foster homes, those odds of children being abused would likely be very similar in both homes.
PEOPLE are abusive. Not sexual preferences.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
I think it's a bad idea as well, and not because I'm against people being gay. Be whatever you're going to be. In your own home.
You're not thinking of the ramifications to the children themselves WHILE they're growing up. Kids in todays world have it hard enough. Why subject them to more?
That's because 99% of the homes children were placed in WERE HETEROSEXUAL HOMES.
If there are 100 homosexual foster homes, and 100 heterosexual foster homes, those odds of children being abused would likely be very similar in both homes.
PEOPLE are abusive. Not sexual preferences.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
You are a stupid fag.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
I think it's a bad idea as well, and not because I'm against people being gay. Be whatever you're going to be. In your own home.
You're not thinking of the ramifications to the children themselves WHILE they're growing up. Kids in todays world have it hard enough. Why subject them to more?
D0 you think kids have to deal with their Daddy and Daddy asshumping their Daddy up the rump? You are a moron if you think this is OK.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
I think it's a bad idea as well, and not because I'm against people being gay. Be whatever you're going to be. In your own home.
You're not thinking of the ramifications to the children themselves WHILE they're growing up. Kids in todays world have it hard enough. Why subject them to more?
D0 you think kids have to deal with their Daddy and Daddy asshumping their Daddy up the rump? You are a moron if you think this is OK.
I absolutely agree. But you can't deny that people think that putting a child in a homosexual home is worse then a hetrosexaul one. That was the point of this thread. Why are hetrosexuals allowed to have children, if what you say both are similar in chances, and the homosexuals not. And how could you honestly both are the same, if history never allowed a even chance?
You are a stupid fag.
No actually I have a vagina, and prefer penis's. You seemed to be confused on what a fag is.
Yea I admit, I fell into the childish standard of Del and Des. My bad.
Secondly, no one in the field intends to do so, but it happens. There was too many cases and too little resources (financially) to do better background and investigative research on Foster parents. So children were placed, not because of intent, but more so because lack of resources. So it did happen. No doubt. As far as the best possible home, I have to say again, 99 percent of the bad homes children were placed in were hetrosexual ones. You do that math. How could you say with absolute certainty that homosexual ones would be worse? You can't.
Because there is 6000 years of human history to look at to show what is best for a child. Deciding we can start experimenting with the lives of children is dangerous and stupid because it causes potential problems for centuries.
What you've just told me is that you dont have any investigation backing up your position yet somehow we are supposed to trust your judgment because of what's "fair". Is it fair to treat a child like some novelty just because what it says about you and to make a political statement?
No, absolutely not. But you guys have no problem demolishing our future generations. Because two people who dont have a freakin clue what love is tell you they can take care of a child better the way nature designed it.
No one forced gays to choose their lifestyle. They knew going into it that they wouldnt be able to have children with their "partner". They knew they wouldnt be able to get married. If they want to change their mind, they are free too. But to try to avoid the consequences of their own actions and compound it by forcing an innocent child to be involved in their dysfunction on the claim of love is absurd and dangerous for society.
You are a stupid fag.
No actually I have a vagina, and prefer penis's. You seemed to be confused on what a fag is.
You are useless. You prefer to kill kid's in their hearts with your faggotry. You hate kids by believing these beasts are normal.
80 years ago (not 6000) children were subjected to child labor. I think it was 60 years ago (not 6000) it was against the law to whip your dog, but not against the law to whip a child. I may have it off by a few years here and there. Look it up. So it took 6000 years and it still isn't right. You have no proof that putting a child into a homosexual home will lead to child abuse. Why? Because it folks like you don't allow the possibility of giving a child a chance because of your biased reasoning. Just look at the stagering stats.
You are useless as tits on a bull.No actually I have a vagina, and prefer penis's. You seemed to be confused on what a fag is.
You are useless. You prefer to kill kid's in their hearts with your faggotry. You hate kids by believing these beasts are normal.
No it is you sir/madam that would rather childrren live a loveless exsistence then in a loving home.
The beasts seem to be much normal then you.
80 years ago (not 6000) children were subjected to child labor. I think it was 60 years ago (not 6000) it was against the law to whip your dog, but not against the law to whip a child. I may have it off by a few years here and there. Look it up. So it took 6000 years and it still isn't right. You have no proof that putting a child into a homosexual home will lead to child abuse. Why? Because it folks like you don't allow the possibility of giving a child a chance because of your biased reasoning. Just look at the stagering stats.
What stats? There cant possibly be any stats until after the child is grown and then its too late for the child and for any future descendents of that Child. You already admitted yourself you dont have time to investigate jack.
And i never said it would lead to child abuse. I said its foolish to place them in a dysfunctional home from the get go. You are the one who assumed there would be child abuse. So tell me, why do you feel the need to defend against the accusation of child abuse if you dont think they will cause any and the claim isnt made?
You are useless as tits on a bull.You are useless. You prefer to kill kid's in their hearts with your faggotry. You hate kids by believing these beasts are normal.
No it is you sir/madam that would rather childrren live a loveless exsistence then in a loving home.
The beasts seem to be much normal then you.
A child to a life of foster care, and institutions, verses a loving home they could have with a homosexual couple? If so why?
