Homosexual declarations of children of homosexuals brings gay lifestyle into question..

[Silhouette]

PP, your thoughts on the dykes in Michigan forcing the custodians of orphans to go into bankruptcy as a shoehorn to gain access to those orphans?
Is that the cult of LGBT showing its compassion for children? Should adults who flagrantly seek to do proximal harm to children for a political agenda qualify as adopting parents? If someone demonstrates as a matter of public record that they're willing to directly steal food from the mouths of orphans to prove a political point, should they qualify as an adopting parent?

Yes or no?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

PP, your thoughts on the dykes in Michigan forcing the custodians of orphans to go into bankruptcy as a shoehorn to gain access to those orphans?
Is that the cult of LGBT showing its compassion for children? Should adults who flagrantly seek to do proximal harm to children for a political agenda qualify as adopting parents? If someone demonstrates as a matter of public record that they're willing to directly steal food from the mouths of orphans to prove a political point, should they qualify as an adopting parent?

Yes or no?

I think that you already know what I am going to say. Discrimination should not be tolerated. Period . The adoption agency should be put out of business , or at minimum, loose the state contract and funding.

These women are as qualified as anyone and should be treated equally. Your characterization of political motivation is just hyperbole. They are not seeking to harm the children. The anti gay bigots are because by excluding gay people, fewer children will be adopted.

 

[Silhouette]

Discrimination should not be tolerated. Period . The adoption agency should be put out of business , or at minimum, loose the state contract and funding.

So adoption agencies shouldn't discriminate against anyone seeking to adopt a child?

Oh, wait, they do. That's what the application is all about: to discriminate among prospective parents based on a number of disqualifiers; most of those behavioral-based. Would the behavior of seeking to punish an orphan financially by stripping their custodians of funding, in order to forward a deviant sex cult's political goals count as "behaviors that are red flags"...putting adults wants before children's needs? (the number 1 question on any adoption application)?

Don't you mean THE ORPHANS would lose funding? Aren't they the immediate losers in the deal? We presume the adults taking care of them already have food and shelter for themselves.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Discrimination should not be tolerated. Period . The adoption agency should be put out of business , or at minimum, loose the state contract and funding.

So adoption agencies shouldn't discriminate against anyone seeking to adopt a child?

Oh, wait, they do. That's what the application is all about: to discriminate among prospective parents based on a number of disqualifiers; most of those behavioral-based. Would the behavior of seeking to punish an orphan financially by stripping their custodians of funding, in order to forward a deviant sex cult's political goals count as "behaviors that are red flags"...putting adults wants before children's needs? (the number 1 question on any adoption application)?

Don't you mean THE ORPHANS would lose funding? Aren't they the immediate losers in the deal? We presume the adults taking care of them already have food and shelter for themselves.

Oh give me a damned break. What horseshit! There is a difference between screening for qualifications and automatically excluding a group for religious or any other reasons. Your obsession with gays as a sex cult is causing you to come up with increasingly bizarre and contrived crap.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think that you already know what I am going to say. Discrimination should not be tolerated. Period . The adoption agency should be put out of business , or at minimum, loose the state contract and funding.

These women are as qualified as anyone and should be treated equally. Your characterization of political motivation is just hyperbole. They are not seeking to harm the children. The anti gay bigots are because by excluding gay people, fewer children will be adopted.

That there may be no specific intent to cause harm to these children is not truly relevant. The point is that this insane and immoral agenda is being pursued with full awareness of the harm that it will cause to children, and with no concern or regard to this harm. Ethically, this makes those who promote this agenda no better than if they specifically intended to cause this harm.

Putting children under the control of sexual perverts is sexual abuse of those children. There is no spin that you can put on this to hide this fact.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You are abjectly stupid.
No human being has ever been created by homosex. It's always a heterosex. Period.
The parents may partake of homosex but it has nothing to do with the creation of any child.
Did someone drop you on your head?

First of all smiley gay people are sterile. If a Lesbian carries a child, that child is her child. If a gay man donates sperm and has a child with a surrogate-that is his child

Second of all there are millions of kids in the care of gay people and couples, who came to be with them my various meansThey are parents to those kids. They are their kids . So save your pointless and ignorant horseshit

Your contrived example is still a result of heterosex. That lesbian and homo dude are the parents.

It does not fucking matter! They are real children and the people who care for them and have legal ties to them are the parents. What part of that do you not understand? You make no valid point whatsoever

Every kid in those photos was created through hetero sex involving one specific man and one specific woman. Those children are being intentionally deprived of the human right to be raised by their actual parents.
You're too selfish and bigoted to accept that. Evil.

In many cases, the "actual parents" abused , neglected or abandoned the children rendering them as wards of the state. Now they have an "actual home" and are being cared for by "actual people" .

Unfortunately, your bigotry and ignorance does not allow you to see that.

And you’re suggesting that by virtue of their homosexuality that homos are incapable of ever being abusive parents.
You’re clearly the bigot on this issue on multiple levels.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is the plain and obvious truth. Putting children under the care and influence of sick sexual perverts is sexual abuse of those children. Denying it will not change this. Calling people “bigots” for pointing it out will not change it. Demanding that the “rights” of these sick perverts should be given higher precedence than the safety and well-being of children will not change it.

Yes, that's what I mean. caring more about the “rights” of sick sexual perverts than the right or well-being of children. There is truly something seriously wrong with anyone whose priorities are aligned that way.

They see them as second class citizens that shouldn't have children or be treated with respect. Something is really wrong with people that wish to do this to Americans.

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century. Fortunately you and the dwindling number of people like you have little to say about it. Gays can adopt children in every state and in some places-including my state-they have been literally for decades. If the kids were being harmed by this you would think that there would be daily horror stories of abuse, and hoards of young adults who were raised by gays speaking out. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

PS It's good to see that you have at least learned to keep a civil tongue in your head.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First of all smiley gay people are sterile. If a Lesbian carries a child, that child is her child. If a gay man donates sperm and has a child with a surrogate-that is his child

Second of all there are millions of kids in the care of gay people and couples, who came to be with them my various meansThey are parents to those kids. They are their kids . So save your pointless and ignorant horseshit

Your contrived example is still a result of heterosex. That lesbian and homo dude are the parents.

It does not fucking matter! They are real children and the people who care for them and have legal ties to them are the parents. What part of that do you not understand? You make no valid point whatsoever

Every kid in those photos was created through hetero sex involving one specific man and one specific woman. Those children are being intentionally deprived of the human right to be raised by their actual parents.
You're too selfish and bigoted to accept that. Evil.

In many cases, the "actual parents" abused , neglected or abandoned the children rendering them as wards of the state. Now they have an "actual home" and are being cared for by "actual people" .

Unfortunately, your bigotry and ignorance does not allow you to see that.

And you’re suggesting that by virtue of their homosexuality that homos are incapable of ever being abusive parents.
You’re clearly the bigot on this issue on multiple levels.

When the fuck did I say that Smiley?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

I completely agree

 

[Syriusly]

I thought you people believed in personal freedom and the ability to be left alone? It seems to me that you drop that idea as soon as someone wants to live away that you disagree with.

Get over it and you'll be less of a hypocrite.

The Kleins in Oregon believed in personal freedom & the ability to be left alone. And the lezbos had choices of other places to go.

Speaking of hypocrites.

Speaking of hypocrites-- the only parents you will ever criticize for their 'freedom of choice' are the parents you can use to attack gays.

If the parents are straight- and murder their kids- you will never even mention them.

 

[Syriusly]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with child sex abuse always being wrong?

Of course I think child sex abuse is wrong whenever it happens- not just when the posters can use the crime to attacks gays.

That is the difference between myself and the homophobic bigots in this thread.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

I completely agree

And yet, you continue to openly defend it. You cited it as something that one must accept in order to be “usher[ed] into the 21st century.”

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Is there anyone here who disagrees with child sex abuse always being wrong?

Of course I think child sex abuse is wrong whenever it happens- not just when the posters can use the crime to attacks gays.

That is the difference between myself and the homophobic bigots in this thread.

It's one thing to say that the sexual abuse of children is wrong. But such a statement is awfully hollow, when it is accompanied by the defence and advocacy of behavior which clearly constitutes the sexual abuse of children.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the parents are straight- and murder their kids- you will never even mention them.

When has Silhouette defended the murder of children by straight parents? If I'm not mistaken, you're pro-abortion, which certainly makes it hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of that, anyway.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is there anyone here who disagrees with child sex abuse always being wrong?

Of course I think child sex abuse is wrong whenever it happens- not just when the posters can use the crime to attacks gays.

That is the difference between myself and the homophobic bigots in this thread.

It's one thing to say that the sexual abuse of children is wrong. But such a statement is awfully hollow, when it is accompanied by the defence and advocacy of behavior which clearly constitutes the sexual abuse of children.

Are you sure that you want to go down that path of accusing me of defending sexual abuse again?. You know what happened last time!

I thought that you might have learned your lesson but apparently not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

I completely agree

And yet, you continue to openly defend it. You cited it as something that one must accept in order to be “usher[ed] into the 21st century.”

Only a very ignorant, sick and twisted person thinks that supporting adoption and parenting by Gays is tantamount to child sexual abuse. You need to stop that shit right now! No more warnings

 

[Syriusly]

If the parents are straight- and murder their kids- you will never even mention them.

When has Silhouette defended the murder of children by straight parents? If I'm not mistaken, you're pro-abortion, which certainly makes it hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of that, anyway.

I didn't accuse Silhouette of defending any murderers.

I am pointing out that Silhouette never- ever- objects to child murders if the she cannot use the murder- or abuse- to attack gays.

And I am not 'pro-abortion' any more than you are 'pro-heart surgery'- I think women should control their own reproductive rights, not old men.

 

[Syriusly]

Is there anyone here who disagrees with child sex abuse always being wrong?

Of course I think child sex abuse is wrong whenever it happens- not just when the posters can use the crime to attacks gays.

That is the difference between myself and the homophobic bigots in this thread.

It's one thing to say that the sexual abuse of children is wrong. But such a statement is awfully hollow, when it is accompanied by the defence and advocacy of behavior which clearly constitutes the sexual abuse of children.

I have stated this multiple times- in this thread and others.

IF you are aware of any child sex abuse- report it to the police immediately.

If you do not report what you consider to be 'child sex abuse' to the police you either:

a) don't give a flying fuck about the child you think is being sexually abused or
b) you are just lying to attack gays.

 

[Syriusly]

Look, if that is what you people want to believe I realize that I can't change your mind and usher you into the 21st century.

Subjecting children to sexual abuse has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter which century it is.

I completely agree

And yet, you continue to openly defend it. You cited it as something that one must accept in order to be “usher[ed] into the 21st century.”

I haven't seen him defend any sexual abuse. How about you provide that quote?