Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay "Couples"

[hazlnut]

It would be better to just take away their license altogether, bigots and homophobes should not be in a position to decide the welfare of children.

We need to ban bigots and homophobes from jobs like teacher, principal, social worker -- anything where they have contact with children.

 

[Silhouette]

It would be better to just take away their license altogether, bigots and homophobes should not be in a position to decide the welfare of children.

We need to ban bigots and homophobes from jobs like teacher, principal, social worker -- anything where they have contact with children.

But don't you believe that children have an innate right to have both a father and mother provided when a couple presents themselves to adopt? Most religions believe and an overwhelming number of Americans believe that a child has a right to a mother and a father; regular contact with both. Look at the poll results in this thread, for example. You're in a tiny minority friend. And even tinier when you consider that many gays also believe a child should have a mother and father present in their lives. In fact, most gay members were raised themselves with contact with both a mother and father in their life. So there is just a tidal wave against your position. And Michigan's political leaders were quite confident and forward-thinking in their wisdom passing this law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

Wow are you ever wrong about that. Even the gay Italian designers got into a row with Elton John about their strong beliefs that parents should be mother and father to children:

Now I know for a fact that you are completely lying about your statistical data. Go ask anyone on the street if they think children should have at least regular contact with both a mother and a father and you will get a 90% rating for "yes". Wow, what a liar you are. You should feel ashamed.

2 Gay Italian Designers Slam Elton John s Synthetic Babies US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Rome (AFP) - Italian designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana..."I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a mother, a father and children," he said in a statement.

"This is the reality in which I grew up...Speaking to Italian daily Corriere della Sera's web edition, Gabbana said he had expected better from a singer he once admired....."I didn't expect this, coming from someone whom I considered, and I stress 'considered', an intelligent person like Elton John...."I mean, you preach understanding, tolerance and then you attack others?..."Only because someone has a different opinion? Is this a democratic or enlightened way of thinking? This is ignorance, because he ignores the fact that others might have a different opinion and that theirs is as worthy of respect as his." Italian designer duo slam Elton John in IVF babies row - Business Insider

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I didn't respond to your poll, because you used the word 'right', where the word "Responsibility" was appropriate; which would require all reasonable people to vote in the affirmative.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

So what? Popularity does not correlate to validity and there is no potential validity possible in allowing homosexuals to so much as be alone with a child, let alone the parent, or God forbid 'parents' of a child.

Understand that what we're discussing here, is sexual deviancy.

The notion that a sexual deviant; which is to say one whose sexual cravings deviate from the human sexual standard, is limited to say... craving sexual gratification through sexual interaction with the person of the same gender, is fairly short cited.

This is because; in terms of the scope of deviation from the human sexual standard, homosexuality deviates as far from that standard as is HUMANLY possible; which is to say where the subjects at issue remain exclusively human.

Thus the subject: homosexuality, is deviancy with spans the ENTIRE FIELD of all possible ways to deviate from the human sexual standard.

Therefore all bets; with regard to any lines that might be drawn, are off. Because they have already demonstrated that 'lines'; standards, boundaries, mores, taboos, mean nothing to them ... and that they could't give a red rats ass about any standards of any kind.

All they are concerned with is their own subjective needs and getting those would-be itches, scratched.

And one need go NO FARTHER than the homo-cult's invasion of the Catholic Priesthood, to see that where homosexuals are placed in positions of authority and trust over children, it is likely that they will abuse that authority and violate the trust where they find an itch that needs scratching, with regards to children.

 

[Silhouette]

His poll is false. There is most definitely not a even a significant portion of the population who believe children should have either no mother or no father. I can guarantee you that.

 

[mdk]

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

Wow are you ever wrong about that. Even the gay Italian designers got into a row with Elton John about their strong beliefs that parents should be mother and father to children:

Now I know for a fact that you are completely lying about your statistical data. Go ask anyone on the street if they think children should have at least regular contact with both a mother and a father and you will get a 90% rating for "yes". Wow, what a liar you are. You should feel ashamed.

2 Gay Italian Designers Slam Elton John s Synthetic Babies US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Rome (AFP) - Italian designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana..."I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a mother, a father and children," he said in a statement.

"This is the reality in which I grew up...Speaking to Italian daily Corriere della Sera's web edition, Gabbana said he had expected better from a singer he once admired....."I didn't expect this, coming from someone whom I considered, and I stress 'considered', an intelligent person like Elton John...."I mean, you preach understanding, tolerance and then you attack others?..."Only because someone has a different opinion? Is this a democratic or enlightened way of thinking? This is ignorance, because he ignores the fact that others might have a different opinion and that theirs is as worthy of respect as his." Italian designer duo slam Elton John in IVF babies row - Business Insider

Dolce and Gabbana's opinion trumps Gallup's finding in what way? Oh wait, it doesn't. This is just another example of you ignoring any data that contradicts your narrative and you citing imaginary people on the street. You lie as effortlessly as I breath.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

His poll is false. There is most definitely not a even a significant portion of the population who believe children should have either no mother or no father. I can guarantee you that.

I agree... but with that said, it wouldn't matter if every human being on the planet 'believed' to the core of their soul that children do not need a mother and a father, as without regard to what 'people believe', children do in FACT need a mother and a father; and that's not even a debatable point.

 

[mdk]

His poll is false. There is most definitely not a even a significant portion of the population who believe children should have either no mother or no father. I can guarantee you that.

WW is citing Gallup's findings and you are citing you imagination. I wonder which is more credible? Hint: it isn't you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and an overwhelming number of Americans ....

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

So what? Popularity does not correlate to validity...

Psst...

I was responding to a post that specifically address "popularity" as represented by "overwhelming number of Americans..."


Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.
Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Well since there is a rift between our two positions, maybe we should have a documentary where reporters from both Fox News and MSNBC (to be fair to the two political sides) go out together with their own cameramen and staff as a group and film a living-survey of people on streets across the nation. And not just blue-light district streets. I'm talking majority-Streets USA. Then let both agencies air the documentary on "the true survey of the number of Americans who believe children should grow up without a father or a mother present in their lives". And the concurrent polling question "if you know that gay marriage means children in them not having, ever, either a mother a father present in their life, does this change your support for gay marriage?" and "having been reminded that gay marriages will deprive either a mother or a father to children, do you support adoption agencies being able to say "no" to gay couples based on the physical deficiency their relationship presents as prospective parents?"

Would you agree to that documentary Worldy? I surely would, with 100% full confidence beforehand in which side the majority in the polls will be in favor of.

 

[Montrovant]

His poll is false. There is most definitely not a even a significant portion of the population who believe children should have either no mother or no father. I can guarantee you that.

As usual you misrepresent, misconstrue, and outright lie about what someone has said.

Saying there is support for gay adoption is not saying children should have no father or no mother; it is saying that gays should be allowed to adopt. It is saying that when children already have no parents, allowing gays to become adoptive parents is acceptable. It is only because of your need to demonize gays and all who might support them that you go from allowing gays to adopt to children should be without a father or a mother.

 

[Montrovant]

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.
Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Well since there is a rift between our two positions, maybe we should have a documentary where reporters from both Fox News and MSNBC (to be fair to the two political sides) go out together with their own cameramen and staff as a group and film a living-survey of people on streets across the nation. And not just blue-light district streets. I'm talking majority-Streets USA. Then let both agencies air the documentary on "the true survey of the number of Americans who believe children should grow up without a father or a mother present in their lives". And the concurrent polling question "if you know that gay marriage means children in them not having, ever, either a mother a father present in their life, does this change your support for gay marriage?" and "having been reminded that gay marriages will deprive either a mother or a father to children, do you support adoption agencies being able to say "no" to gay couples based on the physical deficiency their relationship presents as prospective parents?"

Would you agree to that documentary Worldy? I surely would, with 100% full confidence beforehand in which side the majority in the polls will be in favor of.

That might make sense.....if that question were valid. Since, instead, the question would need to be along the lines of, "Do you support gay couples being able to adopt children?", I'm sure the results would be different.

Trying to manipulate the issue through leading questions......are you a pollster?

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.
Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Well since there is a rift between our two positions, maybe we should have a documentary where reporters from both Fox News and MSNBC (to be fair to the two political sides) go out together with their own cameramen and staff as a group and film a living-survey of people on streets across the nation. And not just blue-light district streets. I'm talking majority-Streets USA. Then let both agencies air the documentary on "the true survey of the number of Americans who believe children should grow up without a father or a mother present in their lives". And the concurrent polling question "if you know that gay marriage means children in them not having, ever, either a mother a father present in their life, does this change your support for gay marriage?" and "having been reminded that gay marriages will deprive either a mother or a father to children, do you support adoption agencies being able to say "no" to gay couples based on the physical deficiency their relationship presents as prospective parents?"

Would you agree to that documentary Worldy? I surely would, with 100% full confidence beforehand in which side the majority in the polls will be in favor of.

That might make sense.....if that question were valid. Since, instead, the question would need to be along the lines of, "Do you support gay couples being able to adopt children?", I'm sure the results would be different.

Trying to manipulate the issue through leading questions......are you a pollster?

Here's how the survey questions would line up with instructions at the start that say

"Be sure to read all four questions first before you start to answer them one by one"

1. Are you aware that gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother? Yes___ No___

2. Having realized gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother, does that change your support away from being in favor of gay marriage? Yes____ No____

3. Are you aware that most adoption agencies are Christian-run? Yes___ No____

4. Having realized most adoption agencies are Christian run, do you support them being able to refuse adopting children to applicants based on their faith-supported belief that a marriage should mean both a mother and a father to children? Yes____ No____


That's it. 4 simple questions.

I'll bet the house on where the majority of the answers will be.

 

[Montrovant]

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.
Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Well since there is a rift between our two positions, maybe we should have a documentary where reporters from both Fox News and MSNBC (to be fair to the two political sides) go out together with their own cameramen and staff as a group and film a living-survey of people on streets across the nation. And not just blue-light district streets. I'm talking majority-Streets USA. Then let both agencies air the documentary on "the true survey of the number of Americans who believe children should grow up without a father or a mother present in their lives". And the concurrent polling question "if you know that gay marriage means children in them not having, ever, either a mother a father present in their life, does this change your support for gay marriage?" and "having been reminded that gay marriages will deprive either a mother or a father to children, do you support adoption agencies being able to say "no" to gay couples based on the physical deficiency their relationship presents as prospective parents?"

Would you agree to that documentary Worldy? I surely would, with 100% full confidence beforehand in which side the majority in the polls will be in favor of.

That might make sense.....if that question were valid. Since, instead, the question would need to be along the lines of, "Do you support gay couples being able to adopt children?", I'm sure the results would be different.

Trying to manipulate the issue through leading questions......are you a pollster?

Here's how the survey questions would line up with instructions at the start that say

"Be sure to read all four questions first before you start to answer them one by one"

1. Are you aware that gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother? Yes___ No___

2. Having realized gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother, does that change your support away from being in favor of gay marriage? Yes____ No____

3. Are you aware that most adoption agencies are Christian-run? Yes___ No____

4. Having realized most adoption agencies are Christian run, do you support them being able to refuse adopting children to applicants based on their faith-supported belief that a marriage should mean both a mother and a father to children? Yes____ No____


That's it. 4 simple questions.

I'll bet the house on where the majority of the answers will be.

You'll be the house on where answers to leading questions will be? How courageous of you.

1. Gay marriage does not deprive kids of a father or a mother. Marriage does not require children and not all same sex marriages will have children. Further, an adopted child has neither a father nor a mother, so a gay couple would, instead, be providing a parentless child with parents. I'll accept that gay couples who have their own children (through surrogate or other means) will not be providing both a mother and father, but that is true whether the couple is married or not. So this question is just silly.

2. See 1

3. I don't know if you are correct or not, but I'm willing to accept this as true.

4. I'm not sure how any poll which well represents the opinions of the country would answer this question. I wouldn't be shocked however it turned out.

Why don't we change the first question a bit and you can tell me how you think the answers would go? How about this :

1. Are you aware that children waiting to be adopted have no parents of any gender supporting them?

2. Having realized that children waiting for adoption are without parental guidance, would you support same sex couples adopting children and providing them with parents?

Or how about this?

1. Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or an adoptive parent or parents?

How do you think those questions would be answered, Sil?

 

[Silhouette]

Or how about this?

1. Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or an adoptive parent or parents?

How do you think those questions would be answered, Sil?

And it's correlary, don't forget:

1(a): Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or be adopted by people who exhibit mental instability. (I would show them the picture in my signature first before I asked.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Psst...

I was responding to a post that specifically address "popularity" as represented by "overwhelming number of Americans..."

Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Psst... there are no Leftist Americans.

Thus there is no American support for the deceit, fraud and ignorance that is the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

And without regard to how popular delusion is, it remains an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

What Sil is explaining to you is that the would-be popularity, rests in ignorance. That if the issue were presented truthfully... there would be, in the wake of that objective discussion, the understanding that sexual deviancy is a presentation of mental disorder and that the notion of homosexuals adopting children is the same notion as setting children subject to sexual molestation by those set in position of trust and authority common to "Parent", and that this is somehow better than not having sexually deviant authorities set upon them.

And that is not to say that every sexual deviant will fail the trust or abuse the authority as parent... but their professed deviancy says that they're likely to do so.

 

[Skylar]

Am I hallucinating that Michigan and soon other states will pass laws allowing adoption agencies to insist their wards only be adopted to couples who provide a mother and a father to the child? How is that about me? Trying a strawman when ad hominems fail you?

You've hallucinated the 'categories' of protected classes in the 14th amendment. They don't exist.

You've hallucinated the 'army' that apparently belongs to Montovant/

You've hallucinated the 'gay infilitration' of Gallup and all other polling agencies that contradict you.

You've hallucinated Oprah being in on a vast international gay conspiracy going back to the 60s.

You've hallucinated the USSC being blackmailed by homosexuals to make them rule in a manner contrary with your beliefs.

You're quite ill, Sil.

 

[Skylar]

Psst...

I was responding to a post that specifically address "popularity" as represented by "overwhelming number of Americans..."

Sil was wrong about the support of the American people.

Psst... there are no Leftist Americans.

Psst....you don't define who is an American and who isn't, my little Relativist.

What Sil is explaining to you is that the would-be popularity, rests in ignorance.

Actually Sil claims that the popularity rests in an elaborate and fantastically complicated batshit conspiracy involving Gallup, the US Postal Service, InTouch Magazine, all polling agencies that show support for same sex marriage, and for some reason, Oprah Winfrey.

You've kinda backed the wrong horse there, Keyes.

That if the issue were presented truthfully... there would be, in the wake of that objective discussion, the understanding that sexual deviancy is a presentation of mental disorder and that the notion of homosexuals adopting children is the same notion as setting children subject to sexual molestation by those set in position of trust and authority common to "Parent", and that this is somehow better than not having sexually deviant authorities set upon them.

You don't define 'objectivity' anymore than you do who is an American. Your entire argument requires that we accept whatever you imagine as immutable and irrefutable objective truth. Despite the fact that your imagination isn't any of those things.

Rendering your entire argument moot.