The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Chris_ on July 15, 2008, 05:16:24 PM
-
McCain assailed for opposing adoptions by gays
NEW YORK (AP) - Advocates for gay and lesbian parents are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice.
Only one state, Florida, outlaws adoptions by gays, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.
The Republican nominee-in-waiting was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.
"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.
The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.
"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council. "There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
"Sen. McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," Huckaby said.
*snip*
"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."
McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.
Gays continue to demand that they be treated "just like everyone else", but they aren't.
MORE (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91UHQB00&show_article=1)
-
I think there is plenty of evidence showing that children raised in 2 parent homes , and by that I mean a mother and a father. Children need both genders for a balanced outlook on life, imo.
-
Finally a conservative opinion from Senator McCain.
About time I find something he and I agree on.
-
Wow! A group McCainez wont pander to. Well, it's not like they would vote for him in the first place.
-
Good for him for sticking to his principles on this one.
-
Would teh gheys have supported them anyway? doubt it.
He's against it, and he's leaving it up to the states. What's wrong with that?
-
Would teh gheys have supported them anyway? doubt it.
He's against it, and he's leaving it up to the states. What's wrong with that?
The 2%-4% of people who are ghey might hit him with their purses.
People are so stupid -- they let a tiny % of people set the agenda.
-
It is only a small fraction of these fruits that will make adoption a major issue. Some gays will vote for McCain simply for economic reasons. They do not like their taxes going up plus the average Gay's income is more than that of the average straight. Those freaks that march in parades with their body parts hanging out would not vote for McCain under any circumstances.
-
McCain assailed for opposing adoptions by gays
NEW YORK (AP) - Advocates for gay and lesbian parents are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice.
Only one state, Florida, outlaws adoptions by gays, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.
The Republican nominee-in-waiting was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.
"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.
The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.
"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council. "There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
"Sen. McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," Huckaby said.
*snip*
"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."
McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.
Gays continue to demand that they be treated "just like everyone else", but they aren't.
MORE (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91UHQB00&show_article=1)
Forget the gay rights subject and consider this.
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
What about the rights of children? I also believe it's important to have both a male and female figure in a child's life, but how can anybody support denying kids the right to a family as opposed to being raised by the state?
Income to raise a child, whether one has a violent background, other dangerous background, whether one has a neglectful background, and whether it's still possible to reconcile with the biological parents. That's what should be considered when adopting kids out, not whether the family is traditional.
-
Forget the gay rights subject and consider this.
What about the rights of children? I also believe it's important to have both a male and female figure in a child's life, but how can anybody support denying kids the right to a family as opposed to being raised by the state?
Kids don't have rights. ADULTS have rights. Unless you've discovered a new article of the Constitution.
They can be protected by the laws of the state or the nations. But they don't have rights.
A gay couple is not a family. They are two people of the same gender having sex.
No matter how butch or manly one of them may seem...two women rasing a boy is NOT a good envoionment for that child...anymore than two gay men...no matter how fem one is...is a good situation for a girl to be raised in.
In either case...something is missing.
And in those instances...it's better for the state to take care of them than a gay couple.
Income to raise a child, whether one has a violent background, other dangerous background, whether one has a neglectful background, and whether it's still possible to reconcile with the biological parents.
So two people living in a deviant lifestyle that makes $200K is more important in an adoption than a loving normal family that only makes $75K?
Money and financial means...doesn't equate to a happy nurturing family.
When and if you ever have kids...you'll understand this better.
That's what should be considered when adopting kids out, not whether the family is traditional.
Not traditional...normal. You libs use traditional in a connotation that makes it seem outdated and out of touch. And a normal family should be a HUGE consideration in adopting a child.
-
Sarge, your quote is messed up.
There's nothing wrong with traditional. Personally, I wish more couples would work out their problems so more families can stay traditional.
But suppose a child's life was in your hands. The biological parents are gone. You only had two options. You can choose that this child be raised by the state or you can choose that this child be adopted by a gay couple who will treat them well, take care of them, and provide a loving home.
Let's suppose for argument's sake, you have no other options. And let's suppose you had to verbally tell the kid your decision and explain it. Would you really tell that kid he/she could not have a family, and that he/she had to be raised by the state?
And please don't try to sidetrack with this or that. Answer the question.
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
-
Sarge, your quote is messed up.
There's nothing wrong with traditional. Personally, I wish more couples would work out their problems so more families can stay traditional.
But suppose a child's life was in your hands. The biological parents are gone. You only had two options. You can choose that this child be raised by the state or you can choose that this child be adopted by a gay couple who will treat them well, take care of them, and provide a loving home.
Let's suppose for argument's sake, you have no other options. And let's suppose you had to verbally tell the kid your decision and explain it. Would you really tell that kid he/she could not have a family, and that he/she had to be raised by the state?
And please don't try to sidetrack with this or that. Answer the question.
Yup.
No problems in saying to the kid, We can't find you a suitable family for the moment.
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
Spot on. Hi 5.
-
H5 from me too.
It's funny how the "experts" really don't know anything. Plus, there is always an underlying agenda. The truth doesn't respect agendas and that really pisses off the liberals.
-
How dare he hold the same opinion as the majority of the country?
What a dick
-
McCain assailed for opposing adoptions by gays
Sodomites In Rage Over McCain Opposing Fresh Meat Market
-
Sarge, your quote is messed up.
There's nothing wrong with traditional. Personally, I wish more couples would work out their problems so more families can stay traditional.
But suppose a child's life was in your hands. The biological parents are gone. You only had two options. You can choose that this child be raised by the state or you can choose that this child be adopted by a gay couple who will treat them well, take care of them, and provide a loving home.
Let's suppose for argument's sake, you have no other options. And let's suppose you had to verbally tell the kid your decision and explain it. Would you really tell that kid he/she could not have a family, and that he/she had to be raised by the state?
And please don't try to sidetrack with this or that. Answer the question.
Don't you think that we should first decide that the kid gets to live then we can work on adopting them> JMHO
-
Sarge, your quote is messed up.
No it's not. It's actually spot on.
There's nothing wrong with traditional. Personally, I wish more couples would work out their problems so more families can stay traditional.
Trial lawyers who made "no fault" part of the lexicon of divorce court erased 99% of the chances of any couples working out their problems.
But suppose a child's life was in your hands. The biological parents are gone. You only had two options. You can choose that this child be raised by the state or you can choose that this child be adopted by a gay couple who will treat them well, take care of them, and provide a loving home.
The kid waits until there is a stable family with a mom and dad that is willing to adopt them as one of their own.
Let's suppose for argument's sake, you have no other options. And let's suppose you had to verbally tell the kid your decision and explain it. Would you really tell that kid he/she could not have a family, and that he/she had to be raised by the state?
And please don't try to sidetrack with this or that. Answer the question.
[/quote]
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
I do personally think that some are getting careless about the divorce subject. One problem is that too many people are getting married young. I read a lot of people getting divorces got married young. Get older, get more mature, learn more of who you are, and then try to find somebody. I think older people are more likely than younger people to consider the conpatability issue and not just "looooooooooove".
With that being said, there really are some families better off where the parents divorced. Obviously abuse is one of them. Another is when the family drunk/drug addict is using up all the resources and it's getting hard to keep the family up. People are like "Well, they can get help". The individual tearing up the family has to *want* help first.
How long is a kid supposed to wait for a "suitable" family? A year? Two? Five? Ten years? Personally, I think this idea of making a kid be raised by the state is cruel.
-
No it's not. It's actually spot on.
I mean you didn't do the quote function right, silly.
Trial lawyers who made "no fault" part of the lexicon of divorce court erased 99% of the chances of any couples working out their problems.
So we need the government to make us stay married? Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the family business. Any couple who needs the government to stay married has serious problems.
The kid waits until there is a stable family with a mom and dad that is willing to adopt them as one of their own.
Do you realize that the longer the kid waits, the less likely they will be adopted?
-
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the family business.
But you want the government to make sure that on demand abortion stays legal I bet.
Am I correct?
I suspect I can think of other "family" aspects that you might be more than happy to have the government involved in.
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
I do personally think that some are getting careless about the divorce subject. One problem is that too many people are getting married young. I read a lot of people getting divorces got married young. Get older, get more mature, learn more of who you are, and then try to find somebody. I think older people are more likely than younger people to consider the conpatability issue and not just "looooooooooove".
With that being said, there really are some families better off where the parents divorced. Obviously abuse is one of them. Another is when the family drunk/drug addict is using up all the resources and it's getting hard to keep the family up. People are like "Well, they can get help". The individual tearing up the family has to *want* help first.
How long is a kid supposed to wait for a "suitable" family? A year? Two? Five? Ten years? Personally, I think this idea of making a kid be raised by the state is cruel.
There is nothing wrong with people getting married at a young age. What is wrong is the recent idea that childhood doesn't end until 30 or so. The liberalism that has spread through our society like a cancer seems to promote immaturity and slander responsibility. Society should be angry enough by now to make some positive steps to reverse that trend.
It is true that sometimes divorce is the only answer. The victims of divorce, the children, usually pay a heavy price for these decisions. In some cases, the children are better off. In some cases they aren't. Sometimes it is a trade-off. They trade one emotional hell for another.
In the case of adoption, how long is a child to wait for a suitable home? As long as it takes. Placing children with sodomites, dikes, and the like is and always will be "not suitable". To do that to a child is absurd and sick. People who thinks such an arrangement is acceptable should never be allowed around children, much less be making decisions about their wellbeing.
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
I do personally think that some are getting careless about the divorce subject. One problem is that too many people are getting married young. I read a lot of people getting divorces got married young. Get older, get more mature, learn more of who you are, and then try to find somebody. I think older people are more likely than younger people to consider the conpatability issue and not just "looooooooooove".
With that being said, there really are some families better off where the parents divorced. Obviously abuse is one of them. Another is when the family drunk/drug addict is using up all the resources and it's getting hard to keep the family up. People are like "Well, they can get help". The individual tearing up the family has to *want* help first.
How long is a kid supposed to wait for a "suitable" family? A year? Two? Five? Ten years? Personally, I think this idea of making a kid be raised by the state is cruel.
There is nothing wrong with people getting married at a young age. What is wrong is the recent idea that childhood doesn't end until 30 or so. The liberalism that has spread through our society like a cancer seems to promote immaturity and slander responsibility. Society should be angry enough by now to make some positive steps to reverse that trend.
It is true that sometimes divorce is the only answer. The victims of divorce, the children, usually pay a heavy price for these decisions. In some cases, the children are better off. In some cases they aren't. Sometimes it is a trade-off. They trade one emotional hell for another.
In the case of adoption, how long is a child to wait for a suitable home? As long as it takes. Placing children with sodomites, dikes, and the like is and always will be "not suitable". To do that to a child is absurd and sick. People who thinks such an arrangement is acceptable should never be allowed around children, much less be making decisions about their wellbeing.
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
The reason I don't have a problem with gay adoption is because I don't think it hurts kids. It's not like the gay couple does their thing in front of the kids or anything. It's not like it causes kids to die of diseases or anything. It simply puts the kid in a home that isn't traditional. That's it.
I think there might be studies showing that a kid turns out better with both a male and a female parent, but I haven't seen studies that show that kids of homosexual parents turn out a wreck or anything.
-
Twenty-five years ago, when I was considering divorcing the father of my 2 oldest children, I was reassured by all kinds of psychologists and sociologists who wrote articles and books about children being happier and living better lives with one happy parent than two unhappy parents.
Today, I look at my children and their generation, and I see the results of those careless assurances from ignorant experts...increasing poverty, increasing crime, increasing drop-out rate, increasing drug usage, increasing child abuse, increasing gang-violence...and an entire generation that does not understand what marriage actually is, nor how to work it.
Now we hear the next generation of ignorant experts assuring us that children are better off with same-sex couples than waiting for normal parents. After 25 years of their ignorant opinions messing up our society and our kids, maybe, just maybe, we should know better by now. Especially given the fact that every actual study of children has found that they do best in a family with their own mother and father, and next best in a family with adoptive/foster/whatever mother and father...and worst in any other set-up. How many kids must we destroy before we get a clue? :banghead:
I do personally think that some are getting careless about the divorce subject. One problem is that too many people are getting married young. I read a lot of people getting divorces got married young. Get older, get more mature, learn more of who you are, and then try to find somebody. I think older people are more likely than younger people to consider the conpatability issue and not just "looooooooooove".
With that being said, there really are some families better off where the parents divorced. Obviously abuse is one of them. Another is when the family drunk/drug addict is using up all the resources and it's getting hard to keep the family up. People are like "Well, they can get help". The individual tearing up the family has to *want* help first.
How long is a kid supposed to wait for a "suitable" family? A year? Two? Five? Ten years? Personally, I think this idea of making a kid be raised by the state is cruel.
There is nothing wrong with people getting married at a young age. What is wrong is the recent idea that childhood doesn't end until 30 or so. The liberalism that has spread through our society like a cancer seems to promote immaturity and slander responsibility. Society should be angry enough by now to make some positive steps to reverse that trend.
It is true that sometimes divorce is the only answer. The victims of divorce, the children, usually pay a heavy price for these decisions. In some cases, the children are better off. In some cases they aren't. Sometimes it is a trade-off. They trade one emotional hell for another.
In the case of adoption, how long is a child to wait for a suitable home? As long as it takes. Placing children with sodomites, dikes, and the like is and always will be "not suitable". To do that to a child is absurd and sick. People who thinks such an arrangement is acceptable should never be allowed around children, much less be making decisions about their wellbeing.
H5 Lord Undies.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
That would be my thinking. You seem to have this idea that it is ok to present homosexuality as something normal and equal to actual normality. Just because you have never hurt a child on purpose is beside the point. You seem incapable of making the right choices where children are concerned, so yes, you are a danger to children.
The reason I don't have a problem with gay adoption is because I don't think it hurts kids.
That you think that is a given. It doesn't make you correct. You "don't think" changes nothing. Children should never be forced into an intimate relationship with homosexuals. To do so is child abuse of the highest order.
I state again, those of you who want to abandon common sense in the name of political correctness should never be allowed to be in control of child lives. You are a danger to society and should be treated as such.
It's not like the gay couple does their thing in front of the kids or anything. It's not like it causes kids to die of diseases or anything. It simply puts the kid in a home that isn't traditional. That's it.
No, that isn't "it". "It" tries to force the idea that what homosexuals do to each other is somehow equal to normal sex between a man and a woman. It isn't. To treat children with such disregard is sick. It is important to remember that homosexuality is a mental illness. Losing sight of that fact is what creates people like you.
I think there might be studies showing that a kid turns out better with both a male and a female parent, but I haven't seen studies that show that kids of homosexual parents turn out a wreck or anything.
And you probably never will. I can promise you no matter what the outcome of such "studies", only one conclusion will be drawn. It is usually people of your ilk who control such "studies" (see: Alfred Kinsey).
-
And you probably never will. I can promise you no matter what the outcome of such "studies", only one conclusion will be drawn. It is usually people of your ilk who control such "studies" (see: Alfred Kinsey).
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
-
Well, I don't know, Rich - you'd think since two "gays" couldn't even have a child, they'd be against abortion, but they're not - their goal is NOT to help children, wonder why?
'Brigit" here again has no frickin' idea of what the hell she's talking about. Every single person I've ever know with ONE parent that was "gay" grew up with serious problems. She's not even a parent, just some left-wing internet troll with too much time on her hands.
-
So we need the government to make us stay married?
Never said that. We need to stop being so self centered...stop playing so much X Box and going to church a little more to cut down on the problems with divorce.
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the family business. Any couple who needs the government to stay married has serious problems.
So does that include these silly attempts to have the government legalize gay marriage?
Or do you just want the government to leave us evil white Hetero married folks alone?
Do you realize that the longer the kid waits, the less likely they will be adopted?
Stats? Surely you have a link to that right?
-
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
Bridget....have a couple of kids of your own before you start acting all high mighty and judgemental towards those of us that DO have kids.
I guarantee you that your whole perspective on life changes once you have to be responsible for more than just yourself.
As it is you're just sounding like a whiney little shrew who's never had to raise a child but thinks they've got the whole child raising thing down to a science.
-
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
When I say "I can promise you" it means I know exactly of what I speak. It is very immature of you to try to re-frame it with your liberal playbook's standard "IOW" clause.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
FWIW, It isn't worth much. All you liberals ever hope to see is "hate". That is a self-preservation projection word for liberals. It is suppose to hold some magical power. It doesn't.
Intelligent grownups know "not approving" does not equal "hate". For instance, I don't hate you.
-
...raised by the state ...
Bridget, do you have even the slightest clue what that phrase means?
-
And you probably never will. I can promise you no matter what the outcome of such "studies", only one conclusion will be drawn. It is usually people of your ilk who control such "studies" (see: Alfred Kinsey).
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
Bridget, don't you ever get tired of that "hate homosexuals" mantra? Are you really that stupid? Undies has given no indication of hate toward homosexuals. :whatever:
-
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
When I say "I can promise you" it means I know exactly of what I speak. It is very immature of you to try to re-frame it with your liberal playbook's standard "IOW" clause.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
FWIW, It isn't worth much. All you liberals ever hope to see is "hate". That is a self-preservation projection word for liberals. It is suppose to hold some magical power. It doesn't.
Intelligent grownups know "not approving" does not equal "hate". For instance, I don't hate you.
[/b]
:clap: and a hi5
-
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
When I say "I can promise you" it means I know exactly of what I speak. It is very immature of you to try to re-frame it with your liberal playbook's standard "IOW" clause.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
FWIW, It isn't worth much. All you liberals ever hope to see is "hate". That is a self-preservation projection word for liberals. It is suppose to hold some magical power. It doesn't.
Intelligent grownups know "not approving" does not equal "hate". For instance, I don't hate you.
Funny how liberal arguments always manage to foce the words "hate" in there huh? Whether it's race, or economics, or sexuality. It's the only play in their book.
-
IOW, you've got no proof of what you say.
When I say "I can promise you" it means I know exactly of what I speak. It is very immature of you to try to re-frame it with your liberal playbook's standard "IOW" clause.
FWIW, I don't think you should be allowed to be around kids either. I think you would only teach them to hate homosexuals. I don't say that about everybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but you clearly hate homosexuals.
FWIW, It isn't worth much. All you liberals ever hope to see is "hate". That is a self-preservation projection word for liberals. It is suppose to hold some magical power. It doesn't.
Intelligent grownups know "not approving" does not equal "hate". For instance, I don't hate you.
"Not approving" does not equal hate, but attempts to demonize people for not being like does equal hate.
-
McCain assailed for opposing adoptions by gays
NEW YORK (AP) - Advocates for gay and lesbian parents are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice.
Only one state, Florida, outlaws adoptions by gays, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.
The Republican nominee-in-waiting was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.
"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.
The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.
"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council. "There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
"Sen. McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," Huckaby said.
*snip*
"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."
McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.
Gays continue to demand that they be treated "just like everyone else", but they aren't.
MORE (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91UHQB00&show_article=1)
Forget the gay rights subject and consider this.
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
What about the rights of children? I also believe it's important to have both a male and female figure in a child's life, but how can anybody support denying kids the right to a family as opposed to being raised by the state?
Income to raise a child, whether one has a violent background, other dangerous background, whether one has a neglectful background, and whether it's still possible to reconcile with the biological parents. That's what should be considered when adopting kids out, not whether the family is traditional.
What about the 'rights' of the children, indeed! I wonder this very same thing when we leave children in the care of layabouts and slobs just because they are the egg and/or sperm provider.
As for the topic of gay adoption, unless a gay person has already intervened in the lives of a child in need and is a guardian of some kind, they should NOT be given prefential treatment in adopting. We should be trying to place children FIRST in the most ideal situation, not another second best for the sake of getting them placed.
-
^I totally agree.
It's not about "hate" at all. It's about putting the interests of the child before politically correct bullsh*t which demands that we elevate the rights of gays.
-
^I totally agree.
It's not about "hate" at all. It's about putting the interests of the child before politically correct bullsh*t which demands that we elevate the rights of gays.
If God wanted homosexuals to have children He would have arranged it.
-
If God wanted homosexuals to have children He would have arranged it.
What I'm curious to have explained to me is how Libs rectify their belief in gay sex and the theory of evolution.
Especially since one belief totally counteracts the other.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Basically you shouldn't be allowed to have children because you are a hopelessly stupid Liberal.
Straight or Gay doesn't enter into it in your case.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
Can we extrapolate on that and perform chemotherapy on most of DU?
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
Can we extrapolate on that and perform chemotherapy on most of DU?
I'd recommend prescribing frequent injections of 15,000 milligram(230 grain) doses of Cu jacketed Pb, until the matastasization is brought under control. What do you think, doctor?
-
If God wanted homosexuals to have children He would have arranged it.
What I'm curious to have explained to me is how Libs rectify their belief in gay sex and the theory of evolution.
Especially since one belief totally counteracts the other.
I have begun to question why we allow what homosexuals to do each other to be called sex. To call it sex cheapens real sex. We don't call masturbation sex, and really, what homosexuals do is masturbate using a living breathing self-gratification toy.
The act of having sex can only happen between a man and a woman.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
Can we extrapolate on that and perform chemotherapy on most of DU?
Aren't they ugly enough without having bald heads?
-
I think there is plenty of evidence showing that children raised in 2 parent homes , and by that I mean a mother and a father. Children need both genders for a balanced outlook on life, imo.
ive known kids raised by two men or two women; they are typically embarassed by the situation. and in my own family, my niece and nephew were very vocal about their dad deciding to become gay after years of being married to their mom... so, its anecdotal. but i know adults raised in that situation and so far, i havent found them to be happy with it either.
my neighbor across the street is a liberal and he was raised by a single gay mom - he has zero skills in parenting as a dad and he directly relates it to her selfish attitude about wanting a baby more than she wanted to have a family.
so far, the entire experiment looks like a collosol failure to me.
-
Good for McCain. All the attempted social engineering in the world isn't going to normalize what is not normal. Sorry.
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
:clap:
-
Wow. I guess I shouldn't be allowed children even though a child has never been hurt in my care, even though I have no record, even though I'm normally considered good with kids.
Personally, anyone who openly stated that there was no difference between a fetus and a tumor because they both have DNA would be immediately disqualified from getting within 100 yards of any child.
:clap:
:-)