McCain assailed for opposing adoptions by gays

[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).

[Lanie]

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.

[Tess Anderson]

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.

[TheSarge]

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?

[TheSarge]

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.

[Lord Undies]

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.

[Chris_]

...raised by the state ...

Bridget, do you have even the slightest clue what that phrase means?

[Chris_]

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.   

[Willow]

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]






  and a hi5

[Splashdown]

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.

[Lanie]

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.

[jtyangel]

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

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.

[DixieBelle]

^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.

[Lord Undies]

^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.

[TheSarge]

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.

[asdf2231]

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.

[dandi]

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.

[asdf2231]

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?

[Chris_]

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?

[Lord Undies]

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.  

[dandi]

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?

[Lauri]

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.

[Red October]

Good for McCain.  All the attempted social engineering in the world isn't going to normalize what is not normal.  Sorry.     

[MrsSmith]

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.

 

[dandi]

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.