Court upholds Boseman adoption | newsobserver.com projects

North Carolina got it right.
When people advocate that gays shouldn't be able to adopt, they are not interested in the best interests of the child...

Research clearly shows that there is NO detriment to the child for being raised by gay parents as opposed to straight parents.
Moreover, even if we were to assume that the child's gay parents were "not as good", preventing gay adoption INCREASES the number of orphans in our adoption system who do not get adopted...
The child theoretically goes from HAVING loving parents, to having NO parents at all based on somebody else's prejudiced ideals...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

its not a matter of whether they are good people... or would be good parents...

its a question of whether children are commodities that any relatively good person should be allowed to adopt.


In this case... bossman adopted the child of her partner.. is the best case senario... assuming that the real parent is dead.. because of the pre existing relationship with that child.

But.. where I appose gay adoptions, is for couples to adopt random children from orphanges...

the fact is... homosexuality is not the same as being sterile.

And if a homosexual couple is to ask the right to adopt then they atleast should of made a few of their own children via artificial insemination or via donor eggs.

if they are to fearful to create their own genetic offspring, then they have no place to ask for other ready made kids.


It behooves the state to limit who can adopt, based on natural law, where by the only natural enviorment is a mother and father. And if the state allows for the adoption of children by same sex couples then those children should be allowed to sue the state when they are older, for having forced them into a biased influencial enviorment, which was.. slanted in its biased influence.

And this will cost the states billions.. and IT WILL HAPPEN.


if.. the state upholds that being good people, is the only critieria, then soon, it will be argued that single men can be good parents too.. and then why not corporations?

If we do not draw the line, then there ARE NO LINES.

iF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD is the mandate, then we must recognize that same sex couples are by their nature, biased... and one sided.. and do not offer the full range of expression and influence for a growing child.

yet..

as in this case, the pre existing relationship, and the death of the partner, would make for worthwhile justification for the adoption, since the single familiar parent would be favorable to foster care for the one child... but only because of the pre-existing relationship.

-Mosheh Thezion

So????

There is absolutely no requirement upon heterosexual couples that they be "sterile" in order to be able to adopt.
In fact, there are a variety of stories about heterosexual couples who have decided to pursue "other" means of having a child cause the woman in the couple doesn't want to carry the child.
Such a position does not invalidate their raising of a child in any way.


"should of made"?
I see no legitimate reason to implement any such requirement.
Whether codified in law, or simply a social disapproval.




Okay. I have to interject some reality into this discussion in amongst your arbitrary standards.
You do realize we have an over-abundance of orphans, don't you?
There are plenty of kids who WANT to be adopted, but are not because there are too many orphans and too few parents willing to adopt them.

I have never heard of a gay adoptive parent being "fearful to create their own genetic offspring".

Quite frankly, would you insist that a person have to FEED a kid of their own before they could legitimately be able to feed somebody else's kid?
I would hope not. The fact that the "person" has no child of his own to feed shouldn't stop him from feeding somebody else's kid who needs it.
So where is the logic in creating an arbitrary standard where the person must HAVE a kid of their own before they can raise another one?


Gay adoption is legal in most states.
It has been for quite some time.
You claim "IT WILL HAPPEN".
I ask you to think and wonder why it hasn't happened YET, if it is supposedly such a risk?

And furthermore, your talk of "behooving the state to limit who can adopt" is asinine.
We currently have MORE ORPHANS than people willing to adopt them.
And you want to make the list of prospective parents, who YOU ADMIT COULD BE GOOD PARENTS, to be smaller because the kid may grow up some day and resent the parents???


But I will say this much.
I don't think any orphan should have to go to parent(s) that the orphan does not agree to go with.
But quite frankly, that isn't a real problem in today's society despite your imagination...



In the VAST MAJORITY OF STATES, gay people CAN ADOPT.
Florida is the only state I have heard of that forbids a person from adopting based on being gay.
A single straight man can adopt in all 50 states.

So, by your logic, shouldn't we have corporations adopting kids???


One thing I really hate about "slippery slope" arguments is when they show absolutely no intelligent connection between the items at all.



There are plenty of lines that ARE drawn.
REAL lines.
Like being able to show a capability to raise a child financially, and having the room to do so.

The really sad part is that for procreated children, there are no real lines.
Nobody checks a pregnant woman to verify if she will be capable of providing a good home for her child.


Research has repeatedly shown that kids raised by gay parents are just as happy and healthy as those raised by straight parents.

Furthermore, why do we limit your argument to just gender?
Should we not insist that the parents have diverse (different) races and religions as well? To ensure more of a "range of expression"???

The best interests of the child...
Science proves your arbitrary standard irrelevant.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

thats my opinion and im sticking to it.

the orphan problem.. is due to broken families.. and the lack of services and assistance to allow mothers to be able to keep their babies.. all of which is caused by our flawed economic policies in washington.

the kid is the victim.

when a child is offered a home.. is he likely to turn it down ?

does he know any better?

can he make an intelegent informed decision at age 5? or 7 ? or 9?

no... he goes where he is wanted.



so.. then.. since we have an abundance of extra children, you feel it is somehow ok to give them to who ever wants them if they have enough money... but you would take the children away from poor mothers..??

i see... maybe your priorities are alittle skewed..

We must fix the economic problems which lead to children being put up for adoption in the first place...

not attempt to solve the problem by giving pre packaged children to homosexual couples who naturally could never produce a child on their own.




We cannot use the flawed economic policy of our government to justify creating a children distribution program to benefit the gay community, or the single man community... or any community at all.


children are not commodities to be aquired simply because we want them.

We must stop the mothers from putting them up for adoption in the first place.

And the only way it should happen is due to death of the parents... or incarceration....


you.. are acting as if.. this esisting system is fine.. and these kids are just another freedom for our liberal society to enjoy.

no sir... sorry.



-Mosheh thezion

None of this is relevant to the actual policy you advocate.

The orphan problem is due to a LOT of different factors.
Crack mothers who don't know who the father is.
Dead parents.
Children who came from abusive families who didn't have anyone else to go to.

There was one Florida story of a gay couple who were raising HIV+ kids who nobody else wanted to care for. And then, when one of the kids who was previously HIV+ had successive tests without HIV antibodies, THEN the Florida system started wondering if they should send the kid to another family, cause he's more viable...

But again, none of this is relevant to the actual policy you advocate...



And this is a problem because???
Oh wait. This is a problem for YOU cause the kid may not make the decision YOU WANT him to make...
Let's keep your personal crud out of this and concentrate on what's best for the kid...


"know any better"???
I'm sorry, but you gave YOUR OPINION.
Not coming to your conclusion on gay parents is not an issue of "knowing better".

The SCIENCE "knows better", and shows that kids raised by gay parents are just as happy and healthy as kids of straight parents.
THAT is something that is an issue of "knowing better".
Your opinions on how you want things run, which don't have anything to do with the measurable best interests of the kids?
That isn't an issue of "knowing better".


Do you even know where you're going with this?
If the kid doesn't care at 5 or 7 or 9, what makes you think he's going to care in another 7 years???

That would be seven years that he would be RAISED BY HIS LOVING PARENTS, who happened to be gay in some cases.

What's more intelligent?
Making a knee-jerk reaction based on a lack of evidence?
Or actually LIVING several years with good, loving parents?
At least in the latter, you have experience to draw a conclusion from.


It's inevitable in some of these discussions that people, like yourself, start making up stupid junk.
I'm going to say this as many times as it takes, but an "intelligent" analysis should only need it said once.

No. I don't "feel" that way, nor did I say anything that even remotely hints that I think that way.
I never said anything about taking children away from poor mothers.

If you can stick to commenting on what I DID say, that would be preferable.
Otherwise, you're only damaging your own credibility by arguing with me about things I never said and obviously don't agree with.


Just out of curiousity, do you have any evidence to back up your assessment on the issue?
Any evidence that shows that CURABLE "economic problems" leads to a significant percentage of orphans in our adoption system?
Or are you making more assumptions, like you did above?


Let's put this in a real perspective, okay?
So far, you have presented NO economic solution to these problems that you claim cause an orphan overabundance...

But at the same time, you advocate restricting homosexual couples from adopting, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with these "economic problems"...

Me personally?
I say let the BEST PARENTS adopt what they are willing to adopt.
BEST INTERESTS of the child should be primary.



My gawd. I am routinely shocked at some of the absurd conclusions drawn on these issues.
Gays who want to adopt ARE NOT about "benefiting the gay community".

The fact that you even throw that out there, and callously disregard parents you admit are perfectly good, is a clear indicator of how you put your prejudice (for whatever group you want to call it) above the best interests of the child.

From my perspective, it's about the best interests of the child...
From your perspective, you obviously want to prevent some imagined "benefit to the gay community" above the best interests of the child...
And THAT is disturbing.


And I personally believe that any person who looks at a child as a commodity should NOT be allowed to adopt.
Since gays don't have that perspective any more than straights do, your comment is ridiculously moot.


Do you have any clue as to the statistics as to why kids go into "orphan" status in the first place?


Again, you pose false claims about my position.
The existing system is not fine. But unlike you, I am curious as to WHY it isn't fine before I'll make vague claims about what needs to be fixed...

Furthermore, even if we were to tomorrow make it so that no mother would voluntarily put up their baby for adoption, that STILL would in NO WAY validate any restriction against gay adoption.
BEST INTERESTS of the child should reign supreme. Not prejudice.

But quite frankly, it is painfully obvious that the reason you want to change it is to prevent gays from adopting, and that's disturbing!

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

You said you think its sad..

you would perhaps impose those lines?

and what happens when the biological mother has problems?
has no job?
has no big house?

should we take the kids away and give them to wealthy gay couples?



and im sorry..

but the cause of broken families.. and why children are put up for adoption is totally relevant.. because if we fix that problem.. and reduce the number of kids in orphanages down to minimum numbers..

then.. all of a sudden your argument that gays should adopt, is no longer valid.. because in that circumstance those kids could go to normal homes, and there would be none left for the gay couples.

would there?

personally... I believe it when you say gay couples can be good parents.. i dont doubt it... IM SURE THEY CAN BE TOTALLY WONDERFUL..

FANTASTIC. EVEN.. but that doesnt matter..

what matters is the child... you agreed with that... so is it fair to put the child into an enviorment which is biased?

I myself... know a lesbian couple.. with a child.. they were interogating me to see if i could add for them another kid..

I could not do so... because the child would grow up without a father, and there existing son, was very effimenant.. as would be natural when being rasied by two females...

sure... he just grows up... and is who he is... and he doesnt mind..

but would he of grown up that way if he had a father?

Would he of been less effiminate?

probubly.. but the point is.. they were producing their own children.. and I see nothing wrong with that... in that case.. more power to them..

but.. if that same lesbian couple.. demanded to adopt other peoples discarded children so that they can raise them.. and influence them to grow up effiminate... then... suddenly its completely different.


the solution to this problem is not to allow gays to adopt because they are good people and would make good parents... they probubly would make good farmers too...

the point is... children are not commodities.. and just because people want them doesnt mean the state.. the government should give them to them.



you...

are misunderstanding my meaning...

and if you want a solution to the economic problems for needy mothers who are about to abort their children or put them up for adoption.. then sure.. i have one... Mosheh Thezion's Exploratory Committee for U.S. Senate (R) | BENEFITS FOR THE PEOPLE

right now.. a young mother... a crack addict.. or otherwise.. doesnt have any options... but i say we can give them those options, and with them, they can choose not to abort.. choose not to give up their babies.. and raise their family... and be helped all along the way.

you keep screaming about the best interest of the child.

WELL THE BEST INTEREST IS TO NEVER BE PUT UP FOR ADOPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE... and if they are... their best interest is not to be placed into a biased enviorment no matter how loving it may be.

and you are wrong..

because if we reduced the number of kids who are in need of adoption then the fact would be... a father and mother would BE BETTER.


And the only justification for allowing gays to adopt... is because we have too many abandonned kids... and lots of nice gay couples.


thats not a solution.. thats a band-aid... which allows for the biased development of children.. who had no ability or understanding of what enviorment they are getting into.


you scream about the interest of the child... but you are ignoring the potential influence and long term, life long repurcussions of that infleunce.


do you deny that if a child is adopted by members of a biker gang... that the child will not be influenced??

Can you possibly deny this?

no.. you cant.

influence is real.. and it behooves the state to keep it nuetral.. and unbiased.

-Mosheh Thezion

Like I said above...
You are creating opions you think I have, and I clearly do not hold those opinions.

I have already told you once that I do not hold to this type of governmental approach.
You should try to LISTEN instead of this continual, ineffectual ranting.


You see the topic header above?
GAY RIGHTS DEBATES.
Whether or not these "problems" are "fixed" or remain broken is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt.
THAT is what I was talking about.

But again, you fail to employ sufficient reading comprehension to understand my point.


Do you understand the meaning of a JUSTIFICATION for an argument / position?
Cause what you said gives NO JUSTIFICATION for your plan to exclude gay parents.

It creates a scenario where (supposedly, with absolutely no evidence on your part) that you IMAGINE we could give kids to every straight couple while having none left for any gay couple.
But you COMPLETELY FAIL to explain WHY we should do that in the first place.

It's like talking about bringing only 50 chocolate bars to school, so that we can give one to each white kid (50 of them) with none left over for any of the black kids.
The question remains as to WHY the government should practice such an obviously bigoted behavior...


Of course it doesn't.
For people who prize prejudice above the good of a child, the fact that the object of their prejudice can be perfectly capable of doing the job is often irrelevant to their lust to satisfy their prejudice.


I agree what matters is the child.
And you completely fail to address the fact that children of gays are JUST AS HAPPY AND HEALTHY as children of straights.

You call the environment "biased".

I say your "bias" declaration is completely irrelevant.
Earlier, I pointed out that we could claim "bias" off of putting a child in a house with both a Christian father and mother, as opposed to a Christian father and a Jewish mother.
Shouldn't your desire to embrace diversity stretch beyond just gender?

Or is it more the truth that your arbitrary embrace of gender diversity is about denying gays adoption instead...
You don't have to admit it.
The truth is obvious to those who read your words.



Dude.
You SERIOUSLY don't know anything about what you're talking about.
If the kid was "effeminate", that was purely coincidental.

I know kids of both lesbian parents and gay parents.
They see gender roles OUTSIDE the house, as well as within.
They are just as normal as every other kid.


No. It isn't.
You are relying on absurd stereo-types, ignoring scientists who ACTUALLY RESEARCH these issues.


Not once have I looked at these kids as commodities.
That lesbian couple (if they really exist in the first place) doesn't look at them as "commodities" either.

Yet you falsely pretend gays look at them like that.
A further example of your ignorance.



Gawd. It's like you can't understand the separation of two different things...

Suppose we have a leaky pipe.
It floods the basement.

Along you come and insist that the pipe shouldn't have leaked in the first place.
And you ignore the flooded basement.

The truth is that the flooded basement NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.
And even if we end up "fixing" the pipe as you want to (which is a topic for an entirely separate thread), that in NO WAY JUSTIFIES your OTHER plan of how you insist the water on the basement floor must be cleaned up.

Gay parents are just as good.
The BEST parents should be used. Gay or straight.
To disregard one group just cause they are gay is an obvious sign of prejudice.


You keep ignoring reality.
Gay parents are just as good as straight parents.
RESEARCH PROVES this true.
Lesbian & Gay Parents & Their Children: Summary Of Research Findings

There is not a single shred of evidence showing a detriment to kids by being raised in a gay couple household.
NOT A SINGLE SHRED.

So you can claim "father and mother would be better" as loudly as you like.
Doesn't make it true.


You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
The justification for gay parents is that gay parents ARE JUST AS GOOD AS STRAIGHT PARENTS.

THAT is the justification.


YOU have no ability or understanding of the environment of gay parents / kids.
The psychological experts DO have an understanding, have done the research, and they declare you wrong.


WHAT REPERCUSSIONS???
You keep tossing out this vague innuendo, but nothing real.
Research shows that there are NO NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS to kids of gay parents.



We're talking about gay parents, and you bring up "biker gang".


Your question is an absurd non-sequitur.
There is no parallel between the two.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

1) do you deny the power of parental influence?

2) do you deny that the attitudes of parents rub off on children?

3) do you deny that if a biker gang adopts a child that the child will be influenced in a biased manner?


Can you deny this?


And can you honestly say that a boy raised by two women would not be overly influenced by female traits?


4) would not a gay couple... promote bi-sexuality?

just as our schools are doing, as a result of pressure from people like you?


you may say.. its perfectly ok... for kids to experiment.

but to say it is ok, is to assume there is no god.. no hell.. and no fear of any repurcussions.


is that your stance?

because if im free to be bi... and have wild gay sex?

then why not be free to murder and rape young girls?

if there is no god to fear, then what do i have to fear?

you..? the law?? ha... they are nothing to fear.


If we assume moral codes are false, then anything goes, and children can be taught to have orgy sex... which they almost are today.


influence is everything...

and we know.. if we teach the child that being gay and bi is ok..

then the child may not be actually gay... but he may just be horney. and engage in activity he may not of... if he was raised by a straight couple which promoted ideals of family, marraige and normal hetrosexual sex. (fact)


you may argue that gay sex is normal..

but the scientific evidence is... it is only normal for 13% of society.

13.. %..are naturally gay...




5) so should we teach and promote loose sexual behavior for all 100% of kids?

i know its alittle off topic... but please.. answer the question.

-Mosheh Thezion


(and no.. im not a bigot.. i think gays should be free to be gay, just not free to influence the entire 100% of children to be bi.. and think its ok... because its not.)

Surely if parental influence was what determined sexuality, then there wouldn't be so many gay people with homophobic straight parents, would there? You are making an unproven assumption, and not only that you are assuming that the supposed results are negative. If someone is bisexual that just means they may fall in love with people of either gender. If anything it is homophobic parents who inculcate homophobic values in their kids who are doing the influencing. Gay parents don't go around telling their kids "you must find people of the same sex attractive" (they might say, "you might find you like people of either or both sexes attractive), homophobic parents certainly do say the opposite. Which do you think is the stronger (and potentially more damaging) influence?

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

Dudes...

All you have to do is visit the guy's website (he lists it under his handle) to get a complete understanding of his mindset (and his spelling capabilities).

As the Monty Python game show used to be titled: "Spot the Loony!"

__________________
"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." -- William Drummond

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it." -- Mikhail Bakunin

"I don't go to mythical places with strange men." -- Douglas Adams

Dude.
You need to start actually trying to create ACTUAL COMMENTS in your approach instead of these vague "do you deny the power of parental influence" junk...

I believe in parental influence, in REAL areas of influence.
Parents who raise their kid to be Christian will often have a kid that adheres to Christianity.
Parents who raise their kid to be honest can have a kid that adheres to honesty.
Parents who raise their kid to be tolerant of blacks / gays / Jews / etc will often have a kid that is tolerant.

But in a lot of areas, "rubbing off" is something that is hit or miss.
My partner's parents were into sports.
He is not into sports.

Your whole "effeminate" rant is just plain nonsense.
By that logic, every child of a single mother would be effeminate.


There are some things that are just inherent to people's character, regardless of the way they are raised.
Take sexual orientation for example. By your logic, one might be tempted to think a child of gays would be more likely to be gay himself.
But studies have DISPROVEN that, showing that a child of gays is no more likely to be gay than a child of straights.
As gays have been saying for years, it's too much in the genes.

And like I have said, I KNOW KIDS of gay parents.
Female couples and male couples.
Your assessment is inane and haphazard.


I guess I can't be surprised you went there...
The answer to your question is no.
Sexual orientation is innate to a person. Not something that "rubs off" on kids.
The vast majority of GAYS have had parents who were straight! Duh!

But if you want some research to ignore...

They reported that offspring of lesbian mothers were no more likely than those of heterosexual mothers to describe themselves as feeling attracted to same-sex sexual partners. If they were attracted in this way, however, young adults with lesbian mothers were more likely to report that they would consider entering into a same-sex sexual relationship, and they were more likely to have actually participated in such a relationship. They were not, however, more likely to identify themselves as non-heterosexual (i.e., as lesbian, gay, or bisexual).

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents


I seriously do not believe you know any gay people.
You claim to know a lesbian couple, and I would urge you to show them this comment from you...
Your comments and attempts to associate gay parenting with biker gangs and gay sex with murder and rape is disturbing and clearly demonstrative of a prejudiced mind.
A mind that doesn't understand the differences between what you admit is GOOD PARENTING, and biker gangs...
A mind that doesn't understand the differences between "gay sex", and murdering and raping young girls.

Look. You may not be able to comprehend the difference...
WE DO and that is what is more important.
In fact, the majority of Americans understand that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and they also understand that murder and rape are wrong.

But by your way of thinking, you must be concerned that they would endorse rape and murder if they think being gay is okay????


As difficult as it may be for you to comprehend, I find your position more disturbing than mine.
After all, you can't seem to understand the concept of being moral FOR THE SAKE of morality and society.
If your bible told you it was okay to kill gays, then I guess you would do it then huh.
If your bible told you it was okay to stone adulterers, then I guess you would do it then huh...

Oh wait. It DOES tell you that you should do that.
Perhaps if you actually want to think about reality some day, think about the fact that agnostic / atheist / secular people DO believe in living a moral life...
Don't approach the issue by thinking of how you fantasize about what that must mean, but rather recognize that agnostic / atheist / secular people are not running around killing / raping people with "nothing to fear" as you fantasize.


Therein lies your problem.
Gays, atheists, agnostics, secular people DO NOT assume moral codes are false.
A lot of them think YOUR moral code is false, as you probably think their moral code is false.
But that just means we have DIFFERENT moral codes.



By this logic, since the vast majority of gays are raised by heterosexual parents, shouldn't that result in most gays being bisexual???

And on another note, I am curious if your concern is only one-sided?
As I note, most gays are raised by heterosexual.
Are you not also concerned that a gay person may turn "bisexual" for straight interaction, when "he may just be horney"???


"a little off topic"?
I'm sorry, but it is completely off topic.
"loose" sexual behavior is nothing unique to homosexuals.
There is absolutely no aspect of "being gay" that automatically creates "loose sexual behavior".

People, gay or straight, can choose to act responsibly, conservatively, or "loosely".

But to address your question at its roots, even though I think we will profoundly disagree on what constitutes "teaching and promoting loose sexual behavior", the answer is no.

I would appreciate it if you could answer my question above as well.
I bold-faced it.



So being "gay" is something you "think gays should be free" regarding...
But being "bi" is NOT okay???


Quite frankly, I have talked to quite a few people on the issue of homosexuality and I find that with very rare exceptions, even the most profoundly bigoted against homosexuals will not admit their bigotry.
So, if you don't mind...
Can you give your position on the following issues?

1) Gay adoption? I think you've already made it clear you want this outlawed.
2) Gays serving in the military. Should gays be allowed to serve in the military?
Yes or No.
3) Gay employment protection. Should employers be able to fire homosexuals just for being gay?
4) Gay couple governmental recognition. Should the federal government provide gay couple registration (in the form of either civil unions or gay marriage) with all the rights and benefits associated with marriage?

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

I was thinking the same thing. I raised my son on my own until he was seven and was adopted by a gay man (we are now co-parenting). Yet he still managed to turn out to be Beyonce loving, deer-hunting, quarterback of the football team, smart-alec teenage boy.

Just shared this rant with him by the way, Mosheh. He was more than a little amused. Offered to kick some sense into you as well... lol

__________________
“But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

"Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

Im not saying gay parents, will promote loose sex, or promote being bi.. but they are very tolerant of it..

combine that with a tolerant media... which practically promotes it.

combine that with a school system that tells children its perfectly normal to feel that way, or to be interested....

combine it all together and we have a ever progressive loose society where sexual freedom from shame and guilt are made normal.

And if there turns out to be a god... then all those people may be dammed simply because they listenned to those powerful influences.


will all of them??? of course not...

but what value can we place on a lost soul? just one soul???

how much is a soul worth?

I say it is worth enough, such that we should provide as clean and non sexual influential enviorment as possible, and then allow the child to make up their own mind as adults..

We should not promote children to deside .. as children... because children will do and become what they are influenced to become, often enough that it behooves the state to provide a nuetral enviorment so as to not bias the child one way or another.

Gay people.. will be gay regardless... allways have..

Straight people... can however be mislead into experimentation, and sin... and always have.

history is full of it..

gesh... men have been known to have sex with farm animals.. unless they are taught to know better and be able to control themselves.

if being bi is ok... soon... sex with farm animals will become ok...

-Mosheh Thezion

i would ask you to discuss this so called looniness....

eh?

-Mosheh Thezion