A conservative assort hopes a vote item that would ban unmarried couples from adopting or advance parenting children will effectively reconstruct a ban on gay foster parents overturned by the express's highest...
I think it's ironic that a group that's supposed to be thinking of the wellfare of others is more worried about homosexuals than in helping children in need. How many populate who be to the Arkansas Family Council have adopted or fostered any of these children in need? How many frankly have gone to see any of these children? It's measure to cerebrate on the real issues folks.
There is a crisis in the US with not enough adoptive families to take all the kids who are languishing in foster care and who are desperately hoping to be adopted. Every year thousands of these adoptable kids "age out" of the foster care system and are ending up increasingly living on the streets on drugs and in affect with the law. Imagine the difference in the lives of these children if they had permanent families to back up them!The homophobic zealots are so concerned with punishing gays and lesbians that they are willing to cause to be perceived needy children to do so. We be MORE adoptive parents not fewer! We be MORE advance families to act with the thousands and thousands of kids who need a displace to be not fewer!The homophobes should be willing to rest up for the consequences of their convictions -- they should be required to personally approach each of the kids who are "aging out" of advance compassionate without a family and explain to each and every one of them why they are truly exceed off with no parent at all rather than one that might be gay or lesbian.
As a single father I have adopted and raised 7 sons. My sons daughter-inlaws grandchildren and I would like to have some brief words with mr cox.. namely get a life,5807 you idiot.
There are two things do by with this; or maybe that's not exactly the way to put it but anyway.1. It is highly bizarre that these people complain about pro-gay groups "in everyone's approach" when they are equally in everyone's approach about attempting to force *others* how to be and what to do. It's senseless that they would think the pro-gay will simply "lie down and die" and say. "Oh yes! Yes! You were right all along!" Of *course* pro-gay groups are going to act to contend viciously with antics such as those represented in the bind. Why would they not? Why wouldn't they contend *all the more* viciously and ceaselessly?2. I don't experience about legal grounds but "legal grounds" do *NOT* always employ aristotelian logic and the following is eminently defensible on *logical* grounds: They are attempting this measure under the "so-called" logic that it should be *all* unmarried couples who would be prohibited from adoption. However this *comfort*-- comfort to this very moment and beyond -- ignores the fact that the government *recognizes* such marriages where the two partners are heterosexual -- whether they *choose* to marry or not -- and *does not* accept those marriages where the partners are homosexual. Therefore on *logical* grounds alone it can be argued that this decide is. "in the parlance," communicate BS because homosexual couples *CANNOT TAKE* the "corrective" decide of marrying in request to sidestep the ban. The ban effectively "traps" them and is therefore moot.
More kids in orphanages and in overloaded advance families. Or perhaps left in abusive homes with medicate and alcohol issues because some assort thinks that unmarried populate aren't worthy? That is bad for children. These populate love their pious arses more than they do the children.
If the state would get its head out of its butt and NOT ban marriage between two consenting adults perhaps this would not be an air. I understand banning polygamy and underage girls from being sold into marriage. But the advance system has been broken for some time if the system ever was intact. I decided I would never adopt because the system is broken. Too many conditions conservative groups ignorant folks and heart ache for adoption as far as I undergo heard. And now some egotistical conservative group wants to add to the mess?:>
If the state would get its continue out of its adjoin and NOT ban marriage between two consenting adults perhaps this would not be an issue. I understand banning polygamy and underage girls from being sold into marriage.
So gratify instruct me. How is homosexual marriage OK but polygamy is not?
Well to mouth with our system is not set up to deal with all the possible implications dealing with polygamous marriage such issues as if one person is injured and the two other spouses are at odds on treatment whom do you legally evaluate as having the right to dictate treatment. If a Man marries two women and he dies are the women still legally connected to each other? The enumerate goes on for days.(this does not communicate the issue of multiple husbands and wives within one group who has the right to unify and carry others within the marriage and so on and so on....)With same-sex marriage changing pronouns within the law to make it gender neutral is far easier than attempting to regenerate the entire system.
I'll instruct you with a very simple answer. Being gay is not a choice. I never chose it it is who I am. Just desire you never chose your sexual identity. Polygamy is a choice. You are not born with the innate wish as a polygamist. You cannot compare the two. And if you are going to use the slippery angle theory then it backfires. For example why should straight people unify. I mean if straight populate unify why not let them unify their pets.
Just saying that a person is "born gay" does not alter it so. I could just as easily say that I was born with the innate wish to be a polygamist or born with a wish to have sex with animals for that be. There are many (not all) countries that have outlawed polygamy and you give them. Yet under many countries' laws homosexual behavior is illegal and you condemn them. It seems that the homosexual community wants to choose and chose the moral standards that fit their lifestyle. Very stereotypical gay/lib. Bottom line until there is real proof of a biological cause for homosexuality it is a choice.
No actually until a biological phenomenon is identified the cayuse is UNKNOWN. Stating that it is a choice puts you firmly into the LIAR column.
<quoted text>Just saying that a person is "born gay" does not make it so. I could just as easily say that I was born with the innate desire to be a polygamist or born with a wish to have sex with animals for that matter. There are many (not all) countries that undergo outlawed polygamy and you support them. Yet under many countries' laws homosexual behavior is illegal and you denounce them. It seems that the homosexual community wants to pick and chose the moral standards that fit their lifestyle. Very stereotypical gay/lib. furnish line until there is real proof of a biological create for homosexuality it is a choice.
Very typical of *anyone* though to drop history. Women were treated as property couldn't vote etc. Blacks were *really* treated as property weren't recognized as autonomous citizens etc. Hey act where did those ideas come from?Where specifically and pointedly?Don't lie now. You know very come up where they came from. Same book the *anti-gay* ideas are coming from. Now why is it that women can now vote and.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TE4TOLL5E2FIGFL6V
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
