Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Seawytch]

If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

You ask this when children are abused in far greater numbers by heterosexuals than homosexuals?

Does this dismiss the issue of what the poster asked or is saying ? No it doesn't ! Both can be addressed and should be addressed for the safety of all children. One could be more harder than the other to find out about, because we consider a family where there is a man and a woman involved as the norm, but both are valid issues to address when it comes to children and their safety. If the poster is right, then the numbers could swing heavily in a different direction quickly, and this when allowing more and more lunacy into the fray against the children. So why place children in danger at all if we don't have to, otherwise by adding more trouble than they may already have now is what I'm asking you ?

The poster isn't right. Gays can already adopt and we are.

Children need parents. Ideally, two parents. The gender of the parents is immaterial as study after study after study proves.

 

[beagle9]

I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It's just a question of time.

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

 

[Seawytch]

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

They aren't. Where do you get this shit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".

You are as sick as koshergrl, sis. Heterosexuals abuse children far greater numbers than homosexuals.

By this moronic logic, then all marriage should be considered pedophilia shelters.

Step off!

Hey, and what you say might be also valid for another subject indeed, but right now they are talking about one subject in specific, so why muddy the waters like you do, unless you don't like the consensus being arrived at maybe, so is that it ?

Step off, poser. If one is talking about gays using marriage as a shelter to adopt children for bad purposes, then, yes, that opens it to heteroes doing the same thing.

Only a weak-minded doofus thinks differently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well. Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

Who knows? It's not important unless YOU can come up with evidence that makes it so.

 

[Silhouette]

Who knows? It's not important unless YOU can come up with evidence that makes it so.

The relevent evidence that is important is that the church of LGBT has as its Pope, Harvey Milk. And his sexual preference for [multiple, maybe dozens even..he was quite promiscuous and promoted promiscuity as well] orphaned teen boys on drugs presents a gigantic problem for gays wanting to marry. Milk even officiated as one minor boy's father figure while he was sodomizing him.

When confronted with these facts, gays defend instead of denounce Harvey Milk. This makes a gigantic problem for them, collosal.

When people get the privelege of marriage, they also elevate to the top tier of prospects to adopt orphaned children. If a hetero married couple walked into an adoption agency wearing "free Jerry Sandusky" t-shirts, we would expect they would be denied without hesitation. If a gay married couple walked in wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts, or sporting Harvey Milk postage stamps on their corresepondance to the adoption agency, we would expect they should also be denied on the same grounds. Equality, right? Or are straights the only ones who may not elevate a child sex predator to iconic status? Gays are above the law in this respect?

This is just one of many secular ways gay marriage can't work in a civilized society. The other would be the monkey-see, monkey-do phenomenon causing a sharp rise in youth 13-24 coming down with HIV in just the years gay marriage has been forced on several states by ignorant but well-meaning judicial activists. Just because a person is a judge, doesn't mean they have a well-rounded education in sociology, behavioral neurology or psychology..

Then there's the religious issue. Jude in the Bible says that a person who even enables a homosexual culture will be cast in the pit of fire along with that culture. How can a state mandate require a christian or muslim to abandon the warning of mortal sin and abide by/enable a gay subculture taking over their state's mores?

Utah v Harvey Milk will be a very interesting case to see...

 

[emilynghiem]

If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.

All law is based on personal values, which values drive the election of the officials who make the laws.

Those values can be diametric to religious dogma or teachings.

Be gay. A state can decide it is not going to sanction it.

I agree with you that laws are based on personal values.

Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to limit what constitutes
"religious dogma or teachings"

If Constitutionalists "believe religiously" in separating federal from state jurisdiction,
or secularists "believe in" separating church and state,
I argue those VIEWS should still be considered equally as a "religiously held belief" that deserves equal protection
as any other type of "established" religion considered organized or official.

Otherwise, this unfairly discriminates against people "unless they are a member of a named group recognized as a religion"

The other factors that are important in deciding constitutional protections:
A. you cannot make other people pay for your views, but must accept financial and social responsibility for whatever options you are proposing
B. the change proposed must include solutions that don't impose either. (for example if you block or change abortion laws on the basis
of free choice from religious or political imposition, there must be agreed alternatives that don't impose a contested bias either)
any consequences of laws or reforms must be agreed to so it doesn't create other problems that impose
C. overall you can't go and commit the "same, equal and opposite wrong"
by defending your protected viewpoint in such a biased way that it then imposes on the view you were trying
to protect yourself from. big fat duh!

That is mainly why the pro-gay marriage advocacy fails.
not because people don't have equal right to defend gay marriage.
they just don't have the right to impose the beliefs on others,
especially if this is the gist of their defense arguments!

So that is why it is conflicting.

Gays may not be a protected group,
but people who are pro-gay should be equally a protected VIEW
as are people who are pro-Christian, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun.

The views are protected, regardless of the group or label.

Otherwise we are discriminating by whether you are part of a group or not!

 

[bodecea]

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

Hearsay. Most gay couples I know who adopt either have someone of the opposite gender, or if they adopt more than one, one of each gender. But it's not any more a trend to pick one gender or another than it is with straight couples.

 

[emilynghiem]

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

I doubt it is true.
However, I will say that I heard studies that show with single parents raising kids, the children tend to adjust and respond better when raised by the parent of the same gender.

It may be that the parent may feel more confident and less stress if the child is of the same gender; whereas some parents have extra fears and worries if they worry about providing what their child needs because of gender. It could be more about the parent's mentality.

With same sex couples, I am guessing that SOCIETY may question two men raising a girl before they question two women raising either a boy or a girl. So maybe it has something to do with that, with men who may not get approval to adopt a girl if others raise issues and push them to adopt a boy instead, given the social environment we live in. Could that be a factor?

 

[Seawytch]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

I doubt it is true.
However, I will say that I heard studies that show with single parents raising kids, the children tend to adjust and respond better when raised by the parent of the same gender.

It may be that the parent may feel more confident and less stress if the child is of the same gender; whereas some parents have extra fears and worries if they worry about providing what their child needs because of gender. It could be more about the parent's mentality.

With same sex couples, I am guessing that SOCIETY may question two men raising a girl before they question two women raising either a boy or a girl. So maybe it has something to do with that, with men who may not get approval to adopt a girl if others raise issues and push them to adopt a boy instead, given the social environment we live in. Could that be a factor?

No, there isn't a factor. Gays adopt children of both genders.

 

[beagle9]

Is it true that when gays adopt children, the children are always of the same sex as the adopting parents, and if so why is this ?

Otherwise if you have two males who are gay, and they adopt, do they always adopt a boy when they adopt ? The same question goes for the women who adopt when they are gay as well.

Does this happen or is it hearsay ?

I doubt it is true.
However, I will say that I heard studies that show with single parents raising kids, the children tend to adjust and respond better when raised by the parent of the same gender.

It may be that the parent may feel more confident and less stress if the child is of the same gender; whereas some parents have extra fears and worries if they worry about providing what their child needs because of gender. It could be more about the parent's mentality.

With same sex couples, I am guessing that SOCIETY may question two men raising a girl before they question two women raising either a boy or a girl. So maybe it has something to do with that, with men who may not get approval to adopt a girl if others raise issues and push them to adopt a boy instead, given the social environment we live in. Could that be a factor?

No, there isn't a factor. Gays adopt children of both genders.

Your quick to answer, yet where are you drawing your answers from ? Has there been studies done on such questions, and the answers given in light of such studies or stats maybe looked at ? What are the percentages in this one wonders ?

 

[Silhouette]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Don't be grumpy. I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement. I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him. I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.

You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick. Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications. Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege. Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly. It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk. Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly. Your choice.

 

[Seawytch]

I doubt it is true.

However, I will say that I heard studies that show with single parents raising kids, the children tend to adjust and respond better when raised by the parent of the same gender.



It may be that the parent may feel more confident and less stress if the child is of the same gender; whereas some parents have extra fears and worries if they worry about providing what their child needs because of gender. It could be more about the parent's mentality.



With same sex couples, I am guessing that SOCIETY may question two men raising a girl before they question two women raising either a boy or a girl. So maybe it has something to do with that, with men who may not get approval to adopt a girl if others raise issues and push them to adopt a boy instead, given the social environment we live in. Could that be a factor?

No, there isn't a factor. Gays adopt children of both genders.

Your quick to answer, yet where are you drawing your answers from ? Has there been studies done on such questions, and the answers given in light of such studies or stats maybe looked at ? What are the percentages in this one wonders ?

I'm quick to answer because gays are not prevented from adopting children of either genders. This is an indisputable fact. What question do you want answered?

 

[Seawytch]

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.



Oh, and the kids are fine, fuck you very much.

Don't be grumpy. I'm not the one who made law enshrining a teen sex predator the icon of my social movement. I'm not the one who pushed kids in school to emulate him. I'm not the one who got a postage stamp of the creep made with a rainbow "USA" in the corner.



You'd do well to denounce Harvey Milk and quick. Marriage puts people in the top tier for adoption qualifications. Emulating a child predator can be problematic if gays want that privilege. Might want to adjust your legal strategy accordingly. It's never too late to come out as a group and denounce Harvey Milk. Or, stand by him and be judge accordingly. Your choice.

Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?

You mean Duck Dynasty Phil, right? I don't watch that show. And I don't measure child-protection by TV shows. I measure it more by a cult's leader. Christians haven't cannonized Phil Robertson as a saint. LGBTers HAVE as a group canonized Harvey Milk as a saint. They've done so in law. They've done so on a US Postage stamp, statues, schools and various other public concretions.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?

You mean Duck Dynasty Phil, right? I don't watch that show. And I don't measure child-protection by TV shows. I measure it more by a cult's leader. Christians haven't cannonized Phil Robertson as a saint. LGBTers HAVE as a group canonized Harvey Milk as a saint. They've done so in law. They've done so on a US Postage stamp, statues, schools and various other public concretions.

Only Catholics play the canonizing game.

Funny, I hear and see a lot more about Robertson than I do Harvey Milk...and I live in the bay area.

Regardless of how you view Milk's personal life, he was a great civil rights leader struck down before his time.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh now he's a teen predator and not a child predator as you asserted before? Is that because he's was just following the Duck Dynasty model of getting them at 16? Do you give Phil a pass for what you disparage the late Milk for?

You mean Duck Dynasty Phil, right? I don't watch that show. And I don't measure child-protection by TV shows. I measure it more by a cult's leader. Christians haven't cannonized Phil Robertson as a saint. LGBTers HAVE as a group canonized Harvey Milk as a saint. They've done so in law. They've done so on a US Postage stamp, statues, schools and various other public concretions.

Only Catholics play the canonizing game.

Funny, I hear and see a lot more about Robertson than I do Harvey Milk...and I live in the bay area.

Regardless of how you view Milk's personal life, he was a great civil rights leader struck down before his time.

No, I assure you, gays have canonized Harvey Milk. You don't hear a lot about Harvey Milk in the Bay Area because if parents there started finding out the facts about "those nice lovable gay people", even in your town, their instincts to protect their children would kick in.

Hollywood [West Hollywood] controls the silver screen, so they're not going to let out their dirty little secret before they ramrod gay marriage in every state and elevate themselves to a nice legal position to adopt orphaned kids..

But I have a feeling that not hearing about Harvey Milk is going to change as the Harvey Milk v Utah case makes its way to the US Supreme Court..

 

[Silhouette]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

 

[beagle9]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

Wow, just wow.

 

[Silhouette]

You are aware that Harvey Milk just had a postage stamp issued with a rainbow "USA" at the top, right Seawytch?

Wow, just wow.

I know, right? It would be like the youth sporting organizations commissioning the postal service to make a Jerry Sandusky stamp and then accuse anyone in shock from that of being a 'bigot/hater/etc.".