HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

[Iceweasel]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

 

[CremeBrulee]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

I said what I was talking about. Can't you read? Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders? That isn't what they ruled on. You through the word discrimination around like there should be no such thing, but making wise choices demands discrimination, one has to decide which is better, this or that?

They are saying kids are better off in opposite gender relationships, like nature designed. Your hurt feelings aren't relevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

 

[Iceweasel]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

iceweasel displays a woeful ignorance of our constitutional system and state laws.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Who in their right mind would let fags raise a kid? Nature is nature, you can't think it away.

They may be but nature is still nature. Male/female parents is how the animal kingdom works. Kids need both, genders are different for a reason.

You brought it up friendo.

 

[Seawytch]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

 

[Iceweasel]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

 

[Seawytch]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Nature and reproduction have nothing to do with parenting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Nature produces people who marry who can't procreate, whether hetero or homo, and both are allowed to adopt. Iceweasel, you don't like it. You have neither the law, culture, or natural law on your side.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who in their right mind would let fags raise a kid? Nature is nature, you can't think it away.

They may be but nature is still nature. Male/female parents is how the animal kingdom works. Kids need both, genders are different for a reason.

You brought it up friendo.

That was what..weeks ago? Out of the blue you start babbling about animals? Did you even understand the point? Laws don't change nature, that's what I meant. Nature still matters, it's how we all got here. When I said kids I wasn't referring to baby bunnies. No wonder so many people (including liberals) look down on homosexuals, they twist and warp everything to suit the agenda.

 

[Iceweasel]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Nature and reproduction have nothing to do with parenting.

Reproduction doesn't happen without nature, political correctness can't make it go away. Gender confuses you, we get it. But the rest of us understand men and women bring different things to the kid's upbringing. Mississippi wants it left that way and I don't blame them.

 

[koshergrl]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

Wrong. Studies show that the children of queers, raised by two queers, have all the same problems as children of single parents. Married hetero parents stand head and shoulders above mentally ill queers who pretend they're married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

Wrong. Studies show that the children of queers, raised by two queers, have all the same problems as children of single parents. Married hetero parents stand head and shoulders above mentally ill queers who pretend they're married.

Reputable studies show that married couples regardless of gender do about the same job of rearing kids.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Nature and reproduction have nothing to do with parenting.

Reproduction doesn't happen without nature, political correctness can't make it go away. Gender confuses you, we get it. But the rest of us understand men and women bring different things to the kid's upbringing. Mississippi wants it left that way and I don't blame them.

What you understand and that confuses do not matter. You are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Show me where nature says that. You are not a natural philosopher. An unnatural philosopher, however, you may be.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

I said what I was talking about. Can't you read? Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders? That isn't what they ruled on. You through the word discrimination around like there should be no such thing, but making wise choices demands discrimination, one has to decide which is better, this or that?

They are saying kids are better off in opposite gender relationships, like nature designed. Your hurt feelings aren't relevant.

Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders?

...........

Both in Windsor and in Obergefell old sport. They said that, in effect they are the same and therefor must be treated the same. In the first case, with respect to federal benefits and in the second case, with respect to marriage. However, I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that, since it's apparent that you don't know or understand much of anything-except what the voices in your head, and Mike Huckabee are telling you.

As far as patenting and what children need is concerned, I have been all through that with you before. I presented the research date. I made my case. You can continue to bloviate all you want about them needing a mother and a father-that does not make it true. It's just an appeal to ignorance.

My hurt feeling? What makes you think that my feelings are hurt or that you are capable of hurting them?

 

[Iceweasel]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

I said what I was talking about. Can't you read? Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders? That isn't what they ruled on. You through the word discrimination around like there should be no such thing, but making wise choices demands discrimination, one has to decide which is better, this or that?

They are saying kids are better off in opposite gender relationships, like nature designed. Your hurt feelings aren't relevant.

Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders?

...........

Both in Windsor and in Obergefell old sport. They said that, in effect they are the same and therefor must be treated the same. In the first case, with respect to federal benefits and in the second case, with respect to marriage. However, I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that, since it's apparent that you don't know or understand much of anything-except what the voices in your head, and Mike Huckabee are telling you.

As far as patenting and what children need is concerned, I have been all through that with you before. I presented the research date. I made my case. You can continue to bloviate all you want about them needing a mother and a father-that does not make it true. It's just an appeal to ignorance.

My hurt feeling? What makes you think that my feelings are hurt or that you are capable of hurting them?

Your lingo betrays your feelings. I don't care who writes what, if you are arrogant enough to believe you can alter what nature and gender means or is you're a fool. Just because we have plenty of fools in government doesn't make it go away. I agree with Mississippi that a man and a woman give a child the best chances for a healthy development.

Normal people know it, homosexuals can't figure it out, we get it.