Justice Neil Gorsuch Has Had Enough – Triggered A Complete Leftist Meltdown

[Bob Blaylock]

I understand the reasons why it may sometimes be necessary to issue fake birth certificates, but they are still fake.

No more fake, really, than the process of adoption itself necessarily is.

The dark biological reality is that my sister is the offspring of a rapist, and of a young woman whom that rapist victimized. But that's not who she is.

As a legal reality, albeit somewhat “fake”, my sister is the offspring of my parents, who adopted her. In every legally-meaningful sense, my parents are her parents, and I am her brother. And that is what her birth certificate reflects.

 

[Ame®icano]

I can't believe that twat still has a problem with same sex couples. it's 2017.

Only leftists can think they're ahead of their time when using "current year" as an argument.

 

[HappyJoy]

^ So freaking dumb.

I don't need to prove what I know to be true.
If you could manage even a passing flash of critical thought you may figure it out too.

Why do you imagine that it's so difficult for adopted people to find their biological parents if It's on their BC?

Because it's not on their BC. The legal parents are.

It's because the courts have sealed their BC and created a phony replacement. The fact is the day you are born you are given a BC that names your biological parents. The one given to children adopted by queers is fake.

You are truly dopey, dude. Every adopted person has the same BC whether their parents are same sex or traditional. It's not "phony" as a BC is just a legal document that says when and where one was born and who the legal parents are. That's all it is and all it ever was.

I have one birth certificate. Two exist for adopted children. Yet you claim their's is no different than mine. It's obviously different. For one thing, mine was issued on the day of my birth. That isn't true for adopted children. That's how we know it's a fake.

An amended birth certificate is an official document. It is not fake, stop being a child.

It may be official, but it's still a fake. A real birth certificate is issued when you are born.

Which just brings up the issue of whether Obama's birth certificate is original or amended.

You just opened a whole new can of worms.

What the fuck are you talking about? Obama wasn't adopted and even if he were, the place of birth is still the same place, Hawaii. You're a moron.

 

[HappyJoy]

I can't believe that twat still has a problem with same sex couples. it's 2017.

Only leftists can think they're ahead of their time when using "current year" as an argument.

Right, go back to your leaches and flat earth, it's still the dark ages for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When my parents adopted my sister, they were issued a birth certificate that listed them as her parents. As far as I know, that's standard practice, in an adoption, that the adoptee's birth certificate is amended to show the adoptive parents. Keep in mind, that many adoptions are “closed” that the identity of the biological parents is not disclosed to the adoptee or to the adoptive parents. It would not serve that purpose for the adoptee to have a birth certificate that identified the biological parents.

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

 

[HappyJoy]

When my parents adopted my sister, they were issued a birth certificate that listed them as her parents. As far as I know, that's standard practice, in an adoption, that the adoptee's birth certificate is amended to show the adoptive parents. Keep in mind, that many adoptions are “closed” that the identity of the biological parents is not disclosed to the adoptee or to the adoptive parents. It would not serve that purpose for the adoptee to have a birth certificate that identified the biological parents.

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When my parents adopted my sister, they were issued a birth certificate that listed them as her parents. As far as I know, that's standard practice, in an adoption, that the adoptee's birth certificate is amended to show the adoptive parents. Keep in mind, that many adoptions are “closed” that the identity of the biological parents is not disclosed to the adoptee or to the adoptive parents. It would not serve that purpose for the adoptee to have a birth certificate that identified the biological parents.

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

 

[HappyJoy]

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

 

[bripat9643]

When my parents adopted my sister, they were issued a birth certificate that listed them as her parents. As far as I know, that's standard practice, in an adoption, that the adoptee's birth certificate is amended to show the adoptive parents. Keep in mind, that many adoptions are “closed” that the identity of the biological parents is not disclosed to the adoptee or to the adoptive parents. It would not serve that purpose for the adoptee to have a birth certificate that identified the biological parents.

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

"Bigot" is a leftwing euphemism meaning "not a fucking lunatic."

 

[HappyJoy]

That doesn't alter the fact that your sister's BC is not genuine. It's a fake. I realize truth often doesn't serve the purposes of government. However, truth is still truth, regardless of what lawyers, judges and politicians say about it.

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

"Bigot" is a leftwing euphemism meaning "not a fucking lunatic."

No, I'm using the actual definition of the word, not something straight out of the wack-job dictionary.

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

[bripat9643]

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

20 years of queer brainwashing has had its effect.

 

[Ame®icano]

I can't believe that twat still has a problem with same sex couples. it's 2017.

Only leftists can think they're ahead of their time when using "current year" as an argument.

Right, go back to your leaches and flat earth, it's still the dark ages for you.

Still no argument.

No worries, I wasn't expecting one, since leftist never gives any.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm on your side, as far as allowing homosexuals or other sick perverts to adopt children. As a society, we have an obligation to protect children from that.

But you're on the wrong path about birth certificates. In the case of a legitimate adoption, it is the purpose of the birth certificate to reflect the adoptee's legal parentage, even where it may differ from the adoptee's biological parentage. If my sister's birth certificate didn't reflect my parents as her parents, then that would have created endless problems.

You're simply wrong about birth certificates, and continuing to argue that position does nothing to help the cause that we're both trying to support.

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

"Bigot" is a leftwing euphemism meaning "not a fucking lunatic."

No, I'm using the actual definition of the word, not something straight out of the wack-job dictionary.

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So someone who makes derogatory comments about Trump voters is a bigot?

 

[HappyJoy]

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

20 years of queer brainwashing has had it's effect.

Seriously, get out of the house and meet some.

 

[HappyJoy]

I can't believe that twat still has a problem with same sex couples. it's 2017.

Only leftists can think they're ahead of their time when using "current year" as an argument.

Right, go back to your leaches and flat earth, it's still the dark ages for you.

Still no argument.

No worries, I wasn't expecting one, since leftist never gives any.

I just did, as we learn from history we change our views. You know, such as it's not 1939 anymore, Hitler bad.

 

[HappyJoy]

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

"Bigot" is a leftwing euphemism meaning "not a fucking lunatic."

No, I'm using the actual definition of the word, not something straight out of the wack-job dictionary.

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So someone who makes derogatory comments about Trump voters is a bigot?

No, I don't think you can be bigoted against intolerance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

If you read my comment and the first thing you though of was incest, that's what's really odd. No wonder you hold the views that you do.

 

[bripat9643]

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

20 years of queer brainwashing has had it's effect.

Seriously, get out of the house and meet some.

I've met plenty in this forum. One thing I've learned about queers is that they are all liars.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

If you read my comment and the first thing you though of was incest, that's what's really odd. No wonder you hold the views that you do.

Incest? Sorry, dude, I didn't go there.

 

[HappyJoy]

You have an “obligation” to keep children from good, loving homes? How douche baggy.

We have an obligation to provide those kids with the most normal home and family life they can have.

Because gays can adopt, it's likely some of those kids were placed in such homes over a normal man and wife couple. There is nothing right about that no matter how you slice it and dice it. Those children should be placed in homes that reflect a normal household.

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

Family units don't have a seu

If you're a bigot that makes perfect sense.

No, it makes perfect sense to any normal person. A normal family is mom, dad, and perhaps a dog named Sparky. That's a normal home. An abnormal home is Dad and Dad, and Dad and Dad can't naturally produce children. That's all fine for adults, but we shouldn't be screwing around with the lives of children so we are not called a bigot. There are plenty of normal couples that can't get kids because the waiting line is so long.

I don't know why conservatives fantasize about the sexuality of the family unit to include their children, it's kind of odd.

In the real world most Americans are just fine with gay adoption.

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

20 years of queer brainwashing has had it's effect.

Seriously, get out of the house and meet some.

I've met plenty in this forum. One thing I've learned about queers is that they are all liars.

On this forum? Seriously, put your big boy pants on and go meet some for real.