Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[bodecea]

Let us hope this is indeed your final word

Agreed.

First two hits from a quick google search...

"If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?" ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy. My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this they would have disapproved.

"If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?" ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.

"Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.

'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 16:42 EST, 6 April 2013


A same-sex couple accused of sexually abusing their adopted children are facing trial after withdrawing from a plea agreement as they are facing new allegations of molestation.





Read more: 'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial

.
.
.

35% of Foster-Parent Molestations Homosexual
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Aug. 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- New evidence poses problems for those who think homosexuals should be allowed to serve as foster-parents. 35% of foster- parents who sexually abused their foster-children in the last three years engaged in homosexuality.
From 2003 through 2005, a third of foster-parent molestations of foster-children were homosexual. That’s the official tally from two states -- Illinois and Minnesota -- that permit homosexual foster-parents. For the approximately 30,000 children/year in foster- care at some point in the two states:

• 12 foster mothers sexually abused their charges: 9 (75%) assaulted foster-daughters, 3 (25%) raped foster-sons.
  
  
• 28 foster-fathers sexually abused their charges: 23 (82%) assaulted foster-daughters, 5 (18%) raped foster-sons.

Overall, 26 (65%) of foster-parent perpetrators engaged in heterosexuality and 14 (35%) in homosexuality with their charges. Most molestation by foster-mothers was homosexual; most by foster- fathers heterosexual.
Virtually all studies indicate that homosexuals comprise between 2% to 4% of adults. Thus the figures above indicate a disproportionate amount of homosexual molestation.

Homosexual Foster Parents Molest Children Above Average

Now with Homosexuals comprising only 2% of the human population and better than 30% of all sexual assaults on children being perpetrated by homosexuals, it's self-evident that the mental disorder that presents as homosexuality, presents as a high potential indicator of pedophilia as well.

Therefore, allowing children to be left alone with a person showing indications of homosexuality, should be dealt with as a crime against the child.

Just as hiring a person showing indications of homosexuality for any position of authority over children, or which set a sexual deviant in positions of trust with, for or around children, should likewise be treated as a crime against children.

Yes...we have our share of criminals and scum of the earth too. Shall I go on about hetero murderers and child molesters?

 

[bodecea]

A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use children in their failed propaganda war on equality

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

• An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.

Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:

1. If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?
   
   
2. If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?
   
   
3. Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?

And let me tell you jerks something else....


I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.

The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.

In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.

Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made by the gay families who took them in.

In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally.

In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.


___________________________________________________________________________-

For starters, I have not seen any polls on the issue of support for adoption by gays in general , or gay men in particular. I do know that many states were allowing gays to adopt long before there was any gay marriage, indication that there has been broad support for it for some time now. Currently 49 states allow adoption by gays, and obviously includes some states that do not have marriage equality yet.

Now let me tell you a little about myself. I worked in a public child welfare agency in New Jersey for 26 years. NJ was the first state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.” Although other states were also allowing it (source: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/timeline.htm)

In my time there, I investigated child abuse and neglect including sexual abuse. I also recruited, trained and supervised foster and adoptive families, including some gay individuals and couples.

I am here to tell you that when it comes to same sex sexual abuse, gay men are not the problem. The whole idea comes from the fact that when a male molests a male child, he is labeled a homosexual. Sometimes they self-identify as homosexuals because that label does not carry they same stigma as pedophile. However, they rarely are homosexuals. They are a child abuser and/or pedophile. Some are heterosexual and have developed a regressed fixation on children of a specific age. Others are chronically fixated on children.

Homosexual refers to the sexual orientation of people who are attracted to age appropriate people of the same sex. I have never found a true homosexual to be a child molester. I won’t say that it never happens but it is certainly not in significant numbers.

The last figure that I saw for the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian people was 65,500. Honestly, I don’t know what percentage of those were by gay men, but I do believe that it’s significant. In addition, there are many more children that came to be in the care of gay men by various other means. We don’t know for sure how many but I’ve seen estimates of up to 14 million. Those children benefit when the state allows second parent adoption by the biological parents partner.

Given these numbers, I think that we would be hearing a lot more about child sexual abuse at the hands of gays and I doubt that so many states would be allowing adoption. In my experience, banning marriage and adoption by gays only serves deprive children of the security of having two legal parents. I hope that I have answered your question.


Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid not to mention irresponsible.

Let us hope this is indeed your final word

"If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?" ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy. My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this they would have disapproved.

"If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?" ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.

"Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.

Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?

no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".

I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult. (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)

Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you? Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.

 

[Skylar]

DCRAELIN SAID:

"we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage"

And you lost, as there is in fact a legal basis to invalidate measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where those measures clearly violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))

Yeah, but Dcraelin ignores any precedent that he doesn't like. So that doesn't count.

His argument really has no thing to do with the world we live in.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you? Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!! The idea that being gay is not a choice? ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really? You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?

As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.

As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have a nice day.

My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however. I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.

why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.

YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.

May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children?

To which I responded:

Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.

After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.

As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.

you fucking liar......that is NOT my post

not that whoever said it was wrong

I'm done with you

Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.

 

[dcraelin]

Let us hope this is indeed your final word

"If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?" ----People with their busy lives generally dont pay attention to a lot of government policy. My suspicion is that if the populations of most of these states had known this they would have disapproved.

"If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?" ---as you pointed out there arent a large amount of couples doing this regardless...and it isnt that we are necessarily thinking of the kind of mistreatment that gets headlines, or mistreatment at all really.

"Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?"----there are even less of these folks out there---and there was at least one I remember hearing about during the debate who did oppose gay marriage....even so, not many people come out and attack those that raised them despite what they may think of their deficiencies.

Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?

no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".

I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult. (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)

Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you? Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.

well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no

 

[dcraelin]

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!! The idea that being gay is not a choice? ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really? You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?

As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.

As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have a nice day.

My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however. I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.

why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.

YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.

May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children?

To which I responded:

Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.

After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.

As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.

you fucking liar......that is NOT my post

not that whoever said it was wrong

I'm done with you

Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.

you know its too bad, as a leftist I think you and I could have many similar opinions on other issues......but your belligerent stupidity and deliberate screw up of posts and misquoting has forced me to put you on ignore.....fuck off asshole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?

no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".

I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult. (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)

Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you? Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.

well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no

Yes, it is very creepy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not “essential” to your argument on gay marriage? What argument is that now? You have presented no coherent argument what so ever. How the fuck does “parental instincts” conflict with the idea of “being born” that way??!! The idea that being gay is not a choice? ?..You also said...”.I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals” Really? You think?? If there is any truth at all to that, what does it mean? Are the voices in your head telling you that they would say that and that it has something to do with parental instincts?

As far as this “instinct” goes, it is quite possibly the stupidest and most hateful thing that has been said here ever. You still need to explain yourself or retract it. You say that you meant it as an “aside” ? You can’t make it go away that easily. It goes to the heart of you credibility, or more accurately, to the lack there of. It speaks clearly to the low level of intellect that we are dealing with here. Furthermore, it is indicative of the desperation that you are experiencing, the need to come up with increasingly ridiculous angles in your pathetically failed war on same sex marriage. I am not going to let it go until I get an answer. It will come back to haunt you with every new post.

As far as my copy and paste goes…yes I , I copied something that I wrote before Obergefell that I did in fact put a lot of thought into, and that still has much relevance. My mistake was that I didn’t fully update it. That is hardly equivalent to your crimes and displays of ignorance. Have a nice day.

My are you dense.....we argued for many posts on the lack of a legal basis for gay marriage...and now you ask What argument is that now?........I dont think any of my arguments rested on whether gayness is innate or learned...your arguments, basing them as you do on "rights", could be said to depend on that idea however. I believe you first brought up parental instinct, instinct goes to that same debate.

why is referring to that hateful?.....whenever you have no argument...you race for the bigot card.

YOU first brought up the issue of procreative urges....see post 1850. You are implying that gays do not wish to procreate.

May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children?

To which I responded:

Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married.

After which, you persisted in questioning whether or not people who are "really gay" want children. Now you seem to be suffering from amnesia and running away from you asinine statements. I told you...I'm not letting go. You have to own those statements. And they are indeed hateful and bigoted because it is painting gay people as less than human.

As far as your "arguments go.....I'm talking about something that makes sense. Something that is based on facts and logic, which you have no command of at all.

you fucking liar......that is NOT my post

not that whoever said it was wrong

I'm done with you

Holy shit! Seriously??! Not your post? I do believe that you have gone off the deep end! You will be forever remembered as the one who moronically stated that gays do not have parental instincts. Good riddance dude. Have a nice day.

you know its too bad, as a leftist I think you and I could have many similar opinions on other issues......but your belligerent stupidity and deliberate screw up of posts and misquoting has forced me to put you on ignore.....fuck off asshole.

Just to remind everyone here for one last time...YOU SAID that gay people-if they are really gay-do not have parental instincts. On top of that you are now trying to deny that! Not only is that statement stupid and bigoted, but "parental instincts " don't have a fucking thing to do with the issues of marriage. You just pulled that out of your ass as a last ditch effort to make a case. Now keep your promise and get the hell out of here.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ruh-Roh Its not nice to fool with Federal Judges

(CNN)A deputy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court who went to jail because she opposes same-sex marriage, is worried he's been issuing invalid marriage licenses, according to papers filed in federal court. When Davis returned to work last Mon ... (CNN)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Davis does not get it.

Her office will issue marriage certificates.

If her actions have any effect of putting the certificates' validity in question, she has violated the court order.

If the judge finds that she has done so, who wants to bet she gets a six month contempt of court jail sentence, and that the court orders the deputy clerks to issue marriage certificates with Davis' name on it.

 

[bodecea]

Oh Christ are you back with more rationalizations and assorted horseshit. Hey, you're the one who said that gay people-if they are "really" as in born that way don't actually have parental instincts. That in itself says all that we need to know about your credibility and level of intellectual functioning. Especially after you went into hiding after I called you on it. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?

no I just said the fact that some claim to have parental instincts tends to negate or counter the idea that they are "born that way".

I quit responding to you after I answered 2 of your posts point for point and you responded with a cut and paste insult. (and some of your other posts were obvious cut and pastes from earlier arguments)

Holly Shit! You are reduced to just repeating the same moronic claim that you made before without any attempt to explain or defend it! My god that is pathetic!! Gay people are fully functioning HUMAN BEINGS and they have all of the instincts and physical abilities that are necessary to produce and raise a child as anybody else. What the hell is wrong with you? Is you best argument that I copy and past certain things? So what? If something needs to be said again, I will do so. If there is a source that makes my point I will use it and re-use it.

Oh, and what the fuck does any of that have to do with same sex marriage and this religious freedom horseshit? It seems like all that you can do is to throw as much dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. Nothing is sticking except the egg on your face.

You are a bad joke without a punch line.

and you dont think that conflicts a little bit with the idea that they are born that way?......I think most of gays themselves would say they DONT have the same instincts as heterosexuals.

But it WAS an aside........and isnt essential to my arguments on gay marriage.

you cut and pasted a line that said someday the SC will legalize gay marriage.....showing you dont really put much thought into your answers.

You realize it's pretty creepy for you to link parenting instincts with sexual attraction instincts.

well thats twisting what I said, but the short answer is no

No? You don't think it's creepy? Well then...that says a great deal, doesn't it?

 

[Silhouette]

Ruh-Roh Its not nice to fool with Federal Judges

(CNN)A deputy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court who went to jail because she opposes same-sex marriage, is worried he's been issuing invalid marriage licenses, according to papers filed in federal court. When Davis returned to work last Mon ... (CNN)

So I did what most people don't do "Ruh-Roh"...I followed your link and now I have a quote from it:

Davis replaced the old marriage license forms with forms that don't carry her name, the name of the county or any reference to a clerk or deputy clerk, said Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes....The new forms also require Mason to list his initials, instead of a signature, with a notarization beside the initials, Hughes said....The same-sex couple that sued Davis for not issuing a marriage license said, in a separate court filing, that Davis is "requiring her clerk to issue licenses in his capacity as a 'notary public' rather than a deputy clerk. ..."...Hughes said: "Mr. Mason's concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses and he is trying to follow the court's mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms. ..."

Yes, that would be consistent with her not wanting her stamp of authority connected with normalizing homosexuality. She wants NOTHING to do with that and cannot as a Christian have even a remote connection with facilitating it. She is making sure that her clerks are the sole authority on those licenses, while she rejects them utterly. This is wholly consistent and unchanged from what she said she was going to do and keep doing.

And if this is defiant to a lower federal judge, so be it. We all know where this is going to end up...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yes, that would be consistent with her not wanting her stamp of authority connected with normalizing homosexuality. ..

Its "The People's" stamp of authority not her Stamp...Governmental affairs are run according to the US System of Law and its Constitution not the "Apostolic Church of Christ" the Stamp of authority belongs to Caesar and rightfully so since its Caesar who is paying for the Office and the stamp and the whole nine yards ...the Office is paid for by taxes paid by Gays among others ...why is Kimbo accepting cash money from Gays ....

 

[Silhouette]

Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.

That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.

You instead pin your hopes on the Government being run according to some Apostolic sect in Kentucky...that makes you a "pin head"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.

That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.

Sil, you clearly have demonstrated you do not know the Constitution or the various amendments. She has violated the judge's instructions.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kimbo is not a Free agent she works for the Government ........ if she does not like it leave....

 

[Silhouette]

Yup, with Davis in jail for six months and marriage certificates being issued at the country court house.

That would have to occur simultaneously with Congress repealing the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I wouldn't pin my hopes on that.

Sil, you clearly have demonstrated you do not know the Constitution or the various amendments. She has violated the judge's instructions.

Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means your Johnny-come-lately "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" illegal addition to the 14th (only Congress can amend the Constitution) provisions cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times. Faith doesn't have a time clock.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

cannot strip Kim Davis of her right to exercise her faith on a daily basis and at all times. Faith doesn't have a time clock.

No she always has the options of leaving the mammon provided to her by among others "gay Tax payers" ...she can exercise her faith as long as it does not destroy the Constitutional Rights of Gay tax payers..