Lesbian Marrieds & Their 3 Adopted Kids Die. 3 Kids Still Missing

[GreenBean]

Oh no, a crazy committed a crime with a car and killed children. Enough is enough. Ban cars.

No Ban Gay Adoption

 

[GreenBean]

I still am not quite seeing the issue here.

No you certainly aren't seeing the issue - the entire point is that Gay Parenting is a disaster. While it's true this also happens in heterosexual couples - statistically Gay couples , primarily males are guilty of crimes against Children at an incredibly higher ratio. I'm quoting off the top of my head and will look it up when time permits but as I recall homosexual males are responsible for roughly 1/3 of all child molestation cases yet they comprise only around 3 % of the entire population. In addition case after case points to the fact that a very large percentage are mentally and emotionally unstable as is the case with this incident.

 

[MaryL]

I think of say, Harvey Milk or even more, Alan Turing. Colossus and, nevermind. Yeah, but still, Dr. Sacks and his works, takes my breath away.

 

[Lastamender]

Sick queers should not be allowed around children.

Nice avatar.

 

[froggy]

^^ Lego actually makes those?

Leso lego?

 

[Silhouette]

No you certainly aren't seeing the issue - the entire point is that Gay Parenting is a disaster. While it's true this also happens in heterosexual couples - statistically Gay couples , primarily males are guilty of crimes against Children at an incredibly higher ratio. I'm quoting off the top of my head and will look it up when time permits but as I recall homosexual males are responsible for roughly 1/3 of all child molestation cases yet they comprise only around 3 % of the entire population. In addition case after case points to the fact that a very large percentage are mentally and emotionally unstable as is the case with this incident.

Mayo Clinic 2007 Special Article: Drrichardhall.com < that link used to work but they've buried the article to where you have to purchase it. But the quote below is from it. I have other quotes too from it saved, thankfully. I was wondering how long it would take them to bury it; especially with the gay adoption lawsuit in Michigan being so high profile. Dumont v Lyon.

Here's a link where you can purchase the whole article: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61074-4/fulltext

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia). 3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's be real: Sil doesn't give the slightest of fucks about this awful tragedy. She simply wants to use this horrific story to smear gay people.

And sadly, unsurprisingly, she’s not alone.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think of a 50's type headlines: "Deviant couple (murders their abused adopted children in) neurotic bid for attention". So many levels of wrong here. As Trump would say, SAD and WRONG!

Yet if they were Jews anyone but an antisemite or a bigot would question why someone's headline would be "Jewish couple murders their abused adopted children" or "black couple murders their abused adopted children"

This is a terrible tragedy.

And there is no evidence that the mom's sexual preference had anything to do with this tragedy than their color or religion.

That's probably true. Minus the possibility that they were just "collecting" a herd of children because they could. Even THAT possibility might just be "bad judgement" in general and nothing to do with their gender choices.

Generally only folks with strong nurturing child experiences of their own should be collecting six kids -- that are not their own.

I can't help but see similarities to the Turpins, though those kids weren't adopted.

People can love children, and want to nuture them and do what is best for them (like Sassy for example) by adopting them - or they can "collect" them. Can people be child hoarders?

Maybe not "hoarders".. But if they didn't have EXCEPTIONALLY healthy and good family upbringing, they can easily underestimate the committment they are taking on for six kids. ESPECIALLY mixed race kids. And who knows what other "unexpected baggage" they got into with the adoptions.

Adopted children all come with "baggage", they always have the thoughts and fears of "do I belong" or "will this last". Especially if they are older and come from an abusive past.

For ANY white parents without experience, nurturing black adoptees is difficult because of the abuse they face. Not only from racism. But from black peers mocking their situation. Take that same stressor and place them with 2 white "mothers" and you can expect a HANDFUL of troubles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's be real: Sil doesn't give the slightest of fucks about this awful tragedy. She simply wants to use this horrific story to smear gay people.

Actually not true. I'd heard about the story before the people were ID'd Nobody knew the sex of the two adults. I thought it was tragic, six kids dying. Then I read the rest of the story. And, since the myth persists that lesbian and gay relationships are pure as the driven snow compared to "breeders", I thought I'd set the record straight. You might want to read the link in the OP about the stats on LGBT and domestic violence compared to "the breeders" when you get a minute.

Yes, it is true.

This thread is yet another one of your hateful, bigoted hasty generalization fallacies seeking to vilify gay Americans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't think posters are taking this seriously.. That's what I think.

If there was domestic violence -- was one of them removed from the home as would happen in a Gender specific marriage? America can't function with legal process and law written for hetero marriages and applied to NON gender specific situations. Law enforcement and child services and the courts have customarily favored the woman. Not complaining. But the NURTURING parent should have the benefit of the doubt with child services and custody. And shoe-horning Non Gender Specific marriages under the same auspices is gonna HURT straight women in the longer haul.

No more preference to "Women's Abuse" shelters and custody hearings for instance. Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act become ambiguous. THAT sort of unintended side effect. Call it Paririage and write the proper law and guidance for it. Don't appropriate other culture and tradition. Leftists HATE cultural appropriation, but snarf up the legal definition of marriage to THEIR disadvantage and to the disadvantage of straight married women..

One of the women was convicted of 'domestic violence' I believe in 2011. Was she treated any differently because of her sexual preference?

There is no evidence that she was.

Don't know. But if she was the "husband" in legal terms, the authorities might have intervened SOONER and even counseled "the wife" to obtain restraining orders. That's the way the "wife protection system" is currently funded. Who KNOWS how that massive bureaucracy is interpreting these policies that written for GENDER SPECIFIC couplings these days. And that's my point. You are commandeering law and protective infrastructure that is classically design to prefer the NURTURING and VULNERABLE woman.

So it needs to be updated, and updating it would also provide protection to MEN who might be the victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women.

It becomes a little more difficult. Very little infrastructure or counseling for "abused men". And to pack ALL OF THIS under the single title of marriage is gonna be difficult to write and legislate without DROPPING many of the preferences for hetero married women. I'm fighting for them here and also trying to get a BETTER deal for alternate decisions on whom you couple with.

Feel free to provide some specific examples.

I still am not quite seeing the issue here.

One spouse abuses the other.

The law should protect the abused spouse.

Gender- sexual orientation- should only be relevant in context of the necessary protection and treatment.

That’s because there is no ‘issue’ – save that of the hate and bigotry exhibited by the OP and those who agree with her.

 

[Silhouette]

I still am not quite seeing the issue here....One spouse abuses the other.

The law should protect the abused spouse.

Gender- sexual orientation- should only be relevant in context of the necessary protection and treatment.

Yeah, except that flacaltenn explained it to you, that hetero women's domestic violence protections become compromised as a result of your refusing to see the gender-neutral problem as he so expertly pointed out to you.

That’s because there is no ‘issue’ – save that of the hate and bigotry exhibited by the OP and those who agree with her.

Yeah, "those who agree" with me? Like the Senior Moderator?

 

[flacaltenn]

One of the women was convicted of 'domestic violence' I believe in 2011. Was she treated any differently because of her sexual preference?

There is no evidence that she was.

Don't know. But if she was the "husband" in legal terms, the authorities might have intervened SOONER and even counseled "the wife" to obtain restraining orders. That's the way the "wife protection system" is currently funded. Who KNOWS how that massive bureaucracy is interpreting these policies that written for GENDER SPECIFIC couplings these days. And that's my point. You are commandeering law and protective infrastructure that is classically design to prefer the NURTURING and VULNERABLE woman.

So it needs to be updated, and updating it would also provide protection to MEN who might be the victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women.

It becomes a little more difficult. Very little infrastructure or counseling for "abused men". And to pack ALL OF THIS under the single title of marriage is gonna be difficult to write and legislate without DROPPING many of the preferences for hetero married women. I'm fighting for them here and also trying to get a BETTER deal for alternate decisions on whom you couple with.

Feel free to provide some specific examples.

I still am not quite seeing the issue here.

One spouse abuses the other.

The law should protect the abused spouse.

Gender- sexual orientation- should only be relevant in context of the necessary protection and treatment.

That’s because there is no ‘issue’ – save that of the hate and bigotry exhibited by the OP and those who agree with her.

Then lets' start with invalidating all the programs for "abused womens services" related to marriage or get immediate PARITY for men. And let's strike-out all the sections of VAWA related to spousal abuse as NOT Gender Neutral enough.

That's just the BEGINNING of the twisted 20 yr court adventures that are definitely gonna occur trying to PURGE gender from marriage law.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then we can purge "dead-beat dads" from the nations vocabulary and strike those liens against them for equality purposes and social justice.

 

[MaryL]

Stressors, blacks shooting each other, and stuff like that, huge issues like that get ignored. Gay marriage. perverts telling us what is moral... Mass shootings, blacks slaughtering each other blaming racism, using it as a as a hedge , I don't want to sound like Keanu but, Whoa! ...American culture is broken, let's fix it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I still am not quite seeing the issue here....One spouse abuses the other.

The law should protect the abused spouse.

Gender- sexual orientation- should only be relevant in context of the necessary protection and treatment.

Yeah, except that flacaltenn explained it to you, that hetero women's domestic violence protections become compromised as a result of your refusing to see the gender-neutral problem as he so expertly pointed out to you.

That’s because there is no ‘issue’ – save that of the hate and bigotry exhibited by the OP and those who agree with her.

Yeah, "those who agree" with me? Like the Senior Moderator?

Hey. Not so fast. Was just about to inform Mr Legal Beagle that I dont leap to blaming BOTH of those parents BECAUSE they are lesbians. I DO blame society and leadership for not thinking thru the ramifications of appropriating the gender specific legal definitions of marriage to pack that tradition with a boatload of OTHER problems NOT addressed in the current law.

 

[MaryL]

Let's lay this at the feet at liberals, after all, who came up with such nonsense of giving children to gays? Loving parents who can't have children? Ok, I know human parents have been guilty of destroying their offspring... That is one thing we NEED to give gay adoptive parents?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's lay this at the feet at liberals, after all, who came up with such nonsense of giving children to gays? Loving parents who can't have children? Ok, I know human parents have been guilty of destroying their offspring... That is one thing we NEED to give gay adoptive parents?

It’s nonsense to prohibit gays from adopting children; nonsense the creation of conservatives.

Indeed, it’s nonsense made even more ridiculous given the fact that gay Americans have their own children, are loving, responsible parents, and are perfectly capable of being loving, responsible adoptive parents.

 

[Syriusly]

A man that believes his wife is a hat, people that earnestly believe the left side of their body isn't theirs, the list goes on and on. Dr Oliver Sacks. Just read his books. Please, don't tell me homosexuality isn't a dysfunction. And don't tell me they need rights...

Clearly you think you read Dr. Oliver Sacks books- but just as clearly you didn't understand what he wrote.

Homosexuality isn't a dysfunction. Your bigotry is. But I won't try to take away your rights just because you are dysfunctional- that is what you bigots do.

 

[Syriusly]

As much attention to a unarmed black man being gunned down, (practically whip up riots), But our local media will ignore anything outside their political agenda. The

Yet if they were Jews anyone but an antisemite or a bigot would question why someone's headline would be "Jewish couple murders their abused adopted children" or "black couple murders their abused adopted children"

This is a terrible tragedy.

And there is no evidence that the mom's sexual preference had anything to do with this tragedy than their color or religion.

That's probably true. Minus the possibility that they were just "collecting" a herd of children because they could. Even THAT possibility might just be "bad judgement" in general and nothing to do with their gender choices.

Generally only folks with strong nurturing child experiences of their own should be collecting six kids -- that are not their own.

I can't help but see similarities to the Turpins, though those kids weren't adopted.

People can love children, and want to nuture them and do what is best for them (like Sassy for example) by adopting them - or they can "collect" them. Can people be child hoarders?

Maybe not "hoarders".. But if they didn't have EXCEPTIONALLY healthy and good family upbringing, they can easily underestimate the committment they are taking on for six kids. ESPECIALLY mixed race kids. And who knows what other "unexpected baggage" they got into with the adoptions.

Adopted children all come with "baggage", they always have the thoughts and fears of "do I belong" or "will this last". Especially if they are older and come from an abusive past.

But we don't have to all feed into that dysfunctional neurosis, and I refuse to do that. Nope.

That is why I refuse to feed into your dysfunctional neurosis and bigotry.

I will refute your idiocy and hate and still believe that you have every right to be so bigoted and wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

I still am not quite seeing the issue here.

No you certainly aren't seeing the issue - the entire point is that Gay Parenting is a disaster. While it's true this also happens in heterosexual couples - statistically Gay couples , primarily males are guilty of crimes against Children at an incredibly higher ratio. I'm quoting off the top of my head and will look it up when time permits but as I recall homosexual males are responsible for roughly 1/3 of all child molestation cases yet they comprise only around 3 % of the entire population. In addition case after case points to the fact that a very large percentage are mentally and emotionally unstable as is the case with this incident.

No- I am seeing the issue just fine. I just am not buying into the bigoted talking points of the Right Wing.

There is no record of 'Gay couples' having any higher rate of crimes against children- you just pulled that out of your ass.

Here are the stats:
Men- all men- are responsible for 90-95% of all sexual molestation of children.
Between 68% and 90% of all victims of child sexual molestation are girls.
The persons- almost all men- who molest children- are child molesters- many are pedophiles.
Those men rarely identify as 'gay'- even when they molest boys.
Men like Jerry Sandusky- good macho married men with families- who end up molesting boys.
Men like Dennis Hastert- again- good macho married men with families- who end up molesting boys.

Now- statistically- if you wanted to grant adoptions based upon purely the statistics- men would always be the last chosen- and women always the first- in order of safety it would go like this:
1) Two women
2) single woman
3) Man and woman
4) single man
5) Two men.

Statistically- from the aspect of sexual abuse- children are always safer with two mom's than with a mom and a dad.

So if you want to argue that two men should not be allowed to adopt- unless you are a complete hypocrite or bigot- you would also argue that no single man should ever be allowed to adopt- and that two women always be given preference.

I mean if you didn't weren't a total hypocrite and bigot.