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

[Syriusly]

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

Oh Silhouette- how do we know when you are trying to mislead?

When you post.

We have been through this multiple times. You like about what Dr. Hall and Hall said- I point out your lies- rinse and repeat.

The article is not buried- here is a link
https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

So how are you lying- everytime?

You quote Dr. Hall- and then leave out the very next sentence:

"This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children"

Your own article specifically- and clearly- refutes your bigoted claim.

I will keep the article handy to so I can point out how you are lying- every single time.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The only thing more stressful is not being adopted at all.

You think that adoptees face 'abuse'?

Kids in foster homes get it even more abuse.

Thousands of kids every year age out of the foster system without any parents for emotional or financial support.

Thousands more spend years waiting for adoption.

I applaud those parents who step up to adopt those kids whose own parents have failed them. Most of them are adopting for the right reasons.

Tragedies like this one are the exception- not the rule.

 

[Syriusly]

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.?

What 'hetero women's domestic violence protections'?

Do you imagine now that there are specific programs just to protect heterosexual women- but not homosexual women?

Or is that just wishful thinking.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That process has already begun- actually it began years ago.
Gender has essentially been purged from marriage law- it is essentially irrelevant.

Of course marriage law is not domestic violence law or custody law.

If you want to 'invalidate' all the programs that are labeled as helping 'abused women'- well that is of course up to you.

Or you could work to make them inclusive of all victims of domestic violence.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I suggest you start by looking in a mirror and fixing what you see there first.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why do you think that parents who won't support their kids should be let off the hook?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Of course you just want to blame 'liberals'.

If we heterosexuals would stop abandoning our kids- then you wouldn't have to worry about the 'ebil gays' adopting the kids that their biological parents have abandoned.

Tell me- how many black children have you adopted?

You know- in order to spare them the horrors of having gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

First and foremost- this tragedy is just another of Silhouette's attempts to use a tragedy to attack gays

- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.


Here are the rough numbers:

100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.

33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.

23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.



Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

That is how much Silhouette hates gays- she would prefer that 23,000 foster kids get kicked out on the street- rather than let them have gay parents.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Oh Silhouette- how do we know when you are trying to mislead?

When you post.

We have been through this multiple times. You like about what Dr. Hall and Hall said- I point out your lies- rinse and repeat.

The article is not buried- here is a link
https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

So how are you lying- everytime?

You quote Dr. Hall- and then leave out the very next sentence:

View attachment 185628

"This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children"

Your own article specifically- and clearly- refutes your bigoted claim.

I will keep the article handy to so I can point out how you are lying- every single time.

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.

The only thing more stressful is not being adopted at all.

You think that adoptees face 'abuse'?

Kids in foster homes get it even more abuse.

Thousands of kids every year age out of the foster system without any parents for emotional or financial support.

Thousands more spend years waiting for adoption.

I applaud those parents who step up to adopt those kids whose own parents have failed them. Most of them are adopting for the right reasons.

Tragedies like this one are the exception- not the rule.

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.?

What 'hetero women's domestic violence protections'?

Do you imagine now that there are specific programs just to protect heterosexual women- but not homosexual women?

Or is that just wishful thinking.

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.

That process has already begun- actually it began years ago.
Gender has essentially been purged from marriage law- it is essentially irrelevant.

Of course marriage law is not domestic violence law or custody law.

If you want to 'invalidate' all the programs that are labeled as helping 'abused women'- well that is of course up to you.

Or you could work to make them inclusive of all victims of domestic violence.

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.

I suggest you start by looking in a mirror and fixing what you see there first.

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

Why do you think that parents who won't support their kids should be let off the hook?

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?

Of course you just want to blame 'liberals'.

If we heterosexuals would stop abandoning our kids- then you wouldn't have to worry about the 'ebil gays' adopting the kids that their biological parents have abandoned.

Tell me- how many black children have you adopted?

You know- in order to spare them the horrors of having gay parents?

First and foremost- this tragedy is just another of Silhouette's attempts to use a tragedy to attack gays

- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.


Here are the rough numbers:

100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.

33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.

23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.



Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

That is how much Silhouette hates gays- she would prefer that 23,000 foster kids get kicked out on the street- rather than let them have gay parents.

TL;DR Seriously, 9 posts with no response? I don't even do that in my own threads. Perhaps if you had an update with more information on the situation someone would care?

 

[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.

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

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.

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.

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

Oh Silhouette- how do we know when you are trying to mislead?

When you post.

We have been through this multiple times. You like about what Dr. Hall and Hall said- I point out your lies- rinse and repeat.

The article is not buried- here is a link
https://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

So how are you lying- everytime?

You quote Dr. Hall- and then leave out the very next sentence:

View attachment 185628

"This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children"

Your own article specifically- and clearly- refutes your bigoted claim.

I will keep the article handy to so I can point out how you are lying- every single time.

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.

The only thing more stressful is not being adopted at all.

You think that adoptees face 'abuse'?

Kids in foster homes get it even more abuse.

Thousands of kids every year age out of the foster system without any parents for emotional or financial support.

Thousands more spend years waiting for adoption.

I applaud those parents who step up to adopt those kids whose own parents have failed them. Most of them are adopting for the right reasons.

Tragedies like this one are the exception- not the rule.

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.?

What 'hetero women's domestic violence protections'?

Do you imagine now that there are specific programs just to protect heterosexual women- but not homosexual women?

Or is that just wishful thinking.

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.

That process has already begun- actually it began years ago.
Gender has essentially been purged from marriage law- it is essentially irrelevant.

Of course marriage law is not domestic violence law or custody law.

If you want to 'invalidate' all the programs that are labeled as helping 'abused women'- well that is of course up to you.

Or you could work to make them inclusive of all victims of domestic violence.

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.

I suggest you start by looking in a mirror and fixing what you see there first.

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

Why do you think that parents who won't support their kids should be let off the hook?

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?

Of course you just want to blame 'liberals'.

If we heterosexuals would stop abandoning our kids- then you wouldn't have to worry about the 'ebil gays' adopting the kids that their biological parents have abandoned.

Tell me- how many black children have you adopted?

You know- in order to spare them the horrors of having gay parents?

First and foremost- this tragedy is just another of Silhouette's attempts to use a tragedy to attack gays

- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.


Here are the rough numbers:

100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.

33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.

23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.



Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

That is how much Silhouette hates gays- she would prefer that 23,000 foster kids get kicked out on the street- rather than let them have gay parents.

TL;DR Seriously, 9 posts with no response? I don't even do that in my own threads. Perhaps if you had an update with more information on the situation someone would care?

And you felt you needed to post that?

LOL.

 

[deannalw]

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

Why do you think that parents who won't support their kids should be let off the hook?

Women can opt out of parenthood by killing the baby. Fathers have no choice.
Choice is only for women in one of the most monumental decisions we face in life.

 

[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?

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.

Well I blame the masculine/dominant one just like you do. The one that probably wears the strapon dildo. With men I'd feel the victim was the "bottom", the one with the hole at the lower end that gets humped. But don't worry, there's no closeted hetero tendencies in the gay or lesbian camps. Or are there?

What I just said seems like another topic. But it isn't. Not really. It's relevant exactly to this conversation which is at the end of the day "do we see signs of suppressed or latent mental illness in gays or lesbians seeking to adopt children where said suppression might lead to a dangerous climate for kids later on?"

Deep suppressed sexuality issues can be manifested in homosexuality. For lesbians one may have a deep hatred of other women and a need to dominate them, under the guise of looking for love. That would be the bulldkye. For the other, a deep hatred of males but still wanting one, minus the violence. So a lesbian couple is born. But the problem is, children come in both male and female and those latent issues will bring to bear on them as well, particularly as they grow closer to being young men and women.

Mind you those are two sort of gross examples of what goes wrong to make lesbians. Sometimes it's molestation/imprinting and miswiring. But being a victim of molestation puts you in a class of mentally compromised as well, especially if you've never had therapy for it but instead embraced what was done to you as a new sexual identity.

For these reasons, which are behavioral, not innate, the lesbian or gay needs closer scrutiny upon adoption. And these women are the poster children for why that is.

 

[Silhouette]

Now this is an interesting spin. The photographic evidence would seem to suggest otherwise:

From "The Advocate" (surprise surprise!) Fatal Crash of Lesbian Moms and Six Foster Kids Spurs Investigation

“There were no skid marks. There were no brake marks,” Allman said. “There was no indication of why this vehicle traversed approximately over 75 feet off a dirt pullout and went into the Pacific Ocean.”

But here's the shot of where the car went off. No skid or brake marks; technically true. But there ARE acceleration marks. Actually the clear indication below are of tires that were gunned off the line and accelerated digging in until the car pitched off the side of the cliff into the ocean. Even an amateur off roader would tell you that the car had quietly pulled up to that spot in the foreground, gunned the accelerator, and continued under throttle off the cliff. The children must have been beyond panic at that point. I hope the lesbian couple didn't linger there long and prolong their dread and anxiety facing imminent death.

Oh Advocate, silence perpetuates the violence:
Mums who drove family off cliff had ‘violent history’

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why do you think that parents who won't support their kids should be let off the hook?

Women can opt out of parenthood by killing the baby. Fathers have no choice.
Choice is only for women in one of the most monumental decisions we face in life.

Women can choose to either to allow themselves to be pregnant for 9 months- and go through the risk and pain of child birth or not.

Men don't.

No risk to their own health. No hours of pain.

When men face the same risks as women do from pregnancy- well then they can chose for themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

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,.

Why don't you think that the law should protect the abused spouse?

 

[Syriusly]

[
For these reasons, which are behavioral, not innate, the lesbian or gay needs closer scrutiny upon adoption. And these women are the poster children for why that is.

These women are the poster children of you bigotry towards gays.

There is absolutely no evidence that their sexual orientation has anything to do with what appears to be a murder suicide.

IF this had been a hetero couple- like the cases that tragically happen all too often- you would never have started a thread.

As always- tragedies that happen to children- are just tools for your bigotry against gays.

 

[Silhouette]

IF this had been a hetero couple- like the cases that tragically happen all too often- you would never have started a thread.

IF this had been a hetero couple, the Advocate wouldn't have lied and said "There was no indication of why this vehicle traversed approximately over 75 feet off a dirt pullout and went into the Pacific Ocean.” The point being that burying (or in this case outright lying about) domestic violence where kids are killed, where lesbians (or gays) are involved is a crime against statistical truths in demographics. I'd say the dig-in/acceleration marks evident in the photo above absolutely are an indication. So, the issue of this thread is PC-burying of facts related to domestic violence surrounding gay and lesbian marriages/adoption.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There aren't a lot of adoptable children in the US. That's why there are so many foreign adoptions. Many adoptions in this country are where a couple pays a pregnant girl to have the baby. There are a lot of children in foster care. They are not all available for adoption. The parent is in prison or rehab and refuses to sign release papers. They have not been declared unfit.

The children placed with gay parents are deprived of a normal family. It is child abuse that, this time, ended up with dead children.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Gee --- that's some real Gender Specific thinking for a poster that argued me about commandeering the Gender Specific law and policy behind marriage. If you didn't want to look ridiculous -- you'd be consistent about Gender Blind solutions and legal prescriptions....

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Gee --- that's some real Gender Specific thinking for a poster that argued me about commandeering the Gender Specific law and policy behind marriage. If you didn't want to look ridiculous -- you'd be consistent about Gender Blind solutions and legal prescriptions....

Sigh. Apples and oranges.

Let me explain.

There are some bigots who claim that gays should not be allowed to adopt children and make bogus claims that gays are a danger to children.

My post- I presume you can read in context- was a response to that- and pointing out that IF the poster was serious about screening adoptive parents by 'risk'- then the real risk factor is gender.

As I noted. I am not proposing that is what we should do. I believe that kids in need of adoption need good parents- and gender and sexual orientation is irrelevant.