Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay "Couples"

[Montrovant]

Am I hallucinating that Michigan and soon other states will pass laws allowing adoption agencies to insist their wards only be adopted to couples who provide a mother and a father to the child? How is that about me? Trying a strawman when ad hominems fail you?

You've hallucinated the 'categories' of protected classes in the 14th amendment. They don't exist.

You've hallucinated the 'army' that apparently belongs to Montovant/

You've hallucinated the 'gay infilitration' of Gallup and all other polling agencies that contradict you.

You've hallucinated Oprah being in on a vast international gay conspiracy going back to the 60s.

You've hallucinated the USSC being blackmailed by homosexuals to make them rule in a manner contrary with your beliefs.

You're quite ill, Sil.

Wait, my army is hallucinatory?












*calls off the invasion*

 

[Skylar]

Am I hallucinating that Michigan and soon other states will pass laws allowing adoption agencies to insist their wards only be adopted to couples who provide a mother and a father to the child? How is that about me? Trying a strawman when ad hominems fail you?

You've hallucinated the 'categories' of protected classes in the 14th amendment. They don't exist.

You've hallucinated the 'army' that apparently belongs to Montovant/

You've hallucinated the 'gay infilitration' of Gallup and all other polling agencies that contradict you.

You've hallucinated Oprah being in on a vast international gay conspiracy going back to the 60s.

You've hallucinated the USSC being blackmailed by homosexuals to make them rule in a manner contrary with your beliefs.

You're quite ill, Sil.

Wait, my army is hallucinatory?












*calls off the invasion*

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself!

 

[Montrovant]

Or how about this?

1. Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or an adoptive parent or parents?

How do you think those questions would be answered, Sil?

And it's correlary, don't forget:

1(a): Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or be adopted by people who exhibit mental instability. (I would show them the picture in my signature first before I asked.)

You would need to provide a definition of mental instability, as homosexuality is no longer categorized as such in major psychological groups to the best of my knowledge.

I would expect adoption agencies to screen for certain mental instabilities, as you put it. Whether homosexuality should be one of those is basically the question, so your addendum is, once again, nothing but leading.

 

[Skylar]

>

Wrong again, support for same-sex couples being able to adopt has been growing consistently.


>>>>

So what? Popularity does not correlate to validity and there is no potential validity possible in allowing homosexuals to so much as be alone with a child, let alone the parent, or God forbid 'parents' of a child.

Its a far better correlate than you citing yourself. And it certainly establishes the weight of public opinion better than you citing your subjective opinion. As you alone are not the public.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Am I hallucinating that Michigan and soon other states will pass laws allowing adoption agencies to insist their wards only be adopted to couples who provide a mother and a father to the child? How is that about me? Trying a strawman when ad hominems fail you?

You've hallucinated the 'categories' of protected classes in the 14th amendment. They don't exist.

You've hallucinated the 'army' that apparently belongs to Montovant/

You've hallucinated the 'gay infilitration' of Gallup and all other polling agencies that contradict you.

You've hallucinated Oprah being in on a vast international gay conspiracy going back to the 60s.

You've hallucinated the USSC being blackmailed by homosexuals to make them rule in a manner contrary with your beliefs.

You're quite ill, Sil.

Wait, my army is hallucinatory?












*calls off the invasion*

LOL! There's no debate that the Advocacy of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality rests in abject deceit.

There is no popular majority supporting the insertion of those unsuited for Marriage into marriage. It's a lie.

And the evidence of such is demonstrated in every post wherein the Homo-Cult simultaneously claims POPULAR SUPPORT, while touting the Judicial overturning of POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE SET DOWN IN LAW... AS EVIDENCE OF POPULAR SUPPORT.

"Marriage is Legal in 37 States"... is a lie. In fact, in all but an insignificant minority of States, the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE VOTED TO ELECT THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO LONG DEBATED AND VOTED IN MAJORITY TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE and those bills were signed INTO LAW... by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

And a tiny, insignificant minority of Prog Judges; less than would fill a school bus... overturned THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

Now... just stand by and wait for the yelps and braying which advises you that a POPULAR MAJORITY can't usurp the rights of a minority.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its a far better correlate than you citing yourself.

(Reader, that is a modified version of the highly acclaimed "Says YOU!" defense... while hysterical, it doesn't carry much water, thus not an approach used by the successful debater.)

 

[Skylar]

LOL! There's no debate that the Advocacy of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality rests in abject deceit.

Which has nothing to do with any of the hallucinations we're talking about:

The 'categories' of protected classes in the 14th amendment hallucination. They don't exist.

The 'army' that apparently belongs to Montovant hallucination.

The 'gay infilitration' of Gallup and all other polling agencies that show support for gay marriage hallucination.

The Oprah being in on a vast international gay conspiracy going back to the 60s hallucination.

The USSC being blackmailed by homosexuals to make them rule in favor of same sex marriage hallucination.

Pick one and run with it.

There is no popular majority supporting the insertion of those unsuited for Marriage into marriage. It's a lie.

Gallup says otherwise.

And an internationally respected polling agency with nearly 20 years of polling data is more objective and reliable than you citing yourself. As you alone aren't the public. Nor do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

"Marriage is Legal in 37 States"... is a lie.

All the same sex marriages happening in those states say otherwise. You pretend none of them exist. The law isn't obligated to pretend with you.

In fact, in all but an insignificant minority of States, the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE VOTED TO ELECT THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO LONG DEBATED AND VOTED IN MAJORITY TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE and those bills were signed INTO LAW... by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

And a tiny, insignificant minority of Prog Judges; less than would fill a school bus... overturned THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

You say the Federal Judiciary upholding rights is 'irrelevant'. Our system of law says otherwise. And lo and behold....same sex marriages are happening in these states, explicitly contrary to your assumptions. You citing yourself means nothing legally, as you aren't a legal authority.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Its a far better correlate than you citing yourself.

(Reader, that is a modified version of the highly acclaimed "Says YOU!" defense... while hysterical, it doesn't carry much water, thus not an approach used by the successful debater.)

Um.....you do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself again, right?

And Gallup is a more objective and reliable source of public opinion than you are. You may be convinced that any batshit you believe is irrefutable truth no matter the contrary evidence.

But your batshit is functionally irrelevant outside your own skull.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's how the survey questions would line up with instructions at the start that say

"Be sure to read all four questions first before you start to answer them one by one"

1. Are you aware that gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother? Yes___ No___

2. Having realized gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother, does that change your support away from being in favor of gay marriage? Yes____ No____

3. Are you aware that most adoption agencies are Christian-run? Yes___ No____

4. Having realized most adoption agencies are Christian run, do you support them being able to refuse adopting children to applicants based on their faith-supported belief that a marriage should mean both a mother and a father to children? Yes____ No____

That's it. 4 simple questions.

I'll bet the house on where the majority of the answers will be.

Or how about this?

1. Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or an adoptive parent or parents?

How do you think those questions would be answered, Sil?

And it's correlary, don't forget:

1(a): Do you think it is better for a child to have no parents in their life or be adopted by people who exhibit mental instability. (I would show them the picture in my signature first before I asked.)

Montrovant?

 

[Skylar]

Here's how the survey questions would line up with instructions at the start that say

"Be sure to read all four questions first before you start to answer them one by one"

1. Are you aware that gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother? Yes___ No___

2. Having realized gay marriage deprives kids of either a father or a mother, does that change your support away from being in favor of gay marriage? Yes____ No____

3. Are you aware that most adoption agencies are Christian-run? Yes___ No____

4. Having realized most adoption agencies are Christian run, do you support them being able to refuse adopting children to applicants based on their faith-supported belief that a marriage should mean both a mother and a father to children? Yes____ No____

That's it. 4 simple questions.

I'll bet the house on where the majority of the answers will be.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with Gallup and most other polling agencies who have asked the public their opinion over some shit you just made up.

 

[CowboyTed]

So how many here would leave their kids with a man, who likes to dress as a women?

I do it before I would leave them witha bigot like you... Kids don't need to learn hate and fear from you...

But with new research a homophobic person like you is more likely to be aroused by homosexual content than a non homphobic person.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE1, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Author information
Abstract
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Silhouette]

So how many here would leave their kids with a man, who likes to dress as a women?

I do it before I would leave them witha bigot like you... Kids don't need to learn hate and fear from you...

Things must be getting desperate on this topic. The LGBT lobbiests only reach way down in their bag of tricks to pull out the ace of spades. That is always as a last resort "if you disagree with my position that LGBT culties should have unfettered access to orphaned kids, you are a closet homosexual!"

That one almost always works to shut down the conversation. Except with me because I know better.

Kids do need to fear certain things Cowboy. They need to learn some healthy fears for sure. When I was a child, I learned to fear rattlesnakes, getting too close to the campfire, swimming with sharks, black widow spiders, rabid dogs, poison oak, fire ants, tornados approaching and so on. A child should fear two men playing "mom and dad". A child should fear two women playing "dad and mom". A child should fear a man trying to hack off his genitals to play-act a woman. These are all signs of instability. And instability is a sign of danger. Children should fear something that even we as a society haven't fully sorted out yet. Even the LGBTs themselves have not sorted out their issues...er...I mean "orientations".. A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Montrovant]

It's hilarious how often you link to your own USMB threads as some kind of evidence.

 

[Silhouette]

It's hilarious how often you link to your own USMB threads as some kind of evidence.

Want to talk to the points I just made or use another trick in your bag "deflective ad hominems"?

 

[Montrovant]

It's hilarious how often you link to your own USMB threads as some kind of evidence.

Want to talk to the points I just made or use another trick in your bag "deflective ad hominems"?

What points did you make? That you consider homosexuals to be dangerous to children? You've been saying that for as long as I've seen you post......over and over again......and over and over again. That you equate homosexuals as parents to poisonous snakes or being burned by fire? Again, you've made it clear that you consider homosexuals as parents to be one of the worst horrors the world has to offer, likely leading to the end of civilization as we know it. And I think I've been fairly clear that I consider you to be either a determined troll or an incredible alarmist bigot who consistently lies, ignores unpalatable facts, misrepresents the words of others, and basically attempts to make your point in any dishonest way possible.

I'm not deflecting from anything by laughing at you quoting yourself. I'm just laughing at you. It's funny that you consistently use links to your own threads on this website as though they are some sort of objective evidence. I don't need to rehash the same tired BS you spew every time I post a reply.

So, again,

 

[Silhouette]

What points did you make? That you consider homosexuals to be dangerous to children? You've been saying that for as long as I've seen you post......over and over again......and over and over again. That you equate homosexuals as parents to poisonous snakes or being burned by fire? Again, you've made it clear that you consider homosexuals as parents to be one of the worst horrors the world has to offer, likely leading to the end of civilization as we know it....

Look at the photo in my signature and ask yourself: do the thousands and thousands and thousands of gays who go to and support these events, seeing what you see there and much much worse in front of kids always along the sidelines and often in the parade itself, qualify as applicants to adopt kids?

If you were an adoption agent and two gay men walked in wearing Harvey Milk T-shirts, you having seen them on the TV the week previous dry-humping on the streets in nut-huggers and nothing else, right in front of little kids, would you want to live under the Michigan law, or would you want to be forced by your state to adopt a child out to these men and the others like him because of PA laws?

 

[Montrovant]

What points did you make? That you consider homosexuals to be dangerous to children? You've been saying that for as long as I've seen you post......over and over again......and over and over again. That you equate homosexuals as parents to poisonous snakes or being burned by fire? Again, you've made it clear that you consider homosexuals as parents to be one of the worst horrors the world has to offer, likely leading to the end of civilization as we know it....

Look at the photo in my signature and ask yourself: do the thousands and thousands and thousands of gays who go to and support these events, seeing what you see there and much much worse in front of kids always along the sidelines and often in the parade itself, qualify as applicants to adopt kids?

If you were an adoption agent and two gay men walked in wearing Harvey Milk T-shirts, you having seen them on the TV the week previous dry-humping on the streets in nut-huggers and nothing else, right in front of little kids, would you want to live under the Michigan law, or would you want to be forced by your state to adopt a child out to these men and the others like him because of PA laws?

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays. Are there gays who are overly flamboyant, even to the point of being inappropriate and offensive? Of course. Are there heterosexuals who have the same qualities? Of course, yet you do not condemn all heterosexuals for the actions of a few. If I post pictures of heterosexuals dressed in a sexually provocative manner in a parade, will you call for all heterosexuals to be banned from adopting? Should all Catholics be banned from adopting because there have been well-documented cases of Catholic priests abusing children? How about all sports coaches? Jerry Sandusky recently was found to have abused many of his students, should all coaches be banned from adopting? Hey, sometimes sports fans riot after their team wins a championship! Let's ban sports fans from adopting! Have you gotten the idea yet?

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays.

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

There is one compelling and overriding reason: a marriage must provide both a mother and a father to children. For the best balance. I understand that some of the harder cases of orphans like crack babies and AIDS babies are adopted out to single people. But the modeling of "two parents = minus one of the genders" is a social promotion of homosexuality, poised to be infused into a new generation. And Christians are bound by the mandates in Jude 1 of the New Testament to not do that in any way, shape or form.

So each individual "gay couple" basis must be denied by them; regardless of whether or not they pay homage to (or refuse to denounce) Harvey Milk the child sodomizer, or whether or not they've been dry-humping (or applauding that) in an LGBT parade in the presence of children..Their very existence as "coupled-sodomites" is forbidden to Christians to place children around in a "marriage" setting..

 

[Skylar]

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays.

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

There is one compelling and overriding reason: a marriage must provide both a mother and a father to children.

There's no such requirement. As no one is required to have children or be able to have them. Ending your entire basis of argument. In many states it isn't even required that a couple adopt a child. Individuals can. Disproving your made up requirement yet again.

Worse, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. It only hurts them. Its not like denying marriage to same sex parents magically means their children have opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that they will never have married parents.

Which hurts these children. And helps no child. There's no reason we would ever do that.

For the best balance. I understand that some of the harder cases of orphans like crack babies and AIDS babies are adopted out to single people. But the modeling of "two parents = minus one of the genders" is a social promotion of homosexuality, poised to be infused into a new generation. And Christians are bound by the mandates in Jude 1 of the New Testament to not do that in any way, shape or form.

Jude 1 doesn't mention gay marriage, adoption, or any of the other claims you're attributing to it. You're making this shit up as you go along. And your inventions have no relevance to the law.

So each individual "gay couple" basis must be denied by them; regardless of whether or not they pay homage to (or refuse to denounce) Harvey Milk the child sodomizer, or whether or not they've been dry-humping (or applauding that) in an LGBT parade in the presence of children..Their very existence as "coupled-sodomites" is forbidden to Christians to place children around in a "marriage" setting..

And I'm perfectly fine with that. On the condition that they receive no state or federal funding. If its privately operated, privately owned, and privately funded, then more power to them. If they are receiving state funds, they are subject to state rules.

In the case of Michigan there are no protections for gays. So state rules wouldn't be an impediment. For those states that do have such protections, state funded private adoption agencies would have a choice: abandoned discrimination of gays, or abandon state funding.

 

[Silhouette]

The requirement to or not to be able to have children physically is strawman.