The Homosexual Dilemma

[PaintMyHouse]

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Hey little faggot hater, you've lost. How long be you let that sink in?

 

[ninja007]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.

Uh huh....

'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

Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy
The Thinking Housewife rsaquo Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy

It doesn't fucking matter, literally.

 

[80zephyr]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”

Incorrect

The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (US v. Windsor (2013)).

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”

Incorrect.

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”

Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

You said this:

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:


Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?

Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?

There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.

If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.

Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist?

Mark

 

[Coyote]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

 

[ninja007]

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Hey little faggot hater, you've lost. How long be you let that sink in?

I haven't lost anything.....unfortunately it is the children who will lose.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia

Warning: The following story may be disturbing and offensive to some readers. Reader discretion is advised.

UPDATE: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation published an article praising the gay adoption by Mark Newton in 2010. I have posted the full textin this post and saved off a PDF. The article has since been pulled.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the latest example of gay adoption gone awry – this time from Australia. (H/T Mysterious S.)

Excerpt:

Standing before an American court convicted of the most heinous of child sex crimes, the double lives of Australian citizen Mark J. Newton and his long-term boyfriend Peter Truong were laid bare.

[…]Moments later Newton was sentenced to 40 years in prison for sexually abusing the boy he and Truong, 36 from Queensland, had ‘‘adopted’’ after paying a Russian woman $8000 to be their surrogate in 2005.

Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation’’. The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network.

[…]Evidence before the court revealed the abuse began before the couple returned to Australia. One video is said to show Newton performing a sex act on the boy when he was less than two weeks old.

Judge Barker said the pair brainwashed the child to believe the sexual abuse was normal. Newton was also said to have trained the boy to deny any inappropriate behaviour if he was ever questioned by authorities.

Newton and Truong came to the attention of police in August 2011 after their connections to three men arrested over the possession of child exploitation material came to light. The couple had visited the three men in the US, New Zealand and Germany with their son.

[…]Newton and Truong claimed they were being targeted because they were homosexual.

This story comes on the heels of the new Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd’s promise to legalize gay marriage.

Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia Wintery Knight

 

[PaintMyHouse]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”

Incorrect

The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (US v. Windsor (2013)).

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”

Incorrect.

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”

Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

You said this:

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:


Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?

Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?

There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.

If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.

Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist?

Equality is a Moral thing dumbass.

 

[ninja007]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

 

[Skylar]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.

Uh huh....

'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

Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

And in the longer time that straights have been adopting, we've gotten even MORE horror stories. You're using a classic fallacy of logic: argument by anecdote. Where you're appealing to emotion by finding a very limited number of examples that you then extrapolate to be the norm for a larger population. Without any accompanying evidence that such extrapolations are rational or justified.

That's why its a fallacy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Hey little faggot hater, you've lost. How long be you let that sink in?

I haven't lost anything.....unfortunately it is the children who will lose.

No, you've lost in a huge way because those still pissing into the wind on this are few and far between. You've been left in the past, the nation has grown beyond your mentality, and you hate it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy

Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying

 

[Coyote]

No it does not, and few would argue it does. Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive. Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.

What is the right in question? It's the right to marry.

Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry? It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry. What kind of nonsense is that?

No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.

No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want. And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.

The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual). Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

It doesn't fucking matter. It's not about children.

 

[Skylar]

BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.

No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater. It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...

i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

There's no evidence that gays were more sexually abused their straight counter parts. With overwheling evidence contradicting that. Girls are the victims of the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse. But women do almost none of the abusing.

So your claims are doubly wrong. Its like the fallacy parade today.

Can you see why your arguments might not be compelling to someone who doesn't already agree with you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy

Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the 1barren1 couples argument. Been there, done that." Yup, that is a losing argument for the haters of marriage equality. The barren couples argument is more than competent to dismiss the reproduction cant.

"Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child." The laws have varied by state to state, and 'certain criteria' is your statement only. I believe that children most benefit with two parents in the house.

"How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?" That, of course, is between God and each person. It has nothing to do with you. I believe "a just God" will have no issue with marriage equality, only with those who abused such people.

 

[Seawytch]

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.

Uh huh....

'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

Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

Try using actual studies instead of anecdotal stories.

Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.​

 

[80zephyr]

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No it does not, and few would argue it does. Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive. Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.

What is the right in question? It's the right to marry.

Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry? It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry. What kind of nonsense is that?

No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.

No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want. And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.

The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual). Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.

"Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry. And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration. You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion. And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman. Hence the state marriage laws.

What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy? If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them. But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.