that young journalist is very impressive!! I hope we see more of her in the media.
Trophy children, dedicated like sacrifices to political correctness. Its the politics that matter, the children not so much. Just ask Indian children ripped from life long homes because the Parents are not Indian.
Its more important that they are sent to a reservation to live like dogs on thew street for the lefts delusions.
Now comes the latest pet group demanding their booty in children. The pied piper of socialism never stops stealing futures.
There was one especially key thing she said: [Paraphasing] “There’s a fundamental belief that if you’re a conservative and going into journalism, there will be no career opportunities for you.”
I believe this to be absolutely true. And it describes the sad state of “journalism” today.
The pertinent special-rights groups are horrified that someone might critically review any and all propaganda relating to their cause. How gratifying it must be for them to know that so many people will mindlessly jump on the first person who dares offer a different view (with evidence).
Soccermom
That little gal did an outstanding job…we on the right can still raise kids who understand how to think…
Existentionally..we’ll win…
This attitude that no one who is conservative can work in journalism seems to reflect a certain liberal MP’s opinions on the word “barbaric”.
My point?
My opinion is that the article in question wasn’t the problem, it was the title that got a lot of peoples shorts in a knot.
It basically calls into question one of the lib-lefts central tenets of faith, the one about moral equivilancy.
Questioning whether there are certain issues where behaviour would be a deciding factor on the outcome, adoption in this case, is attacked because it questions the moral equivilancy argument.
My question is: why do we on the right side of things let the left have so much play time? Maybe we all have played the apologist card for too long.
I agree syncrodox. Parenting hasn’t been completely stolen from us,…yet.
I wouldn’t call it apologism as much as apathy…which of course, has it’s own consequences…
She’s simply amazing!
The editors/journalists of the Globe & Mail, New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Edmonton Journal to name but a few and most Journalism academics/students could all learn something from this young woman.
Hang in there.
I should add, the Institute for Canadian Values is the organization that put together the ad to stop corrupting children in the Toronto School District with teaching about transgender issues, etc.
Activists are attempting to censor them as well…(o/t a bit and I apologize for getting the issues mixed up a bit)…
This social requirement that non-PC views should not be written or uttered because they are “unacceptable” is a reminder of just how quickly the left, and in particular progressive educators, politicians and broadcasters, have flipped our cultural foundation on its head. The reasonable, common sense proposition that children should ideally be raised by a mother and a father was just self-evident, common sense forty years ago, but now it’s functionally proscribed speech, with the proscription enforced by indoctrinated, “no, this is the only acceptable view” bullies.
Thank god for modest, sane, sensible, level-headed and principled people like Rebekah Hebbert, who stand up to the would-be fascism of the putatively enlightened, royal “we” enforcers.
The staff dropping out because of career prospects are probably not acting on their own without outside influences.
Gay activist groups are very organized and would not hesitate to reach out to any Herald staff they could through any means they could.
Screw ’em. We’re winning and what we’re seeing is the death throes of an ugly infection that when exposed to light and fresh air will wither and die. We just can’t back down!!!!
The left believe in ‘freedom of agreement’ rather than freedom of speech.
I fail to understand why being raised by parents who have values and morals is a bad thing.
Because if you’re raised by parents with values and morals, you might grow up to disagree with liberals on their pet causes (gay marriage, abortion, feminism, etc.)
It’s intolerable to the left that someone — anyone — would disagree with them. So rather than risk that, they’ll screw over as many children as necessary in order to further their amoral ideology.
I am a gay male. I am not a Liberal. I do not support abortion. I can’t really understand feminism. I hate the fact that cross-dressers and people who want to chop their privates off are lumped in to a LBGT grouping as if it’s all the same thing which it’s very very not.
I’m against most “gay rights” movements at this point because as of now, with the right to adopt and the right to get married I don’t see what there is to fight for.
I’ve always been against them to a point because I don’t understand how putting on a g-string and wings and flapping my junk in your face from a float in a parade is a good way to say “Hey, I’m just like you, treat me normally!” I don’t act that way, my husband doesn’t act that way, most gays I know and like don’t act that way. We’re the hidden majority of gays I’m pretty sure.
At any rate, when it comes to abortion I read the last posting on the issue and don’t really get most of your arguments. When you say we do it for pedophilia it is really offensive, I would not and could not ever do that and won’t try to argue it because anyone who believes that obviously isn’t going to be swayed by my opinion.
When you say a child needs a mother and a father, I wonder why you don’t insist that when a mother dies in childbirth that the child be put up for adoption. Surely 2 dads would be as good as one, so I don’t understand that either.
Most of my friends are straight couples with children so any child I adopt would be exposed to more heterosexual couples than gay, and I would be remiss if I didn’t explain to my child when that it’s more usual for people to be straight.
So for children of gay parents becoming gay, that’s bs. My parents were straight and I am gay – and that’s with all the stigma about gay people which was a lot higher back in the day. Trust me when I say it’s not a choice, and if children are straight, they’re definitely going to be straight, ’cause that’s way more normal than being gay.
So as for those 2 lesbians and their son they want to change the sex of – I already don’t get the whole chopping of parts thing, so I can’t explain what that kid feels or why the parents would want to do that at all. Clearly the child needs to be seen by professionals and is probably in an unsafe environment and should be removed. That would be the same if straight parents wanted to do the same thing of course. That whole situation is the exception not the rule – they might be unfit parents, but it’s not because they’re gay – it’s because they are unfit parents.
Ok I’ll shut up now.
Mr. Burton
That was a good response.
The article in question doesn’t make any value judgments on someones lifestyle choice. It calls into question the judgement of those with the mandate of child welfare.
The critics of same seem to take issue with it, not on the substance of the article, but from a perceived threat.
To provide a much simpler explaination, its like having a discussion on the quality of paint, with the folks that want everything pink claiming the debate on quality puts them at a disadvantage.
Steven Burton,
There is a lot more to the story of the two lesbians who want to change the sex of their son, for all those who have a stomach for it, here is the story as told by Molotov Mitchell of World Net Daily:
Note: please have a tissue handy!!!! http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=368377
Steven, your comment is exactly the kind of reasonable counterpoint that we need in these issues, thank you.
Don’t shut up, you are welcome to comment anytime.
“Trophy children, dedicated like sacrifices to political correctness.”
This is quite possibly the best single-sentence comment I have read on the topic of adoption by gay couples in a very long time indeed.
Well said Revnant Dream.
@ Steven Burton – Well said. I have adopted one little boy and we are almost done adopting a little girl. We’re white and they’re Chinese. There are a lot of people who will bitch about trans-racial adoption and how damaging it is. The way I figure it is one parent is better than none, and two is optimal, race or gender or sexual preference are really secondary to love. Gay or straight, I don’t think it matters. As you pointed out, the majority of gays and lesbians are rather ‘normal’ and I would be supportive of my friends who are gay if they decided to adopt.
Me too, Mr. Burton. Thanks for presenting the “other side” in a way which we can actually discuss.
Personally I think there’s a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing happening here. When there are more heterosexual couples that want to adopt than there are orphans, then we can blanket-ban gay adoption. Until then, I think gay couples should be subjected to the same scrutiny straight ones are when adopting. The fact that a couple is gay shouldn’t disqualify them; engaging in public junk-flapping or unstable relationship behaviours should, and preference should be given to straight couples over gay ones where the option exists.
@Daniel Ream – Just to be clear, there are way more adoptive parents that available children. The issue is the availability of relatively healthy children or ‘babies’. Older and special needs children are the ones who wait. And before anyone chimes in, ask yourself if you would want a fetal alcohol child or a child with Downs before you say adopters should take them.
Those of us who have adopted know that it is difficult enough to adopt and that most of us just want as normal a family as we can, just like everyone else. The wait for a baby from China is over eight years now. Still, I don’t think that we should be ranking families by sexual preference but if it makes anyone feel better most countries that allow foreigners to adopt demand married couples within certain age ranges, severe medical restrictions, weight requirements, and a bevy of other obstructions. It may surprise how many nice straight people on this board could not adopt because of the regulations.
If gay couples can adopt children, then why can’t we have polygamy as well? Where do you drawn the line if you are not prepared to draw it on basic biological grounds? Why can’t I marry a robot for that matter, or marry a dog?
This is really the problem with all of this, is that as a society we feel it is fashionable to *not* draw lines. Each time a line is drawn the feminists, pinkos, leftists, etc. claim that we are going backward to the days of an evil white, male dominated society, patriarchal society.
Personally I feel as sorry for children adopted by gay couples as I do for children with bad heterosexual parents. It is only a matter of time before genetic research will be far enough advanced that a gay couple will be able to ensure they get a gay child via a surrogate mother. I am certain that there would be gay couples who would want to ensure they had a gay child. Should messing with DNA to that extent be permitted?
Slippery slopes are the Achilles’ heel of the human race.
The story’s not about political correctness; it’s not about concern for their futures, it’s about cowardice.
She reminds me of Kathy Shaidle.
Steve Burton said: “When you say a child needs a mother and a father, I wonder why you don’t insist that when a mother dies in childbirth that the child be put up for adoption. Surely 2 dads would be as good as one, so I don’t understand that either.”
First of all, excellent comment sir. Well said, well reasoned.
In answer to the question, adoption is obviously a different situation than losing a parent. The adopted child either has no parents, or their parents are unsafe for the kid to be around. So the child has already taken serious damage. The purpose of adoption is to limit further damage and suffering. A little child will (on average) do best with a mum and a dad. It’s the hot set-up.
As to this thread, the point is not adoption by gay couples, pro or con. The point is that we are not allowed to discuss it. The young lady from the Prince Arthur Herald assures us that people are leaving her student paper because they fear their future careers will be harmed just from being at the paper when it published this discussion.
They’re probably not wrong.
So you and I can agree or disagree on the subject… but not in a Canadian paper, radio or TV. The subject cannot be spoken of.
Thank heaven for blogs eh?
tT thats another argument im sick of. Being gay and loving one other human being in a monogamous relationship is not the same as polygamy, bestiality or marrying robots and dogs. Its
Gee we just got rid of the cwb are school boards next? Can we get rid of rules on starting forest fires? or disband the military or move all nova scotians to mars? where do we draw the line.
when u compare my right to marry the person i love to marrying a robot or dog or 7 people you’re comparing icecubes and venus
thanks for all the supportive comments folks!
yes Phantom thank heaven for blogs! if not for Damien Penny leading me eventually to drudge and sda i would be a weird lefty who still believed in climate change, brainwashed by the schools and media into thinking conservatives were evil and uncaring instead of realizing the opposite is true and finding my own core beliefs. i really do owe Kate, the mods, yourself and all the regulars and indeed all commenters a huge thank you for opening my mind
Children have been raised by a man and woman joined in marriage for millennia. It’s a formula that works. Why tamper with it or seek the lesser of two evils (being raised by X is better than being raised by Y)?
no loving parents are evil Osumashi Kinyobe. More like the less good of two goods and even that is debatable. anyone willing to go through the process of adoption -which is a very long process – to give a parentless child a loving home have already demonstrated compassion and capability far beyond a lot of straight couples. i went to school with a great guy whos parents would drug him to keep him quiet. The formula u mention does NOT always work.
I stand by my “lesser of two evils” argument, and my traditional family argument because we know it does work, even if there are people never meant to be parents. We can’t make the basis of public policy on hard cases. No one wants to send a kid back to an abusive environment but giving a kid to a couple who feel they deserve to be parents isn’t ideal, either.
This is the comment I left after signing the Petition.
This is a blatant attempt at stealing innocence from Children by politically motivated fanatics.Only someone from NAMBLA would appreciate this form of Child abuse . This is not about sex education, with children who don’t even comprehend death yet. Its outright savaging of children’s freedom to be a child. Trophies for a political group. Leave the kids alone to develop. Indoctrination is what Fascist’s ,& Marxists do. This is like forcing a favored Religion down peoples throats without a Parental okay. This is Totalitarianism in the name of tolerance.
“Being gay and loving one other human being in a monogamous relationship is not the same as polygamy, bestiality or marrying robots and dogs.”
Wrong! It is identical.
It is amazing how many people today feel that all they have are “rights” but no responsibilities.
Gays who insist that it is their “right” to adopt children have no *clue* whatsoever about responsibilities, and that has certainly been my observation of the gay community in general. It is an incredibly selfish position to take, where the welfare of a child takes second place to some adult fantasy about wanting to be gay and yet produce children.
To me gays are scarcely any different than the whining 99% occupiers, always wanting wanting, demanding demanding their rights, parading around like pricks in your panties on days specially designated for you, forcing kids in kindergarten to be exposed to your agendas, and expecting the world to always feel sorry for you.
You are losers, and always will be, because you refuse to accept that heterosexual people might have a leg up on you in terms of happiness.
that young journalist is very impressive!! I hope we see more of her in the media.
Trophy children, dedicated like sacrifices to political correctness. Its the politics that matter, the children not so much. Just ask Indian children ripped from life long homes because the Parents are not Indian.
Its more important that they are sent to a reservation to live like dogs on thew street for the lefts delusions.
Now comes the latest pet group demanding their booty in children. The pied piper of socialism never stops stealing futures.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Mar11/Art_Mar11_14.html
I’m adopted. My parents are Christian. Under the ruling linked here they would be disallowed to adopt me.
I fail to understand why being raised by parents who have values and morals is a bad thing.
There was one especially key thing she said: [Paraphasing] “There’s a fundamental belief that if you’re a conservative and going into journalism, there will be no career opportunities for you.”
I believe this to be absolutely true. And it describes the sad state of “journalism” today.
The pertinent special-rights groups are horrified that someone might critically review any and all propaganda relating to their cause. How gratifying it must be for them to know that so many people will mindlessly jump on the first person who dares offer a different view (with evidence).
Soccermom
That little gal did an outstanding job…we on the right can still raise kids who understand how to think…
Existentionally..we’ll win…
This attitude that no one who is conservative can work in journalism seems to reflect a certain liberal MP’s opinions on the word “barbaric”.
My point?
My opinion is that the article in question wasn’t the problem, it was the title that got a lot of peoples shorts in a knot.
It basically calls into question one of the lib-lefts central tenets of faith, the one about moral equivilancy.
Questioning whether there are certain issues where behaviour would be a deciding factor on the outcome, adoption in this case, is attacked because it questions the moral equivilancy argument.
My question is: why do we on the right side of things let the left have so much play time? Maybe we all have played the apologist card for too long.
I agree syncrodox. Parenting hasn’t been completely stolen from us,…yet.
I wouldn’t call it apologism as much as apathy…which of course, has it’s own consequences…
She’s simply amazing!
The editors/journalists of the Globe & Mail, New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Edmonton Journal to name but a few and most Journalism academics/students could all learn something from this young woman.
Hang in there.
The Institute for Canadian Values has a facebook page…have a look at some of the threatening language and insults thrown in the comments…
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Institute-for-Canadian-Values/227073940665260
Tolerance, eh?
I should add, the Institute for Canadian Values is the organization that put together the ad to stop corrupting children in the Toronto School District with teaching about transgender issues, etc.
Activists are attempting to censor them as well…(o/t a bit and I apologize for getting the issues mixed up a bit)…
This social requirement that non-PC views should not be written or uttered because they are “unacceptable” is a reminder of just how quickly the left, and in particular progressive educators, politicians and broadcasters, have flipped our cultural foundation on its head. The reasonable, common sense proposition that children should ideally be raised by a mother and a father was just self-evident, common sense forty years ago, but now it’s functionally proscribed speech, with the proscription enforced by indoctrinated, “no, this is the only acceptable view” bullies.
Thank god for modest, sane, sensible, level-headed and principled people like Rebekah Hebbert, who stand up to the would-be fascism of the putatively enlightened, royal “we” enforcers.
The staff dropping out because of career prospects are probably not acting on their own without outside influences.
Gay activist groups are very organized and would not hesitate to reach out to any Herald staff they could through any means they could.
Screw ’em. We’re winning and what we’re seeing is the death throes of an ugly infection that when exposed to light and fresh air will wither and die. We just can’t back down!!!!
The left believe in ‘freedom of agreement’ rather than freedom of speech.
I fail to understand why being raised by parents who have values and morals is a bad thing.
Because if you’re raised by parents with values and morals, you might grow up to disagree with liberals on their pet causes (gay marriage, abortion, feminism, etc.)
It’s intolerable to the left that someone — anyone — would disagree with them. So rather than risk that, they’ll screw over as many children as necessary in order to further their amoral ideology.
I am a gay male. I am not a Liberal. I do not support abortion. I can’t really understand feminism. I hate the fact that cross-dressers and people who want to chop their privates off are lumped in to a LBGT grouping as if it’s all the same thing which it’s very very not.
I’m against most “gay rights” movements at this point because as of now, with the right to adopt and the right to get married I don’t see what there is to fight for.
I’ve always been against them to a point because I don’t understand how putting on a g-string and wings and flapping my junk in your face from a float in a parade is a good way to say “Hey, I’m just like you, treat me normally!” I don’t act that way, my husband doesn’t act that way, most gays I know and like don’t act that way. We’re the hidden majority of gays I’m pretty sure.
At any rate, when it comes to abortion I read the last posting on the issue and don’t really get most of your arguments. When you say we do it for pedophilia it is really offensive, I would not and could not ever do that and won’t try to argue it because anyone who believes that obviously isn’t going to be swayed by my opinion.
When you say a child needs a mother and a father, I wonder why you don’t insist that when a mother dies in childbirth that the child be put up for adoption. Surely 2 dads would be as good as one, so I don’t understand that either.
Most of my friends are straight couples with children so any child I adopt would be exposed to more heterosexual couples than gay, and I would be remiss if I didn’t explain to my child when that it’s more usual for people to be straight.
So for children of gay parents becoming gay, that’s bs. My parents were straight and I am gay – and that’s with all the stigma about gay people which was a lot higher back in the day. Trust me when I say it’s not a choice, and if children are straight, they’re definitely going to be straight, ’cause that’s way more normal than being gay.
So as for those 2 lesbians and their son they want to change the sex of – I already don’t get the whole chopping of parts thing, so I can’t explain what that kid feels or why the parents would want to do that at all. Clearly the child needs to be seen by professionals and is probably in an unsafe environment and should be removed. That would be the same if straight parents wanted to do the same thing of course. That whole situation is the exception not the rule – they might be unfit parents, but it’s not because they’re gay – it’s because they are unfit parents.
Ok I’ll shut up now.
Mr. Burton
That was a good response.
The article in question doesn’t make any value judgments on someones lifestyle choice. It calls into question the judgement of those with the mandate of child welfare.
The critics of same seem to take issue with it, not on the substance of the article, but from a perceived threat.
To provide a much simpler explaination, its like having a discussion on the quality of paint, with the folks that want everything pink claiming the debate on quality puts them at a disadvantage.
Steven Burton,
There is a lot more to the story of the two lesbians who want to change the sex of their son, for all those who have a stomach for it, here is the story as told by Molotov Mitchell of World Net Daily:
Note: please have a tissue handy!!!!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=368377
Steven, your comment is exactly the kind of reasonable counterpoint that we need in these issues, thank you.
Don’t shut up, you are welcome to comment anytime.
“Trophy children, dedicated like sacrifices to political correctness.”
This is quite possibly the best single-sentence comment I have read on the topic of adoption by gay couples in a very long time indeed.
Well said Revnant Dream.
@ Steven Burton – Well said. I have adopted one little boy and we are almost done adopting a little girl. We’re white and they’re Chinese. There are a lot of people who will bitch about trans-racial adoption and how damaging it is. The way I figure it is one parent is better than none, and two is optimal, race or gender or sexual preference are really secondary to love. Gay or straight, I don’t think it matters. As you pointed out, the majority of gays and lesbians are rather ‘normal’ and I would be supportive of my friends who are gay if they decided to adopt.
Me too, Mr. Burton. Thanks for presenting the “other side” in a way which we can actually discuss.
Personally I think there’s a “the perfect is the enemy of the good” thing happening here. When there are more heterosexual couples that want to adopt than there are orphans, then we can blanket-ban gay adoption. Until then, I think gay couples should be subjected to the same scrutiny straight ones are when adopting. The fact that a couple is gay shouldn’t disqualify them; engaging in public junk-flapping or unstable relationship behaviours should, and preference should be given to straight couples over gay ones where the option exists.
@Daniel Ream – Just to be clear, there are way more adoptive parents that available children. The issue is the availability of relatively healthy children or ‘babies’. Older and special needs children are the ones who wait. And before anyone chimes in, ask yourself if you would want a fetal alcohol child or a child with Downs before you say adopters should take them.
Those of us who have adopted know that it is difficult enough to adopt and that most of us just want as normal a family as we can, just like everyone else. The wait for a baby from China is over eight years now. Still, I don’t think that we should be ranking families by sexual preference but if it makes anyone feel better most countries that allow foreigners to adopt demand married couples within certain age ranges, severe medical restrictions, weight requirements, and a bevy of other obstructions. It may surprise how many nice straight people on this board could not adopt because of the regulations.
If gay couples can adopt children, then why can’t we have polygamy as well? Where do you drawn the line if you are not prepared to draw it on basic biological grounds? Why can’t I marry a robot for that matter, or marry a dog?
This is really the problem with all of this, is that as a society we feel it is fashionable to *not* draw lines. Each time a line is drawn the feminists, pinkos, leftists, etc. claim that we are going backward to the days of an evil white, male dominated society, patriarchal society.
Personally I feel as sorry for children adopted by gay couples as I do for children with bad heterosexual parents. It is only a matter of time before genetic research will be far enough advanced that a gay couple will be able to ensure they get a gay child via a surrogate mother. I am certain that there would be gay couples who would want to ensure they had a gay child. Should messing with DNA to that extent be permitted?
Slippery slopes are the Achilles’ heel of the human race.
The story’s not about political correctness; it’s not about concern for their futures, it’s about cowardice.
She reminds me of Kathy Shaidle.
Steve Burton said: “When you say a child needs a mother and a father, I wonder why you don’t insist that when a mother dies in childbirth that the child be put up for adoption. Surely 2 dads would be as good as one, so I don’t understand that either.”
First of all, excellent comment sir. Well said, well reasoned.
In answer to the question, adoption is obviously a different situation than losing a parent. The adopted child either has no parents, or their parents are unsafe for the kid to be around. So the child has already taken serious damage. The purpose of adoption is to limit further damage and suffering. A little child will (on average) do best with a mum and a dad. It’s the hot set-up.
As to this thread, the point is not adoption by gay couples, pro or con. The point is that we are not allowed to discuss it. The young lady from the Prince Arthur Herald assures us that people are leaving her student paper because they fear their future careers will be harmed just from being at the paper when it published this discussion.
They’re probably not wrong.
So you and I can agree or disagree on the subject… but not in a Canadian paper, radio or TV. The subject cannot be spoken of.
Thank heaven for blogs eh?
tT thats another argument im sick of. Being gay and loving one other human being in a monogamous relationship is not the same as polygamy, bestiality or marrying robots and dogs. Its
Gee we just got rid of the cwb are school boards next? Can we get rid of rules on starting forest fires? or disband the military or move all nova scotians to mars? where do we draw the line.
when u compare my right to marry the person i love to marrying a robot or dog or 7 people you’re comparing icecubes and venus
thanks for all the supportive comments folks!
yes Phantom thank heaven for blogs! if not for Damien Penny leading me eventually to drudge and sda i would be a weird lefty who still believed in climate change, brainwashed by the schools and media into thinking conservatives were evil and uncaring instead of realizing the opposite is true and finding my own core beliefs. i really do owe Kate, the mods, yourself and all the regulars and indeed all commenters a huge thank you for opening my mind
Children have been raised by a man and woman joined in marriage for millennia. It’s a formula that works. Why tamper with it or seek the lesser of two evils (being raised by X is better than being raised by Y)?
no loving parents are evil Osumashi Kinyobe. More like the less good of two goods and even that is debatable. anyone willing to go through the process of adoption -which is a very long process – to give a parentless child a loving home have already demonstrated compassion and capability far beyond a lot of straight couples. i went to school with a great guy whos parents would drug him to keep him quiet. The formula u mention does NOT always work.
I stand by my “lesser of two evils” argument, and my traditional family argument because we know it does work, even if there are people never meant to be parents. We can’t make the basis of public policy on hard cases. No one wants to send a kid back to an abusive environment but giving a kid to a couple who feel they deserve to be parents isn’t ideal, either.
This is the comment I left after signing the Petition.
This is a blatant attempt at stealing innocence from Children by politically motivated fanatics.Only someone from NAMBLA would appreciate this form of Child abuse . This is not about sex education, with children who don’t even comprehend death yet. Its outright savaging of children’s freedom to be a child. Trophies for a political group. Leave the kids alone to develop. Indoctrination is what Fascist’s ,& Marxists do. This is like forcing a favored Religion down peoples throats without a Parental okay. This is Totalitarianism in the name of tolerance.
“Being gay and loving one other human being in a monogamous relationship is not the same as polygamy, bestiality or marrying robots and dogs.”
Wrong! It is identical.
It is amazing how many people today feel that all they have are “rights” but no responsibilities.
Gays who insist that it is their “right” to adopt children have no *clue* whatsoever about responsibilities, and that has certainly been my observation of the gay community in general. It is an incredibly selfish position to take, where the welfare of a child takes second place to some adult fantasy about wanting to be gay and yet produce children.
To me gays are scarcely any different than the whining 99% occupiers, always wanting wanting, demanding demanding their rights, parading around like pricks in your panties on days specially designated for you, forcing kids in kindergarten to be exposed to your agendas, and expecting the world to always feel sorry for you.
You are losers, and always will be, because you refuse to accept that heterosexual people might have a leg up on you in terms of happiness.