It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

No they should rott away as orphans and know that no one out there will ever really love them. Only becuase there are people out there that don't agree with the would be parents sexual preferences. How completely insane! Why don't we ask the kids who have spent there whole youth in these institutions if they would rather have had parents that are gay rather than none at all. Maybe you could explain to them your personal beliefs about marriage and parenting and how it negates their need to be loved.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:46 PM

I find homosexuals to be far less harmful than the people who hate them yet can't produce a legitimate reason why.

I hav'nt heard anyone say they hate anyone.Gays should not be able to adopt children. Thats the issue.There are two parties involved in this ,gays & the children . I hear about gay rights but what about the child. They have no rights? Who represents them?

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Lethil

Evolution has nothing to do with procreation...

OMG. I'm sorry, but that is just about the (trying very hard to be kind here) most naive statement I think I've ever read or heard not just on ATS, but anywhere.
As for how someone could possibly make such a statement, see my previous post on the definition of the word rationalization.

In fact, evolution has everything to do with procreation. They are like two sides of the same coin. It's exactly how and the only way evolutionary changes get passed down to succeeding generations.
Otherwise the change dies with the creature it exists in.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by Critical_Mass

TextAnd that's a fact, no matter how much people want to try and throw in their religiously motivated morality into the works.

I'm not religious at all. Sorry try again.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:51 PM

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:55 PM
I have to agree with McCain on this one, as I believe it to be in the child's best interests not to be brought up in ahousehold where he/she would be subject to constant ridicule and bullying by others. If you think that's a harsh statement, just think about what kids are teased about in school nowadays - they get teased for things far more trivial than this.

I don't know if the homosexuality aspect is enough to do mental damage to the child, but I do know the constant teasing, bullying and being shunned by others is more than enough to cause the child a lifetime of mental anguish. And that could even make the child grow up hateful toward the parents, thinking "Why can't I just have normal parents like everyone else!?"

No way I would put a child through that.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:05 PM
How I Became a Mensch
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
April 13, 2008

(My first Internet article, from Aug. 2000. Updated April 2008. "Mensch is Yiddish for a real man. It means 'human' in German.)

When I was 21 years old, and living in Israel, I received a letter from my mother. She had taken my savings and invested in a town house.

"Now, you are a mensch," she said.

I wondered what she meant.

How did owning a house make me "a man?" I wanted to be defined by my character, not by my property.

I came of age at a time when youth was "looking for identity." I was searching for it in Israel. Later, I became a Canadian nationalist. In each case, I didn't find identity in "community."

I had a strong patriarchal father, an excellent role model. He built a successful career, and supported a family. "Work is the backbone of a man," he would tell me. "It's the most important decision a man makes. A wife is the second most important."

But for some reason, his example didn't register. Why didn't it?

For centuries men have defined their identities in terms of masculinity. Why was I so clueless?

I was a feminist.


I grew up in an era that has bought the feminist lie that men and women are identical. In our culture, women are encouraged to do everything men do, and vice versa. I believe in equal opportunity but I mistook "equal" with "identical", and this retarded my personal development by 25 years. I doubt if I am alone.

"Identical" made me look for for myself in a mate. I was literally attracted to lithe young women with cropped boyish haircuts: my own persona.

Thus, I put a woman on a pedestal because she had my identity. She could give it back to me. Some women were immediately repelled. Others enjoyed the adulation for a while, but eventually lost respect.

What I needed was someone quite different from me, my feminine complement.

It hasn't hit us yet but eventually feminism will be recognized for what it is: a virulently anti social, anti-feminine, anti heterosexual ideology that has achieved extraordinary power by pretending to champion women's rights. By thus fooling society, they have been able to enact policies which emasculate men and encourage women to become masculine. In other words, women have usurped the masculine identity, and in the process, both sexes have lost their own.

Unbelievably, the destruction of heterosexuality is the stated goal of feminists who believe gender difference is not only unnatural but also the source of all injustice. Most people don't realize that the current feminist movement is an anachronism from the Cold War and the Marxist revolutionary sixties.

Most of the leading feminist thinkers, including Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, have been Marxists, and many have also been lesbians. But they would not have succeeded if they had been up front about their bizarre revolutionary goal, which is to destroy the heterosexual norm and the family.

Feminism is about power not choice. "No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children," said feminist founder Simone de Beauvoir. "Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one" (Saturday Review, June 14, 1975). If feminism were really about choices, it would not indoctrinate women to enter the work force and become "independent." It would not demonize men and heterosexual love.

Feminism is essentially a lesbian movement in the sense that lesbians have always been women who coveted the male role. It is based on Marxist notions of "equality" and class conflict that have been discredited and rejected, notions that have no relevance to a mystical and biological reality such as love.

The breakdown in the traditional family caused by feminism, is quite simply, the main reason for our social, personal and existential problems. People have always derived their primary meaning and purpose from familial roles (e.g. daughter, wife, and mother) and from the life-cycle rituals, (marriage, birth and death). Indeed, marriage and family are a God-given Path to achieve love and personal fulfillment.

We do not find wholeness by trying to incorporate masculine and feminine in ourselves but by uniting with our opposite. Heterosexual love is the attraction of opposites. Indeed, as heterosexuals we define themselves in terms of these differences. If we are male, we are not female, and vice-versa, like dark and light. Because I denied these differences, I didn't know who I was. I didn't understand women, and I didn't know how to relate to them.


I was almost 50-years-old before I solved the riddle. A book The Flight from Woman (1964) by Karl Stern, a prominent Canadian psychiatrist, confirmed what my instincts were telling me. My mother had been right all along. A man makes the house; the woman makes the home.

According to Stern, masculinity is defined by "power" over the natural and social environment. Men provide the physical and cultural context for the private world of love. They are the do'ers: adventurers and builders, protectors and providers.

Femininity is defined by "loving relationships." Feminine psychology is founded on nurturing and loving husbands and children, and thereby being needed and loved. Women are the engines of love, acting much like the heart in the body. They create the family that is the fundamental building block of society and the foundry of the future.

Men define themselves by deeds; women simply are love: beauty, grace, faith and goodness. Men tend to be rational and objective; women subjective, intuitive and emotional. Distinctions like these need not constrict us. They are a theme upon which to play our own variations. For example, my wife mows the lawn; I do all the shopping and cooking. But without the theme, there is confusion and chaos.

The feminist gospel that traditional sex roles are "oppressive" is wrong. For many people, a flexible interpretation of traditional roles may be essential for happiness and fulfillment.

I extrapolated from Karl Stern's distinctions. If man is motivated by power and woman by love, heterosexual love must be an exchange of the two.

A woman surrenders her power, in trust. This is how a woman expresses her love: by trusting. In this way, women actually empower men. If a man betrays this trust, he loses his power.

In return for her power, a woman gets what she really wants: a man's power expressed as his intense, undivided love.

He includes her in his sphere of self-interest: this is how two people become one. Her happiness is his happiness. He can't hurt her without hurting himself.


Teaching women to seek masculine power prevents them from getting what they really want.

Women want to be possessed by a man's love. God's love of Creation is mirrored in a man's love of a woman. A girlfriend once told me, "I want to be used." In a way, a man channels God's love to a woman by making her a wife and (possibly) a mother. Women want masculine power, but it must be in a man. The same girlfriend also said that without a man, she feels "like a rudderless boat." Similarly, a man without a woman is a rudder without a boat.

A man cannot love a woman who is competing with him for power. Relationships between so-called "equals" are like mergers, or roommates. One psychiatrist, Irene Claremont de Castillejo, calls them "brother-sister" marriages (Knowing Women: A Feminine Psychology, 1973). They cannot achieve the intimacy as when a woman surrenders her will to a man, and a man returns this trust with his wholehearted love. Some psychiatrists say her sexual satisfaction is also linked to her ability to trust and surrender.

Feminine women are creatures of God. In love, they sacrifice their "selves" for love, which in many religions is the key to transcendence. Helen Deutsch remarked on this masochist-narcissist syndrome in her The Psychology of Women: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation (1944). The majority of women only achieve fulfillment as wives and mothers. In their hearts, they know it.

Nor can women love men with whom they compete. Women are hypergamous which means they seek men of higher status than themselves. Even the most ardent heterosexual feminist only can love someone more powerful than she.

The struggle for power is poisoning male-female relations. It is the death of love. Men cannot give up their defining characteristic and expect to be men. Women cannot criticize and challenge men and expect to have satisfying relationships. When I comprehended this, I felt liberated. I established a healthy relationship with a woman who is my female complement, and married her.


The universal complaint is that men no longer know how to be men; women don't know how to be women. It helps to see heterosexual love as a mystical dance. In a dance, the male leads, the female follows. You can't have a graceful dance without each partner playing his part.

The dance is based on love. The male is always considering his mate's wishes, because he loves her. In some cases, he will ask her to lead. As in a ballroom dance, who can say which role is more important. Both partners are of equal value. The dance requires both the leadership and dynamism of the male; and the beauty, love and grace of the female. In the dance of love, two people become one, and the fruit of this mystical union, is often a child.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:11 PM
Another factor related to the long road the led to this issue we face is discussed here . The breakdown of the family and generally creating chaos is the MO of the new world order globalists.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Swingarm]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by winged patriot

"Jesus will smite them all....."

If Jesus didnt smite the harlots,thugs,crooked tax collectors, and drunks he hung out with in order to teach them,then I dont think gays have anything to worry about.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:36 PM
Okay...A couple of things. Props to McCain for giving a "straight" answer..pun intended.

Secondly the thread title made me think he said "two gays only count as one parent" since it was in qoutes. He didn't say that.

Third...McCain is an idiot. There are so many children out there suffering in the foster care system, raised by an institution. Many will never know what it is like to have consistent love and support and will be spun out into the world emotionally crippled. Gay or straight...who cares. He's a homophobe among other things.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:50 PM

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:37 PM
OK WHY DOES THIS MATTER??? we have seen it again and again. our government doesnt care about you (straight or gay) they want your money. they even attacked the gay and african populace with the hiv/aids virus through hepatitis b vaccines.

The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:43 PM
Good job McCain

Think of the child for once

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:50 PM
It's a fact that many gay couples raise children from previous straight relationships as well. Their kids deserve the rights allowed on their behalf when both of their moms are legally their moms, or both of their dads, whichever the case. What happens in gay relationships happens between consenting adults, lots of consenting adults do all sorts of crap I don't care for, but I'd feel like a total dick if I started going out of my way to decide whose kids deserved the legal rights that come from adoption and whose didn't. This thread is a bunch of crap, I really should have known to avoid it.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by mybigunit

but they aren't gay lions, or any other kind of gay animal. they're people just like you and I. and they're perfectly capable of raising healthy, happy children, just like you and I.

I get so ticked off at this kind of thing,, WHY is it,, Gays can cite animals in Nature to substantiate their claim it is genetic perfectly natural and not of their own choice saying Monkeys have gay sex etc. When I try to use the moral highground and special place we have on the food chain,, well THEN it doesn't count when I say, "BUT WE ARE NOT MONKEYS"

After the usual arguments regarding us being primates, the point is lost.

Right, you are NOT lions, and you are NOT capable of being the coordinating complimentary gender in a set of Parents either.

Ill say it would be easier to be a child raised by two lesbians than one where two gay guys were your Dads, when it comes to High School

- Con

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by bignick
Good job McCain

Think of the child for once

I think his foresight is more about entire family and long range ramifications of it.

- Con

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:01 PM

"Sen. McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible," the statement added. "However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

Looks like McCain changed his mind AGAIN. All aboard the straight talk express?


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:03 PM
I know people who were raised by gay parents and they turned out just fine. There endeth that debate.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Ray Davies

"Sen. McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible," the statement added. "However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

Looks like McCain changed his mind AGAIN. All aboard the straight talk express?


He hasn't flip flopped that is the same opinion he has always had and the same one he had when this thread was started.

- Con

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
First thing to look for would be to see if kids with gay parents were more likely to be gay as adults than kids with straight parents.

Again, I'll state that 99% of gay people had straight parents. So, your reasoning is flawed. Yet again.

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in