Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual

reply to post by hawaii50th


It is a sign of Television, cartoons, comercials, music, advertisment, sports....etc etc etc.!
I work around children and well....I say wow! The things these little children know these days. And when asked, "where did you see or here that from"? Well, the answers are other kids or Television, cartoons, comercials, music, advertisment, sports....etc etc etc.!

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
Hmmm.... and what about the child who grows up confused about what is right?

You can't deny and say that man and man is right because it isnt.....

Females are here for a reason and that is to produce offspring (not only here for sex of course but you know what i mean)

This is correct!. If it were meant for guys to be gay, or women to be lesbian, then God would have created Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve.. DUH!

reply to post by hawaii50th

That seems to be a big problem these days, children can't just be children anymore. The exploitation of children is just so horrible and so rampant.

Couldn't agree more check out these sick bastards -

reply to post by hawaii50th


You are correct, I didn't start having sex until high school, and my young attractions were quite innocent. My point was that even at age 3, 5, 7, etc, I still new the difference between wanting to "kiss" the girls, and just being a protector or masculine figure for weaker boys. I was able to take a masculine role in all situations, and also know the difference between an attraction between boys and girls, and a friendship between boys and boys.

Personally I think homosexuality is learned behavior, even if it does happen in the animal kingdom, I don't think it happens for sexual reasons. BUT, I have no problem with people being homosexual by choice. My best boss ever was homosexual, and I would love to still work for him. I have plenty of my own perversions, so I am certainly not one to judge other people for their ways. I just don't believe they were born that way. Then again, if someone says they knew at an early age like I did, I would just about have to take their word for it given my own experience.

reply to post by hawaii50th

I'm sick and tired of all the b.s. that goes on in this forum

Then don't come here go hang out at church, invisible men that live in the sky will always be taken to task on ATS welcome to 2011 dude bronze age supernatural beings are so passe' and infantile.

reply to post by SilverGST

This is correct!. If it were meant for guys to be gay, or women to be lesbian, then God would have created Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve.. DUH!

So what purpose does a hermaphrodite serve ?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

Let the children be children.... let couples adopt.... see how they do, monitor them and if things arent turning out, you take the child away....

This philosophy completely negates the reason why the system works the way it does. The rigorous and lengthy application process is absolute necessary solely for the protection of the child. That is the only thing that matters in this entire argument. The government has a responsibility solely to the child, not the adoptive parents, and is liable only to them as well.

No, there is nothing morally permissible in allowing a child to believe they have been permanently placed only to be removed some time later because the adoptive parents weren’t inadequate. NEVER IS THAT OKAY. It is a major failure in the part of the agency and government that was obligated to the child’s well being.


(Sorry for the accidental quad-post. Formatting issues.)

Originally posted by controldiction
* Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

* Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them

I can read this as.....
it is okay to tell lies to a woman just don't tell those lies to a male....lol
Hey.... it is "my" interpretation!

Good for you. I swear Humor is the only way to deal with such ignorance.

ALWAYS an excuse when it comes to Leviticus - - - I like your version

Back when times are different. Still relevant today though, even more so.



An old news report on homosexuality by CBS.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Personally I think homosexuality is learned behavior

It is NOT a learned behavior. Although I think there are those who kind of fall in the middle of the scale who could swing either way.

However - - every BI person I've talked to has a preference to one gender or the other. I don't believe anyone is truly BI.

My best friend from high school's son is gay. You could tell when he was 4 years old - - there was something different about him. And NO - he was not the stereotype effeminine boy child. He was just different - - gave off a "different" vibe. You could just tell.

We lost track of each other for nearly 20 years. When we reconnected she told me he was gay. But I already knew it.

I honestly do not understand how anyone with significant intelligence can still believe homosexuality is a choice.

Have you ever actually had this discussion with a gay person?

Blind acceptance in the name of "tolerance" and political correctness are crazier than organized religion. The tolerance preaching thought police are no less brainwashed than those brought up in a religious household. It's scary to see so many mindless people on a website whose motto is "deny ignorance" who will ALWAYS respond with a name-calling knee jerk reaction to anyone who isn't submissive to homosexuals and god forbid...dares to question the cliche talking points of the left...question the validity of the "born that way" claim. "Teaching tolerance" i.e homosexuality to young children who aren't even sexually mature yet is indoctrination...plain and simple. The long-term rejection of homosexuality by humanity is for a reason. It's destructive and unhealthy. Homosexuals have always engaged in whatever activity they chose to...we just haven't always had homosexuality glorified and shoved down our throats as "normal".

reply to post by Annee


I have had this conversation with gay people, some friends, some strangers, some that will remain friends, and some that will remain strangers, LOL!
Obviously they disagreed with me, but I think I made some good points.

I am not a psychologist or sociologist, so I can only speak from my personal experience, but I do have extensive experience in the realm of sexual exploration, so here is my take on things.......

I think we all develop certain "fetishes" at key points in our sexual development. Some people are attracted to peeing, probably because their first experience that turned them on was peeping in on someone peeing, some people are attracted to shoes or panties, probably because some strong attraction to the opposite sex and sniffing shoes or panties was as close as they could get, some people are attracted to voyeurism, probably because that was the only way for them to satisfy themselves during key developmental points in their adolescence, some people are turned on by the same sex, probably because of some event that really struck them deeply and created an attraction to a particular type of person.

There are surely a million other factors, for instance people who like to be watched may just have a personality type that makes this a thrill, public sex might be a thrill seeker personality, cheating might satisfy some psychological need, or it might just be an opportunist, some people might see sex as a way to connect with people on the most intimate level, some may see it as a way to please and be liked, some may see it as a control mechanism, etc., etc., etc.

My point is that I think homosexuality is a variation of that same logic. It isn't biological, it is psychological for any number of reasons. It isn't better or worse, but it is certainly different.

Also, as Ron White says, we are all a little gay, just to varying degrees.
WARNING---PG13 Content.....

reply to post by manna2

yes, all your statements is with the presupposition that you are born that way so yes, your posts were/are a waste of time.

Even with my magic 8 ball on the fritz I knew this would be the responce. And yes Homosexuals are born. Sorry, collect your consolation prize.

Showing me that homosexuality exists in species does not equate into "right" We are higher than them.We can determine from right and wrong.

The Human belief that we are "right" and "higher" then our fellow denizens of this globe has brought us to the edge of ecological disaster. In addition it would seem that it has also spread social havoc. Man vs Woman, Homosexuality is a sin, don't eat meat on Friday etc. etc. Perhaps if we get down off our "high horse" we might yet save ourselves. Off topic, I know.

Only the human breast is proven to give satisfaction and pleasure to the female.
No other species, just woman. FACT

Umm, wha? is not the male "breast" loaded with nerves? and are you telling me no other mammels touch themselves in "naughty" ways? Honestly I recommend a visit to the zoo.

To follow your line of reasoning then we can conclude that if you bare born that way then you are born that way and not intended to be a child bearing member of society.

Really? because it can also be followed the other way. You see I know a sad fact, the vast majority of abandoned child can only get that way because their parents (the child bearing society) gave them up for one reason or another. You see this is where nature and complex mammel behavior has risen to the challenge of breeding pairs who are fail parents! Thats right, nature created a ready home for the homeless children by creating non breeding (Homosexuals, the infertile) pairs that are often more then ready and willing to foster children! Nature is amazing!

Our next subject, Animals that breed through Parthenogensis!

Your arg that you are born that way negates you from the natural function of child bearing and rearing that child unless you do it by force through physical or laws that intrude upon thsose of us that NATURALLY are born that way.

Really? I need to take note of that.

Note to self: Because I cannot breed, then I cannot have parental feelings. Only "Natural folks" can do that.

Question: How does that work with infertile male/female pairings?

there is no way you can claim it's natural to be a homosexual and at the same time you have a claim to have them. You have to take them from a hetero sexual union (no matter how brief) to do so.

Sure I can, If its natural for heteros to give the children up, well then since the breeders failed, its time to let someone who really cares step up to the plate.

SO if you are born that way and you have rights due to this then theoretically your "rights" end when you cross the line into natural heterosexual activity.

Umm, no. My rights were activated the very moment nature decided that not every breeding pair will be successful.

I think the "being born that way" may give some supposed weight to other "gay rights" topic but not here.

Really? In case you didn't notice, that weight of this argument if very beefy indeed.

If you claim you are born that way you clearly have no NATURAL rights to take a hetero child from a hetero couple.

If only those darn heteros would stop giving up their children, "Hey Lance, look what followed me home!"

GRANTED, you do have rights to raise a gay child from a gay couple that made one.

wow, did I just end this thread?

The number of pages that follow your responce clearly show you did not end the thread. Sorry

So what next, take all children away from christian families.
IMO beliefs should not come into it, the love, care and nurturing of the child should be paramount, not the religious beliefs.
Do all children who have been raised christians remain so? No.
Do all homosexuals raise homosexual children? No
I am surprised that this is not being lead by King Herod

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by JonoEnglish

 

Placing a black child in a home where the white mother and father are racist isn't a good idea.

But according to xtian reasoning it's perfectly acceptable as long as the mother and father claim they will not influence the child with their racist way of thinking.

Hm

If you followedf the link and read the article you would have noticed that these particular Christians are black. Your attempt to claim greater victim status for the voluntary act of gay sex, by equating it with race, has failed spectacularly.
(I know that as whenever I reply to a post by you, I am in for a bullying, but so be it. That seems to be how you get your jollies. )

reply to post by Vicky32


No, but the point was made that Christian KKK members wouldn't be able to adopt because they teach a message of hate. Same difference.