Posted on 12/06/2001 1:28:32 PM PST by FormerLib
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Arlington Resident Applying for D.C. Foster Child Has Waited Two Years.
An Episcopal priest asked an Arlington court yesterday to force Virginia to allow her to adopt a foster child from the District, contending that the state is stalling on her application because she is a lesbian.
Click on source for the full article.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I'm all for it. Death penalty sounds good to me.
"`Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
I'm sorry, but I have to stick to the Christian one.
Because that part no longer applies to Christians. Jesus was very clear that the punishment was God's to apply, not ours. That's what the story about the adulterous woman was all about, the one He told "Now go and sin no more."
Why should we allow perverted people to raise chilren?
We need to raise children is a "normal" "healthy" home. Two parents, one male, one female, God loving home!
Careful, that's widely known as a tactic used by the pro-homo cheerleaders here on Free Republic. They often miss the point that, by using homosexuality as a smear, they are admitting that there is just something wrong with homosexuality.
Right. Move on - she's a lesbian, Episcopal "priest" who preaches "part-time". She is a no-time, never-time priest. She's a fraud.
I always wonder how the liberals can see one form of racism as being benign and another form of racism as being horrible. Racism is racism and homos are racist. You are not going to make one believe otherwise.
Therefore, be it resolved: racial uniformity = Nazi. We must conclude that members of the racialy uniform couples intend to persecute, murder, and torture members of the opposite race.
Yes indeed. You cannot marry for a sexual preference. You marry to protect a procreative and economic institution. Anyone getting along with someone centraly because they have particular sexual feature are sick.
It is not funny eccentricity, it is a mandate in the name of this eccentricity.
If someone can govern themselves and their marriage in discriminatorial ways based on the shape or sex of the kid or whatever, it's sick, same thing with those claiming love in the name of a skin or sexual preference. That is not love, that is sick obsession over purely abject physical features.
Remember, it is in sickness or in health, not in sexual preference. There is an undeniable facist tendency amongst homosexual as there is an undeniable facist tendency amongst racists. It may not make them Nazies, but sorry, I am not the one who equaled racism with Nazism, liberals did, and I am using their standard.
Ah, but the homosexuals aren't just "minding their business." They have viciously attacked the Boy Scouts of America and now the Salvation Army.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (50 minute video)
Remember that she's the one who raised the issue by stating that she was a lesbian, thereby making it the state's business. If someone went in and stated they were a drug user, it would be appropriate for the state to determine if illegal drugs were being used. It would also be appropriate for the state to refuse to place an innocent into the home of the drug user until that was known.
And since the law applies equally to heterosexuals, regardless of marital status, don't you think all applicants for adoption should undergo extensive investigation to determine whether their marriage beds are the site of this "crime against nature"?
Only if the couple first did something to suggest that such crimes were a common aspect of their household, as the woman did by admitting she was a sexual deviant.
Where is proof that this woman has broken the law?
She has declared her intent. To supply the proof that you suggest, the state would have to put her and her home under 24-hour surveillance. Better to just keep the innocent child out of her control.
My ex-brother-in-law was a brute animal. Does that mean my sister is in trouble with the law?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (50 minute video)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.