Posted on 10/27/2003 8:39:18 AM PST by LiberalSlayer99
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Spent two years in college there, actually. I live in Virginia but I'm from Florida.
The whole bi-curious woman thing is pretty common these days among younger women, I'd say.
You have a good heart, hunter, and I for one would never advocate that the "kids suffer." But homosexual households are not optimum for child-rearing. The same for households in vermin-infested inner cities or in backwater Georgia or Oklahoma -- pick your steretype.
So ... when intervention is indicated (meaning the only legal guardian dies) in one of these non-optimum situations, the Gov't should get involved. A birth mother passes away and the second "mom" is not a legal guardian. Tough. The child goes to the grandparents or a foster home. That's what would happen in a heterosexual situation. They would not give the child automatically to the live-in man even if he professed love for the child.
The kids are blameless but unfortunately sometimes the state has to make decisions about the kid's fate if the parents have failed or disaster has struck. And that decision should not default to placing the child with the parent's latest "lover."
An excerpt from "The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber":
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.
His paper describes psychiatry's attempt to adopt a new "adaptational" perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory--particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation--claiming that if we do not readily see "distress, disability and disadvantage" in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered...
"Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and statistical manual as "the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals."
"It is my aim here," he wrote, "to separate out the psychiatric and conceptual issues from the sociopolitical issues; to document my own theoretical and clinical position; and to describe the events that I participated in and observed--all of which I trust will bring into focus the elements that went into the American Psychiatric Association's decision..."
Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. "They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort." To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, "Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal..."
Removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM was the first step in the homosexual community's well planned, well funded propaganda campaign - a campaign that has been going on for years.
Spent two years in college there, actually.
I guess that could explain it. Have you tried talking with an exorcist?
Huh? I went to USC, which is a pretty conservative place, though it's a pretty much anything-goes type place when it comes to partying. If it wasn't for the taxes, I'd think seriously about living in California.
Anyway, these days, it's pretty tough to get the Vatican to agree to do an exorcism.
With that one chillingly honest sentance, Joan Garry, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), reveiled more than she intended about the agenda of her organization.
You VILL comply, or be destroyed!!
Depends on whether you believe homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture. I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic, rather than learned. So, you couldn't turn kids gay.
Of course, my observation that bi-sexuality seems to be becoming more prevalent among women goes against my point here.
Yup. My son's godfather. That which you describe isn't there.
You're letting a homosexual man be your own sons godfather? OMG. That's taking one hell of a chance with your sons life.
I would never set my sons up for a life like that! I love my children too much.
I could tell from the first line this is a work of fiction.
No, I'm not taking a chance. I know the man; I trust him.
When my son was born, my wife and I chose our two best friends as Godparents. The godmother is Southern Baptist. (My wife and I are Jewish; the mohel was... befuddled.)
What family are they talking about. The article is about a lesbian, her son and her live in lesbian lover. The lover dies. So what, she wasn't part of the family
Yet breadwinner Camille was in every way Nic's parent -- from participating in "huffing and puffing" childbirth classes, as Eva calls them, to declaring him as a dependent on her income taxes.
If she didn't contribute the sperm then she's not the parent (seeing as Eva contributed the egg)
Eva was "totally offended and hurt" by the ruling. "We planned him together, he has (Camille's) last name, and we baptized him Catholic because it was important to Camille and her family."
But Camille wasn't Cathoilic, she was 'gay'. These are mutually exclusive concepts.
An appeal filed on Nic's behalf spotlights the indefensible hole in society's safety net -- a gap that lets children who happen to have same-sex parents fall through.
No child has same-sex parents. It is a biological impossibility.
The mere fact that they are practicing sexual perversity is enough to disqualify them.
A child needs a father and a mother in order to grow up correctly. Two mothers or two fathers will result in a twisted child.
The first and third laws of homosexuality apply
Define backyard. I would wager that 99% of us know a gay person, live near them, work with them etc. Most people really don't really care that much about homosexuality, one way or the other.
The third law of homosexuality:
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
The second law of homosexuality:
To the mentally healthy (heterosexual), sex is something you do.
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual'), sex is everything you are
Not really- a gay person can be Catholic in good standing so long as they don't engage in homosexual sex.
Would you disqualify anyone who practices "perverse" sex from adopting? What definition would you give for "perverse" sex?
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.