Replies

Þ If your state has a sodomy law, the social services department should not be placing children where there is ongoing criminal activity. (The following states have sodomy laws: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.)Ü

State's Sodomy Law Puts Lesbian's Judgeship In Jeopardy According to Adams, Virginia has invoked its sodomy law in recent years only to prevent homosexuals from adopting children and to discriminate against homosexuals involved in child custody battles. This illustrates precisely why Sodomy Laws are necessary. 101 posted on 01/22/2003 5:48 PM CST by traditionalist

Þlike the myth behind the claim that homosexual couples are getting children because nobody else wants them, the reality of prejudice against Christians within the foster care system and, most importantly, the need for the church to step forward.

Putting foster children already wounded by psychological or physical trauma in homosexual households gives them yet another emotional challenge to overcome. Ü

To: yendu bwam Children deserve a married mother AND father. There are thousands and thousands of married couples waiting to adopt. Preference should always be given to such couples. I don't disagree. That is the perfect situation. However, most couples want to adopt babies, and many gays are happy adopting the "unadoptable". It's like I said, if a kid gets love, no matter the orientation of the person giving that love, the kid will be a better adjusted person. 91 posted on 01/23/2003 6:55 PM CST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!) Gay Rights Strategies Involve Conscious Deception And Wholesale Manipulation of Public OpinionÑ Ñ Ñ Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based On Hitler's 'Big Lie' Technique

ÞThe homosexual agenda is a beast. [It] wants our kids. . . . And the only thing that’s standing between them and that agenda . . . are those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian values of this country."Ü

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

Homosexuality and the Nazi Party From the Judeo-Christian cultural context, however, the rise of homosexuality necessarily represents the diminution of Biblical morality as a restraint on human passions. Consequently, where Judeo-Christian ideals decrease, violence and depravity increase.

…These men were viciously anti-Jew and anti-Christian because of the injunctions against homosexuality inherent in the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

…While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.

From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."

The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).

ÞWe know that foster care is not the ideal situation for a child, but rather than reverting to an alternative that is fraught with riskÜ

Compared with their heterosexual peers, homosexual men were at greater risk for psychiatric disorders, including mood and anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, and simple phobia. ---Theo G. M. Sandfort, Archives of General Psychiatry Vol. 58, Number . , 2001. Page(s) 85-91.

Relationship violence was found to be a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four (44) percent of the gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationships; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse. Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians: 55 percent reported physical violence in their relationships, 14 percent reported sexual abuse, and 84 percent reported emotional abuse. Susan C. Turrell,Journal of Family Violence Vol. 13, Number . , 2000. Page(s) 281-293.

The median age of death for those who regularly engage in homosexual behavior leaned in the direction of less than 50. The data suggest a "20- to 30-year decrease in lifespan" because of "substantially evelated rates of sexually elevated diseases . . . cancer and heart conditions, and violence among homosexual men and women." Paul Cameron, Psychological Reports,Vol. 83, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 847-866.

Almost one-third (29.7 percent) of gays and nearly one-half (47.5 percent) of lesbians reported being or having been the victim of relationship violence. In addition, 22 percent of gays and 38 percent of lesbians admitted using violence against their partners. Lisa Walder-Haugrad, Violence and Victims Vol. 12, Number . , 1997. Page(s) 173-184.

APA Research is Increasingly Radical, Anti-Family

APA Study Says: Who Needs Dad?

Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- ...

Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says

Homosexuals Parents: 'Hidden Study' Uncovered!!

No Basis:What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review, by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus

A REAL Child Abuse Scandal

Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement (PDF

Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest

Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse FR

This tragic story show us why the wholesale acceptance of adoption as some kind of universal solution to social problems is just plain wrong. For one thing, adoptions are as unique as the individuals involved..... one solution does not fit all. Secondly, Adoption as an Institution is under fire from people with various agendas. I have posted extensively on the role of money in adoption. Some people use adoption as a cash cow. That's their agenda. Adoption of children can be used as a panacea for a failing marriage, as a way to advance one's political agenda, as a way to advance one's career. This story today is a great example of Adoption used as a political/cultural tool.

So when you hear the word adoption, please do not automatically assume the good intentions and the happy outcomes that various groups want you to see. Those who exploit children via the adoption vehicle want you to remain uninformed about the dark side of adoption. They want you to continue to have illusions about the process and the outcomes. They want to be able to continue to pull the wool over your eyes.

When you hear adoption stories in the media, take a moment to probe a bit. For instance, recent adoptors (beside Rosie) include Calista Flockheart and Tom and Nicole. They have the money but do they have the time and the heart to parent? Hitlerly and Liza Minelli have both stated recently they wanted to adopt. Why, do you suppose? People are using Adoption as a tool to advance their political agendas and their careers, as well as to satisfy personal needs. This is commodification of children on a terrible scale.

As to the "social experiment" aspect, when you speak with American women who experienced coerced adoption in the 1960s, they will tell you THAT was a failed social experiment. They will tell you that the technology used to separate them from their children was untested, and that the results have been a disaster for large numbers of them. We need to stop experimenting with our children, and with our mothers! Women and children are not lab rats.

As for the power wielded by social workers and the technology used by social workers to separate children from their families and trusted care givers,please carefully reread the article. These stories are so common that they no longer shock the long time observer. Social workers dealing with custody cases in this country have absolute immunity in many cases. That abuses follow under this condition is not surprising. Family not notified of a custody or fitness hearing until 30 minutes before? A common story. Family cut out of the loop? Commonly used technique. Threats, veiled or not, to a family's other children? Common technique.

Today the UN released an advanced edited version of the findings of a committe devoted to the rights of the child. Although the committee is primarily concerned with the exploitation of children by pornographers, it came to their attention that children were being offered for sale under the guise of adoption. Because the UN mandate covered children being offered "for sale" the committee accepted reports on adoption abuses where it could rightly be considered that women were being coerced into releasing children so they could be sold into adoption. Reports were accepted from developed countries and from third world countries. The entire section of the
report dealing with adoptionis fascinating; but of special interest is the last sentence of pp 110. See below.

ADVANCE EDITED VERSION
Distr. General 6 January 2003 Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-ninth session
Item 13 of the provisional agenda

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Reort submitted by M. Juan Miguel Petit, Special Rapporteur, on the sale of
children, child prostitution and child pornogrpahy in accordance with
Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/92.

E/CN/2002/79
page 25

IV. OTHER ISSUES IN FOCUS
A. Adoption

110. During the course of 2002, the Special Rapporteur received many
complaints relating to allegedly fraudulent adoption practices. Where such
practices have the effect that the child becomes the object of a commercial
transaction, the Special Rapporteur, like his predecessor,
considers that such cases fall within the "sale" element of his mandate.
The Special Rapporteur was shocked to learn of the plethora of human rights
abuses which appear to permeate the adoption systems of many countries. The
Special Rapporteur considers that the best environment for most children to
grow up in is within a family, and that the adoption by a parent or parents
of a child who does not have a family able to look after him or her is a
commendable and noble action. Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has
changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of
providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has
grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year, seeking babies
for adoption and charging prospective parents enormous fees to process
paperwork. The problems surrounding many intercountry adoptions in which
children are taken from poor families in undeveloped countries and given to
parents in developed countries, have become quite well known, but the
Special Rapporteur was alarmed to hear of certain practices within developed
countries, including the use of fraud and coercion to persuade single
mothers to give up their children.

111. Given the particular nature of many cases received, the Special
Rapporteur brought the information received to the attention of other
appropriate United Nations mechanisms and intends to continue to address
such abuses when they fall within the parameters of the mandate.

When are we going to become concerned ABOUT THE CHILDREN?