Posted on 07/08/2013 8:39:52 AM PDT by fwdude
Pro-SSM people say gays have been unfairly stereotyped as child abusers, so any discussion of gay child abusers is adding to their oppression. Anti-SSM commentators generally don’t want the added fuss of showing up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of homophobes. So a general pattern emerges: even when you critique same-sex parenting, you must never do so in terms that sound accusatory or equate homosexuality with child abuse.
(snip)
What I mean is this: Even the most heroic mother in the world can’t father. So to intentionally deprive any child of her mother or father, except in cases like divorce for grave reasons or the death of a parent, is itself a form of abuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Wait a second... are we saying that all the men who abuse little boys are NOT gay?!?!? WTF?!?!
Yeah, just add the “P” to the acronym of perversion as just another “sexual orientation.”
Child abuse at its worst not to mention a lifetime of sexual harassment, homosexual rape, and so goes the gay lifestyle.
I don't disagree with that conclusion. So how do you deal with all of it? You can legislate against same-sex couples adopting. How do you deal with divorced single parents and single parents by choice?
Too late, the damage is done.
The pro-gay-agenda crowd's path to victory was to convince ‘fair minded’ but no-so-bright Americans that gay parenting was a positive for kids, using the argument that a gay parent is better than no parent at all.(adoption, etc)
The so-cons (like Ralph Reed) who-were the primary opposition didnt put up a strong enough political opposition to this, or at least one convincing enough (hint :’Its a sin’ is not convincing anyone) .
Now we have Justice Kennedy inventing a new US constitutional right to marry same-sex partners using the reasoning that the absense of such a new right hurts those same kids that we (they) let the gays adopt.
Give them an inch and they use it against you to take a mile.
No, what they’re saying is, you can’t mention it in any way when homosexuals do abuse kids, like those two Australian scumbags who raped a Russian baby.
Putting a child into an environment where homosexuality is normalized is child abuse. Plain and simple.
Can you legislate against same sex couples adopting?
Yes, why not? They are not the best environment for a child to be raised.
How do you deal with divorced single parents and single parents by choice?
Elimination of no-fault divorce would be a good start.
Inability of a birth mother to name a father would be met with NO public assistance of any kind. Best outcome in many instances would be for the mother to put the child up for adoption to a heterosexual married couple that would offer them a more stable household to grow.
It's even beyond this ridiculous, now. They have actually become so brazen that they claim sodomite couples are superior to natural parents in parenting children. A concocted lesbian "study" determined ZERO instances of child abuse in lesbian "households."
It is no stretch to predict that in their ever more frenzied push for conquest, homos will get government to REQUIRE children placed with queers BEFORE normal people are considered. It has already happened in the U.K., where children were even denied to blood relatives as caregivers in deference to two sodomites.
Traditional families will be investigated for children being exposed to "homophobia," and the state will determine whether removal of the child from the home, "for the child's own good," of course, is warranted, and these children will no doubt be placed with homosexuals to combat the "homophobic" teaching of their abusive parents.
Yes, why not? They are not the best environment for a child to be raised.
Until a perverted court gets involved (FL, AR) and calls such sensible laws "unconstitutional."
In a decade or two there will be a massive number of cases of boys raised by two mommies to make an overwhelming case, but unfortunately too late.
In any case this was court imposed.
That is why a constitutional amendment was called for twenty years ago when this insanity started.
Now we will simply slide farther into the abyss.
Western society is simply in a decline that is picking up speed at a dramatic rate.
Many kids grow up with abusive straight parents that subject them to all kinds of violence, including sexual violence. ...Hard for me to categorize all gays as bad parents, though my friend who worked in the SanFran schools said that all kids being raised by gay couples were disturbed.
The gay couple we talked about last week, who adopted and unceasingly sexually violated that little boy, were truly monsters.
Am I separating their monsterhood from their gayhood? Not really. Their gayness shaped the kind of abuse they perpetrated. Were they straight, they might have just beaten him to death.
Point is, who let them have that child? What tests are people given before they can adopt?
Children should not be placed in the care of homosexuals.
If the woman runs off with another woman the child should stay with the father.
If the man runs off with another man the child stays with the mother,
Children should not be abused by being placed in a homosexual environment.
If both the mother and father are unfit place the child ion the care of the State until a decent home can be found.
” Too late, the damage is done.
The pro-gay-agenda crowd’s path to victory was to convince ‘fair minded’ but no-so-bright Americans that gay parenting was a positive for kids, using the argument that a gay parent is better than no parent at all.(adoption, etc)”
The damage is indeed done. Just watch what happens from here..
He says that the adults in such situations first deprive the child of a mother and father, and then additionally abuse him or her by requiring that the child pretend the situation is satisfactory.
In his critique, he points out not only homosexual parents (natural or adoptive), but also casual divorce, deliberate unmarried mothers, and unmarried adoptive parents. One can understand why his comments would not be welcomed even by opponents of homosexual marriage. The idea that a child is a "right," existing for the good of the adult, rather than a gift, a "subject" for his own sake, is in no way unique to homosexuals.
Willfully exposing children to sexual perversion is abuse, and that begins before the homosexuals start practicing their perversion on the children. Whatever horrible things homosexuals do to children, through exposing them to their perversion to pedophilia, is the fault of PC society, the left, Democrats, weak-minded Republicans.
Homosexuals are, by necessity, sexual anarchists. It’s not just that they engage in and seek to legitimize their own particular sexual practices; they want ALL taboos regarding sex abolished. There ARE NO activist homosexuals who have any sexual ethic whatsoever; none of them condemn premarital sex, fornication, promiscuity, or non-monogamy - it’s all part and parcel of their world view: sex of any kind, with anyone, with as many as desired, whenever, wherever you want.
And to drop a child into the middle of this consistent worldview of moral anarchy is, in itself, child abuse. It’s no different than showing a child pornography and telling him it is good. This is the perverted world view that is being modeled.
Regnerus’ family structure study revealed the fact that it’s not just the deprivation of one sexual role model that is the problem, but that, among other issues, higher incidences of being touched sexually, identifying as homosexual or being raped is associated with being raised by homosexual parents.
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/
Tax-chick said it right: the premeditated, pre-planned intent to produce or acquire a child in such a way that he (or she) will be deliberately bereft of a father or a mother, is what makes this distinguishable from, say, ordinary adoption.
In adoption, the child is in a pre-existing, admittedly sad, tragic situation (no mama, no papa) and the adoptive parents -- to the best of their ability ---intervene to supply what the child needs. With gay couple child-rearing, the situation is deliberately set up so the child permanently lacks a father or a mother. PLUS the child has to serve the adults' emotional needs by pretending this is just fine and dandy. It's based on the adults' desires, not the child's needs.
So the child is deprived, in a kind of existential way, even if there is no early gay "propaganda," no overtly abusive behavior, no precocious sexualization. Everyone --- but especially the child --- is required to uphold the lie that the child has no need for, no right to, even no interest in, a father and a mother.
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.