Children Of Same-Sex Couples Must Be Saved Through ‘Underground Railroad’ Kidnapping

reply to post by tothetenthpower
hmmm, publicly suggesting children be kidnapped (delivered) eh ??
and i thought there were laws addressing the "promotion of criminal activities" ... oh, silly me, there is ... www.law.cornell.edu...
what a schmuck and moron for saying it publicly.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So kidnapping? I am sure being kidnapped and held in basements from the people that raise you and take care of you will be less traumatic than being raised by two moms or dads.

The state probably should get involved and ban (sorry folks but some things should be pre judged) the adoption of children by same sex couples. It does not promote a traditional family. The media wants to promote a "new normal" for the definition of a family but if gay or lesbian couples can not have children on their own because nature did not intend it then they should be allowed to adopt. The welfare of the children should trump the desire of the couple to have children (as is the precedent). I will not apologize if this offends anyone. This is one situation where I do favor more action/protection from the state.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

The state probably should get involved and ban (sorry folks but some things should be pre judged) the adoption of children by same sex couples. It does not promote a traditional family.

What's traditional changes with time, usually when people evolve intellectually and see things from a more "enlightened" and less "cave-man" like mentality. It was once traditional to burn witches, for example.

That something is traditional tells us nothing about whether it is right or desirable.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

The media wants to promote a "new normal" for the definition of a family but if gay or lesbian couples can not have children on their own because nature did not intend it then they should be allowed to adopt.

Nature is blind, it has no intentions either way. However, if one wants to add some kind of strange sentience to nature one could just as well say nature intended homosexuals to exist, and to be equal, that is why they are here.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

The welfare of the children should trump the desire of the couple to have children (as is the precedent). I will not apologize if this offends anyone. This is one situation where I do favor more action/protection from the state.

It is not okay to define what others can and cannot do based on the reactions of bigots. When I was at school, intelligent kids were bullied - it was, in many senses, a bad thing to be intelligent and against the child's welfare.

Should we then ban parents who intend to raise intelligent children with a will to succeed, because their children may have a hard time at school due to the reactions of idiots? No, the solution is to educate the community and cause a change in behavior for the future, as has slowly happened with the race issue, rather than stick to retarded "traditional" values which are stuck in the dark ages.

Would you support banning atheist couples from having children in Bible Belt parts of the US, too? The same logic applies.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Oh boy...watch as followers of this sick f--- start kidnapping children, ruining their lives through trauma. I pray anyone planning on kidnapping children dies before they are able to carry out their insidious plans. Just what children need - to be ripped away from their parents by anti-Christ forces calling themselves Christians.

reply to post by humphreysjim

I would not support government banning inter racial (former "normal" racist attitudes in the south) or atheist (your analogy) or intellectually challenged (eugenics) couples from having children. And my statement is not that gay "parents" would molest their same sex children. And I know that some couples have medical reasons (nature) why they cannot have children on their own. But I am expressing my opinion as it is my first amendment right to do and my opinion is that people have a right to make a lifetime commitment to others of the same sex but that they should not be allowed to adopt children. (IF a bisexual parent with a child got divorced and retained child custody then they should not have that child taken away because of their sexual preference even tho I dont think it is good for the child I think that it is better for the child to be with a natural parent. But I am talking about adopting children not your own).

reply to post by Dreine


I have to disagree. I think if apathy was the human condition... No one would care enough to have an opinion let alone an extremist view.

I will only say this about the same sex marriage issue;

As of late the LGBT community has forgotten the sentiment of their movement. Simply because someone disagrees on the same sex marriage issue does not give uou moral justification to attack or slander them. Just as the pro "traditional" marriage croud treated homosexuality in prior years. Now i understand there are extremists on both sides. But these extremists only exist because of retaliation. Escalation is only natural in human conflict. The answer? STFU and let eachother live in peace.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

but if gay or lesbian couples can not have children on their own because nature did not intend it then they should be allowed to adopt.

Was that a Freudian slip?

You should take a look at this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
i think i'm safe assuming that this isn't quite what you meant to say so i'm asking.

if gay or lesbian couples can not have children on their own because nature did not intend it then they should be allowed to adopt.

so, should they or shouldn't they ??

i believe they should, you wrote the same but it doesn't flow with the rest of your post.
regardless of "the family definition", shouldn't the child's best interests come first ??

since when is it better for a child to remain in solitude vs a loving environment ??

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The state probably should get involved and ban (sorry folks but some things should be pre judged) the adoption of children by same sex couples. It does not promote a traditional family.

Divorce does not promote the "traditional family", should it be banned too? Should someone advocate an "underground railroad" for children of divorced couples?

Hell, why not take it a step further, and advocate taking away the children of unwed couples too?

After all, they are living in sin in the eyes of "the lord" and the children must be saved to prevent the sin being passed on to them too!

Originally posted by Britguy
Hell, why not take it a step further, and advocate taking away the children of unwed couples too?

After all, they are living in sin in the eyes of "the lord" and the children must be saved to prevent the sin being passed on to them too!

apparently you aren't aware that this concept has already served as the springboard for the topic of this thread.
the State has been removing children of "single parents" for nearly 2 decades now.

this is not a new concept and the state discovered that it generally translates to a financial windfall for them.
(cause they pay less for the child while collecting from both parents and then pocket the difference)

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


By that logic then you should not be allowed to adopt children if you are single?

Or have children if you are single?

Should straight single parents be allowed to adopt?

Should the state take away children who are living in single parent homes because it does not promote the "traditional" family?

~Tenth

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

I would not support government banning inter racial (former "normal" racist attitudes in the south) or atheist (your analogy) or intellectually challenged (eugenics) couples from having children. And my statement is not that gay "parents" would molest their same sex children. And I know that some couples have medical reasons (nature) why they cannot have children on their own. But I am expressing my opinion as it is my first amendment right to do and my opinion is that people have a right to make a lifetime commitment to others of the same sex but that they should not be allowed to adopt children.

You're welcome to your opinion, however ill-thought out and prejudice, don't act like I'm preventing you having your say. However, when that opinion is clearly illogical, irrational, and inconsistent, you're going to get pulled up on it.

Your argument just makes no sense, as I hope I made clear in my last post (and you added nothing else to support that since).

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

"not" ....I was probably editing it and it got edited out (apologies to Sigmund Freud).

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Single people having children is one reason why there are so many kids up for adoption in the first place. Should single people be allowed to adopt? That one is worthy of debate but I will not categorically say "no" like with gay couples. I have obviously struck a chord with some. My rationale is that the government should promote strong family values while tolerating diversity and freedom. At the point where freedom to be gay begets the right to adopt then I suggest that a line be drawn.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


How many kidnappings to other countries by hetero parents have been done?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Churches and beliefs, like yours, are abusing the first amendment to trample the rest of the Constituion for your own bigoted agenda.

People like you and who share your beliefs, are not any different then the KKK.

But I guess that is how our country started, and it still is theme today. The puritans left becuase of prosecution for their religion, but it is because they wanted to be free to prosecute others for theirs. Their way was the only way.

The First Amendment was to not only give religions protection, but it was to also protect others from religion, or from a religion becoming too powerful and oppressing others.

These groups who seek to punish gays, prevent the pursuit of happiness, make them second class citizens, and others things like remove pro choice, are exactly who the Founding Fathers were thinking about.

Modern day bigots like you, and you are a bigot since you pick adn choose which social anomaly you want to support, are just like the puritans, you scream religious freedom, wrapping the 1st amendment around you for protection, and stomp on everything else this country stands for, you want freedome that you won't allow anyone else to have.

Too bad we can't stick you on three questionable boats and send you halfway around the world.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I think all the Christians should be required to adopt then. Since you are so readily to force people to have children they don't want, and dictate to the rest of the population who can and can't adopt, then your choice should be removed too and each family should be required to adopt a child.

Originally posted by templar knight
How does he get away with this?

In the UK twitter is becoming more and more policed (as evidence is easy to gather). Some top examples:
- twitter to Tom Daley that was not nice was arrested
- Rio Ferdinand tweet charge

Indeed both cases show that the line for what tweet is unacceptable in the community and what is chargeable by law - seem to be quite the same

people should not get arrested for hurting someones feelings,if you have such thin skin stay off the damned twitter(wich is f'in dumb anyway).i mean where does all this stop?whats next?if i tell my neighbor how ugly his dog is and that makes him sad then should the feelings police come and arrest me?