Mississippi Same-Sex Adoption Ban Declared Void

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

According to whom? We no longer have slaves due to the Industrial Revolution; otherwise, we would still have slaves. Also, as I've already pointed out, homosexual marriage/homosexual rights aren't covered by the Constitution and, as such, are a "States' rights" issue.

what is this post. we still wouldn't have slaves because it is morally wrong. you do know countries around the world are working together to end slavery for the sake of morality and freedom?

I guess you approve of not only homophobia, discrimination and unequal rights but also slavery.
Theres nothing further to discuss with the likes of you.

[Deleted]

No state has the RIGHT to say you can't do X because your Gay. Thats the point, The state can't denie you anything because you like to sleep with the same sex.

I know thats a hard concept for some but welcome to 2016 where we are trying not to be bigots to each other and shit on others freedoms/rights.

Okay, let's take that standard and apply it to all possibly categories of people.

Can the state bar NAMBLA members (not actual convicted sex offenders, just people who support the idea) from adoption?

Can single people be barred from adoption? I think they should and I'm single, I can't be accused of being a bigot towards myself, I just have the data that single parent household are heavily linked to youth dysfunctionality.

I'll ask you again, since when do people have an automatic right to raise other people's children? Get your own. If you're really that desiring, get a proper family, conceive one, obey the law, and nobody will bother you.

[Jtbrig7390]

Okay, let's take that standard and apply it to all possibly categories of people.

Can the state bar NAMBLA members (not actual convicted sex offenders, just people who support the idea) from adoption?

Can single people be barred from adoption? I think they should and I'm single, I can't be accused of being a bigot towards myself, I just have the data that single parent household are heavily linked to youth dysfunctionality.

I'll ask you again, since when do people have an automatic right to raise other people's children? Get your own.

So now you are comparing sex offenders to a gay couple. Yes some things should be vetted thats a given. You know why you wouldn't give children to sex offenders.

There is no legit or logical reason why a gay couple can't have a kid. There is NO data to back up that they would be worse then a stright couple or a single parent. As a matter of fact there is data showing in alot of case's they are better.

I love how people like you try to go to the extream in your argument and think you sound smart. Come back to me when there is legit data on why guys shouldn't have kids. Your feelz on the matter don't mean shit.

Lets trade one extream for another then, Lets remove all guns because some people misuse them.

[Orbitus]

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were adopted to address the rights of the former slave population. That isn't opinion; that's historical FACT. Furthermore, you cited a list of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (and, of course, homosexual marriage/rights aren't addressed anywhere in those documents) as well as a citation for the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. To wit, I've simply asserted that the Court never had the authority to use the EPC of the 14th Amendment on this issue as it was SPECIFICALLY designed to ADDRESS the RIGHTS OF the NEGRO POPULATION in the AFTERMATH of the WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, nor did they have the right to use it on a wide variety of cases (including a large portion of the cases that you're attempting to cite). My point is about ORIGINALISM, STATES' RIGHTS, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (which the Government was designed to represent), the MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW via a nebulous and open ended clause on numerous occasions, and JUDICIAL TYRANNY. You're citing the five justices that ruled in favor of the issue while ignoring the opinions of the four that ruled against it, and yet again, I'm left highlighting that my point is that they never had the AUTHORITY to take up the matter to begin with.

So far the only one pertaining to slavery was the 13th amendment. Unless your American History has the rewritten version of it. I mean mine, didn't say ANYTHING about that and neither does the fucking constitution. So please SITE YOUR SHITTY SOURCE that those 3 only pertained to the former slaves. Bet you won't find one.

[Deleted]

So now you are comparing sex offenders to a gay couple. Yes some things should be vetted thats a given. You know why you wouldn't give children to sex offenders.

No, I'm not comparing gays to sex offenders, I'm using your own standard against you. (And not all NAMBLA members are sex offenders, they just support it and are therefore impossible to trust with children.)

If adoption is a right and not a privilege, then a NAMBLA member, single people etc. also have a right to adopt no questions asked.

This is how the left undermines the importance of the nuclear family.

There is no legit or logical reason why a gay couple can't have a kid. There is NO data to back up that they would be worse then a stright couple or a single parent. As a matter of fact there is data showing in alot of case's they are better.

Tell me, what positive masculine role models to you think a young boy is going to have raised by 2 women?

This isn't right. Efforts should be made to find orphans a proper home. What about their rights?

[In Ogres We Trust]

You can believe that the earth is flat all you want, That doesn't make it true. You can also believe whatever you wish about the 14th Amendment and that won't make it true ether. Also before they made it a ruling you do realising that states was changing there stance on gay marage right?

You are right the will of the people has spoken and sorry but you have been voted off the island.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep telling yourself that.

So, according to you, the States were changing their opinion on homosexual marriage, yet the majority of them had all adopted bans on the practice and codified it as being between a man and woman (specifically, over the last twenty-five years)... LULZ! As for your assertion about the 14th Amendment, my beliefs are, by and large, factual in their assertion (at least in regards to their adoption). This boils down to a debate between Originalism vs. non-Originalism, States' Rights (anti-Federalism) vs. the Federal Government (Federalism), sovereignty, the proper avenue for ratifying change, and the usage and stretching of an Amendment to socially engineer the nation in a opposition to its inhabitants. Conversely, going off of your posts, I assume that you're supportive of bigamy/polygamy, a ban on Affirmative Action, "anti-anchor baby," pro-religious freedom in and out of the marketplace, supportive of the right to bear arms, "anti-hate speech," and above all else, supportive of the view that citizenship is to be limited to whites and the descendants of the former slave population (as specified by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States and the subsequent changes via the 14th and 15th Amendments). After all, you're a Constitutionalist at heart.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

So now you are comparing sex offenders to a gay couple. Yes some things should be vetted thats a given. You know why you wouldn't give children to sex offenders.

There is no legit or logical reason why a gay couple can't have a kid. There is NO data to back up that they would be worse then a stright couple or a single parent. As a matter of fact there is data showing in alot of case's they are better.

I love how people like you try to go to the extream in your argument and think you sound smart. Come back to me when there is legit data on why guys shouldn't have kids. Your feelz on the matter don't mean shit.

Lets trade one extream for another then, Lets remove all guns because some people misuse them.

Its -all- they can say really.

"All homosexuals are bad parents, pedophiles, rapists, trying to be different, confused, mentally ill or abused when they were a child."
Its the same arguement over and over again. Its sick we still have these type of people in the world who want to degrade society.

[Jtbrig7390]

Tell me, what positive masculine role models to you think a young boy is going to have raised by 2 women?

This isn't right. Efforts should be made to find orphans a proper home. What about their rights?

The same kind of role models that a man/woman can provide. Once again you can't base this on your feelz sorry.

Give me data, Give me facts or say nothing. There is many studys you can find where gay couples are better then stright. The sex of a person doesn't define what kind of role model they can be sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Its -all- they can say really.

"All homosexuals are bad parents, pedophiles, rapists, trying to be different, confused, mentally ill or abused when they were a child."
Its the same arguement over and over again. Its sick we still have these type of people in the world who want to degrade society.

Good thing is there breed is dying off or at lease getting smaller.

Edit: I'm done here off to play some vida gamez.

[Deleted]

The LGBT agenda is not about tolerance (they had that years ago)

Yeah no, they didn't. Far from it in some parts of the US.

it's about destroying traditional marriage by undermining the importance of motherhood and fatherhood.

A child does not need mother and father, but can grow up with one of those just fine. Or are you implying that every child of a single parent is going to be "broken"? Hint: It's not.

[Deleted]

The same kind of role models that a man/woman can provide. Once again you can't base this on your feelz sorry.

Give me data, Give me facts or say nothing. There is many studys you can find why gay couples are better then stright. The sex of a person doesn't define what kind of role model they can be sorry.

This is how the left teaches you not to think. By definition, a woman can't be a male role model and a man can't be a female role model.

- - - Updated - - -

A child does not need mother and father,

See, you're proving my point that the left despises the nuclear family. Keep talking.

but can grow up with one of those just fine. Or are you implying that every child of a single parent is going to be "broken"? Hint: It's not.

Yup, you can. Just as you can drive at 100mph in a city and not crash the car.

But when you look at the numbers, a disproportionate numbers of people coming from single parents are criminals, do drugs etc.

[Lenonis]

Allowing gays to adopt young boys...

I hope the vetting process for these couples is very thorough.

Ignoring the offensive and incorrect generalization you are insinuating...

We already allow straight men (who are the vast majority of pedophiles) to adopt children.

But, for the record, there is a huge HUGE difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. If you can't understand that then look in the mirror and think about why you'd never have sex with a 9 year old girl. Then realize that is exactly the same as how a gay man would look at a 9 year old boy.

[Itisamuh]

Oh good, now more innocent children can grow up with warped perspectives.

[In Ogres We Trust]

what is this post. we still wouldn't have slaves because it is morally wrong. you do know countries around the world are working together to end slavery for the sake of morality and freedom?

I guess you approve of not only homophobia, discrimination and unequal rights but also slavery.
Theres nothing further to discuss with the likes of you.

And there's no further point to discuss anything with you as well. Slavery was, by and large, an institution that was wiped out in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution as it reduced mankind's need for a stationary labor force (which was the entire point of the post as the topic had turned towards the War Between the States, the abrogation on slavery in the West via Mr. Wilberforce, et al., and its associated amendments within the U.S.), and your citation about its ongoing battles in culturally/geographically isolated places as well as the ongoing sexual exploitation of females is rather moot. As for the rest of your post, homphobia (which is an irrational fear of queer individuals) doesn't exist; discrimination is perfectly healthy in a modern society as its an application of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION (which, apparently, the "left" has forgotten about), and the usage of "unequal rights" is an abject term without a conclusion, because its sole purpose is to attack the West from within.

P.S. Since you don't know me in real life, nor do you know my personal views on every subject, it appears that you're engaging in bigotry and prejudice. How tolerant of you!

[Deleted]

But when you look at the numbers, a disproportionate numbers of people coming from single parents are criminals, do drugs etc.

I am sure you don't mind sharing those numbers then.

Oh good, now more innocent children can grow up with warped perspectives.

If by "warped perspectives" you mean being tolerant and not mindlessly fearing the evil gay agenda, yup.

[Wyrt]

Yup, you can. Just as you can drive at 100mph in a city and not crash the car.

But when you look at the numbers, a disproportionate numbers of people coming from single parents are criminals, do drugs etc.

Because it often comes with lack of economic security and time spent with parents. Which can pretty much apply to any poor family.

You can just say x causes y without looking deeper into it. A well off single parent who doesn't have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet would probably have better behaved children than a couple who are rarely home because they have to work overtime and extra hours just to pay for rent.

There are other factors involved that you're ignoring.

[Lenonis]

Umm...

You do realize that pedophiles, unless they're snatching up the opposite sex, are homosexuals... don't you?

No. They are pedophiles.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Sometimes they have a gender preference, sometimes not. It's a sexual category all on its own like bestiality and whatnot.

It's why many pedophiles identify as straight even if they molest boys. This is like...common knowledge these days. Attempts to conflate the two are just really offensive and absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, the Constitution has to be interpreted as it was originally passed

Then why are there amendments to it? Your argument falls apart before it even begins.

[Medusa Cascade]

Oh good, now more innocent children can grow up with warped perspectives.

Yes seeing two consenting adults being together as normal is such a warped perspective.

[Lenonis]

Okay, let's take that standard and apply it to all possibly categories of people.

Yes we should because people shouldn't get categorically denied from rights unless there is some very very obvious reason why. For instance, banning mentally ill people from owning guns.

Also, I'm not sure why people keep using membership with organizations like WBC, the KKK, or NAMBLA as a parallel to an inherent characteristic like gender, race, or sexual orientation.

So I don't approve of banning gays from adopting, but I do approve of telling individuals who are pedophiles that they cannot adopt. Just like I'd approve of telling a gay family that indicates they'd be a bad family they cannot adopt. There is a difference between categorical denying and individual denying.

[Jtbrig7390]

Yes seeing two consenting adults being together as normal is such a warped perspective.

Its almost like fuck it lets leave the kid in a foster home that has 3-5 other kids and they all share a bedroom or two.

Fuck giving kids a home,loving parents and there own bedroom and all right. Since the couple is gay clearly that is worse then letting the kid/kids live in a home of two caring adults that can provide everything they need and more.



"To be clear not saying you believe gays are bad, Just using ur post as a jumping off point "

[Orbitus]

Oh good, now more innocent children can grow up with warped perspectives.

Actually they will have less warped perspectives than a Christian household.