Lesbian Couple Humiliate Foster Son

[adamt]

I also think it is worth noting and remembering that this kid was a foster child, not an adopted child.

A foster child is a child that you accept on the state's behalf to care for it until the state can reconcile the child with his or her parents or to deem the parents unfit to have children.

Cross dressing the kid is definitely not within the acceptable guidelines of caring for a foster child.

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Mike had it right.

As usual.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

Homosexuality is immorality. There is no such thing as a moral homosexual. That's like claiming that an adulterer or a prostitute is moral.

It's not hatred of homosexuals that is inspiring this anger. It's the homosexual agenda being rammed down our throats to the point where children are being treated like lab rats in a giant social experiment, instead of being treated like human beings.

On this forum there is no homosexual agenda. What gets brought up on this forum is choice...and for some reason time and time and time again the ONLY source of moral outrage on this Forum is homosexuality.

Besides...you missed my point. Nevermind the sexual orientation of the Legal Gaurdians...how about Child abuse?? This thread would never have been made if it wasnt for the gay guardians...THATS MY POINT...nevermind what is and is not a sin...this forum is obsessed with sexual imorality of the homosexual time...to the extent that any other threads, and any other topics...and any other sins are ignored, unanswered, and generally irrelivent.

I am simply pointing out that there is a clear bias which has nothing to do with expressing the truth on all issues...but about expressing moral outrage at one single source of sin time and again.

The only subject you perfer better then this is the anti papal threads Not even the right to bear arms, or evolution gets as much attention from you as this subject.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by County Mike

As usual.

I must admit, you do seem extremely well balanced...a quick "•••• that" to some subjects, and a quick "need to know more" on others...that from a neutral american position are absolutely textbook responses.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

militancy
1. the state or condition of being combative or disposed to fight.
2. the active championing of a cause or belief. — militant, n., adj

It's interesting that you used that word because I think militancy can be ascribed to today's gay movement, as well, don't you? From what I've seen, they preach "tolerance" but turn around and show very little of it to anyone who doesn't believe living gay is right or just another lifestyle. If you're not with them, you are a homophobe, hateful, stupid, ignorant, an idiot...

What would happen if people wanted to have an annual Not-Gay Pride Parade? That's a rhetorical ? by the way.

You and Mike are right, we don't know everything involved with this case, but the fact the boy was taken away from them, plus the judge's comments makes me think this couple's actions weren't innocent fun. And we know his older sister was removed for some reason from the home before this happened. Am I guilty of making assumptions without knowing all the facts, yes. But, my eyebrows still would have gone up if this had been a heterosexual couple/parents dressing their little boy up as a girl and putting his picture up on a social network site. I think there is a difference between little kids playing around (Mike's story) and something like this where grown parents are dressing little boys up in girl's clothes. JM2Cs

I never said that Gay Pride was anything other then Militant.

I simply pointed out there were a lot of people for the umpteenth time expressing their horror at homosexuality in as militant a capacity as if you were to visit a gay pride forum...where you would see, just as rigorously, the opposite being defended.

I pointed it out...because the real sin in this whole thread, is child abuse...NOT homosexuality...but the people of this forum overlook expressing horror at some sins...whilst always forcusing on homosexuality.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Play The Man

Tyburn, this might seem like a strange set of questions, and totally out of left field, but please answer.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/biidbiid/



Do you think Robert Vickers should be allowed to be a foster parent to children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...reportingonthe



Do you think a "nullo" or "smoothy" who joined Bodkins's Ball Club Quarterly should be allowed to take in a foster child?

I havent time to review this now. I'll be back after work I promise

Originally Posted by NateR

Homosexuality is immorality. There is no such thing as a moral homosexual. That's like claiming that an adulterer or a prostitute is moral.

It's not hatred of homosexuals that is inspiring this anger. It's the homosexual agenda being rammed down our throats to the point where children are being treated like lab rats in a giant social experiment, instead of being treated like human beings.

come on now, this thread is about lesbians, how bad of parents the ones in the article are .. no need to bash hoes ... we can do that in another thread ...

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

it could have been worse... I could have been singing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_A7Hu0uKNw

I dont want to come across as a meanie towards you or anyone Nathan but Its the general cycle on this forum...mention anything to do with homosexuality at all, and out come all the patrons who tut, shake their heads, and generally just get angry.

That to me is a nigh on militant response...somehow...this thread has nothing really to do with child abuse...and lots, as always to do with squash the homos....its like a nasty bandwagon that invades, at the heart of it, its always the morality of gays... say the word "gay" and its like poking a stick into a wasps nest...out they all come, buzzing and spluttering, and all aggreeing on how terrible the situation is blah, blah, blah. posting their emoticons, waving their sticks. Waging their fingers and shaking their heads

Mike had it right. He wanted to know more about the context before screaming condemnation and burrying every single visitor to this thread in hot coals

Dave, this is a bull shte propganda that you are trying to push. The father who beat his son thread got 3 times as many responses in less time than this one.

When a thread has a subject that we are passionate about then it gets more responses. There is nothing wrong with that.

Everyday there is a frontline story where gays are pushing their agenda on us and our children. And this threatens our core beliefs and values. Of course, it will get more attention.

This is like you accusing us of talking about Matt Hughes more than any other fighter. Well, why wouldn't we? When something means more to us then, well what can be expected?

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

On this forum there is no homosexual agenda. What gets brought up on this forum is choice...and for some reason time and time and time again the ONLY source of moral outrage on this Forum is homosexuality.

Besides...you missed my point. Nevermind the sexual orientation of the Legal Gaurdians...how about Child abuse?? This thread would never have been made if it wasnt for the gay guardians...THATS MY POINT...nevermind what is and is not a sin...this forum is obsessed with sexual imorality of the homosexual time...to the extent that any other threads, and any other topics...and any other sins are ignored, unanswered, and generally irrelivent.

I am simply pointing out that there is a clear bias which has nothing to do with expressing the truth on all issues...but about expressing moral outrage at one single source of sin time and again.

The only subject you perfer better then this is the anti papal threads Not even the right to bear arms, or evolution gets as much attention from you as this subject.

It's called "righteous indignation," Dave. When someone is a true believer in Jesus Christ, then they will naturally get angry and militant when they hear evil called good and GOD called a liar. A person who is not a follower of Jesus Christ is incapable of feeling righteous indignation over anything.

Are we consistent in which topics we choose to show righteous indignation over? No, of course not. We're fallen, corrupted human beings so we're always going to choose to overlook some sins while focusing on others... to our own shame. Bias is going to be a constant of Christian behavior in this age and we need people like you to point that bias out.

As for the Creation/Evolution debate, I have simply argued to the extent of my knowledge on that topic. My view hasn't changed, I still see no evidence whatsoever to support Evolution, but I simply have no new evidence to offer in support of Creation that will make sense to a non-spiritual person.

For the record, I believe it is the instance of child abuse that has people so angry about this story. We see children being treated as political capital in a big political debate and not treated with the love and respect that they deserve as human beings. Children are not an experiment. So to be just dropping them into same-sex households, with zero evidence that those people are capable parents, and hoping it turns out for the best is not acceptable.

[Neezar]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

I never said that Gay Pride was anything other then Militant.

I simply pointed out there were a lot of people for the umpteenth time expressing their horror at homosexuality in as militant a capacity as if you were to visit a gay pride forum...where you would see, just as rigorously, the opposite being defended.

I pointed it out...because the real sin in this whole thread, is child abuse...NOT homosexuality...but the people of this forum overlook expressing horror at some sins...whilst always forcusing on homosexuality.

If this is a Christian based forum, and Christians core values and beliefs are being threatened by homosexuals then why would you expect anything less?

Are we suppose to keep our mouths shut and our opinions to ourselves to keep from offending them?

The fact is the abusers in this case are homosexual. Are we supposed to ignore that?