Children of Gays Speak Out

Interesting article by children of gays.

What Life Is Like When Children of Gay Couples Don't Matter

By Robert Oscar Lopez

On March 27, 2015, five other children of gays (COGs) and I went to Washington, D.C. to deliver our amicus briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States. The biographies of Heather Barwick, Katy Faust, BN Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Denise Shick, and Dawn Stefanowicz have already been narrated, perhaps excessively, in conservative publications, so I will not waste the reader’s time by recounting the specifics of each confessional. What should have mattered – and what, as it turns out, didn’t matter – is our categorical identity. We are the real-life faces of people with serious standing in the question of gay marriage.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...of_gay_couples_dont_matter.html#ixzz3eT7jJ2CA
Follow us: [MENTION=68246]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Adopted children of gays.....as two homosexuals and/or two lesbians cannot naturally conceive a human being together on their own. Heteros conceive together.....same genders contract for the acquiring of a child. One by way of the NATURAL order....the other by a court order. Let's be clear in our speech.

 

If you care so deeply about the clarity of speech, you should realize that an ellipses has only three periods and that the word "homosexual" does not refer exclusively to men.

Also, you aren't using ellipses correctly anyway. They're for quoting selections of something without the entire thing or for indicating trailing off at the end of a sentence.

 

How typically leftist of you rather than assail his logic which apparently you couldn't manage you go after his grammar. And by the way the lead article accuses homosexual activist of being not only selfish but rather nastily so.

 

So, in short, they want to take away the freedom to adopt from gay couples.

I don't doubt that some kids end up with a bad childhood due to being raised by gay couples. Plenty of them end up that way under regular married couples.

When you live in a free society, however, that means people are free to make choices they may not succeed at. Sometimes, kids get stuck in the middle, but ultimately, that's where child services come in.

Taking away an entire group's rights because of the fact that some people had a negative experience isn't logical or constitutional.

 

So we shouldn't jail tieves or pedophiles after all that's taking away an entire group's rights?

 

I believe homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children or teach school. They're mentally ill.

 

Then you should appoint yourself the Sheriff of Taking Biological Children Away from Lesbian Moms.

By the way, I support the 2nd Amendment for Lesbian Moms.

 

We could find thousands of children who have been seriously abused by hetrosexual parents. By your own metric, if we can find five who have been abused, then no hetrosexual parents should be allowed to raise children.

 

Uh... all of them have broken the law.

A gay person or couple adopting has only broken the law if they abuse their kids.

- - - Updated - - -

You're free to believe that, but thankfully, we have minority rights to prevent your prejudices from being acted upon.

 

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how other countries fared long after allowing these types of relationships, so I see the openness of gay families as new territory. Up until this point, most of the propaganda I've seen was pretty positive and uplifting. Conversely, this article offers a non glamorized observation of these relationships. That said, I see no real indictment against gay families in this article. If anything, it demonstrates how activists require a "same-page" mentality to secure their goals. If the writer wants to make a case against gay families, they have to do better.

 

Thieves and pedophiles are just other types of behavior practiced by a minority of people, why should gays get special dispensation when they don't? And please homosexuality was illegal not all that long ago.

 

How many times do we have to explain this to you people? Adults can give consent. Kids can't.

And thievery is not even close to a valid comparison.

 

Lefties only care about people that can vote....children do not count to them.

 

Uh huh

http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-cells-same-sex-reproduction.html

Adoption won't be the only solution going forward.

 

There wasn't much logic in his post to go after. I just found it funny how he tried to pose a grammatical correction when his own grammar was atrocious, so I poked fun at that.

Not everything I post is supposed to be serious business.

 

Hey, laws can change, right? Before, only a man and a woman could get married. Now, anyone can marry anyone. Why not kids? It just comes down to the opinion of what is moral. There is no scientific PROOF anyone can make a decision. I've met some pretty smart 10 year olds.

Of course children should not be able to marry. But there was a time that the vast majority thought 2 men should NOT marry either. WHo's to prevent opinions from changing with the times? A couple of old judges in DC? The marriage laws certainly weren't passed by a vote of the people. Every time its been to a vote, its been a NO. Just something to think about.

 

And these are pretty similar to the arguments used against interracial marriage not that long ago.

Yet, somehow, we haven't had a change in consent laws during all this time.

 

Interesting to note that nobody has bothered commenting on the actual text of the OP's link. These kids were in favor of their guardians being allowed to get married because they could see how it was advantageous to allowing them to marry each other. But when it was offered as a legal union, as opposed to a marriage, which is strictly a difference in terminology, they saw the complete and utter rejection of this as a sign that they were not truly interested in the benefits of marriage, but rather the symbolism of putting their rainbow spurs to the conservative convention of marriage. So much so that they refused to accept civil unions as a plausible alternative to marriage. And then they saw what it is like to be on the receiving end of homosexual vitriol for anybody that opposes even the slightest challenge to the homosexual agenda.

Yes, quite revealing how nobody in the pro-same-sex-marriage camp wants to touch that one.

 

That's because in a number of states, Propositions and Amendments stated not only could gay people not marry, they could not have legally recognized civil unions. So for the right to PRETEND that civil unions were acceptable to them is pure BS.

And as for the "agenda" crap - for 2,000 years religious people have had an "agenda" against gay people. They have imprisoned gay people. They have stoned gay people to death. They have thrown them from buildings. They have chemically castrated gay people. They have had gay people fired from their jobs and disrespected their military service.

So if you really want to talk about an "agenda" - let's start there.

 

and in a number of states, civil unions were presented as an alternative. Which the collective gay community outright rejected. So you can't point to the states that did not even offer civil unions as a valid alternative. You have to deal with the states that DID offer them, and they were refused.

And no, you cannot go off on some irrelevant tangent about gays being victimized for being gay. Try to focus on the subject matter at hand.

 

There are entire lists about the legal inequities of marriage vs. civil unions. Many of the immunities (not being forced tot testify against your spouse, inheritance, federal taxes and social security) are lost in a civil union. Civil Unions are not recognized in all cases across state lines. Immigration status for married spouses is lost in a civil union. Most of the push-back against civil unions was from older gay couples who were looking for the stability and legal protections in old age.

And you were the one who brought up agendas - so I was following your tangent - live with it.

 

No, I remember very well the reason why civil unions were not accepted as an alternative to marriage. Gays wanted the whole shebang.

Sorry, but there it is. I know it, you know it, and the children of gays know it.

 

He wasn't talking about grammar he was talking about biology.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? It also a behavior a lot of people take exception to.

 

Ohhh, you mean those terrible gay people wanted rights that other Americans enjoyed ... well, that's just unacceptable. Who will you have to kick around if gay people have the same rights?