DiscussMormonism.com

Thank you, Gazelam!!!!

I appreciate you getting on board with us. I know it took a lot for you to admit that

Yes, I was rather impressed. It took a real man to say something like that and move a little away from old thinking.

Paul O

Celestial Kingdom wrote -

Well, there's the case of Frank M. Lombard, the former associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University, a homosexual into "perv fam fun" who adopted a black infant with his partner and then proceeded to sexually abuse him and offer the opportunity for other homosexual pedophiles to sexually abuse his adopted 5-year-old son via the Internet. He admitted that it was a lot easier to sexually abuse his adopted son when he was too young to talk. Doped him up on Benadryl.

Well, Lets find a few cases of a heterosexual couple adopting, then abusing their son/daughter and we can petition that all children remain parentless.

Here are a couple:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1183382

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/596865.html

What is your response Celestial Kingdom?

liz3564 wrote:Kimberly,

Thank you so much for sharing your story. You are a truly beautiful woman, inside and out. *HUGS*

Thank you, Liz. You're awful purdy yourself, Ma'am.

About Gaz's comments: perhaps he made a little concession, but his logic is still faulty. He seems to be grudgingly admitting that special needs children should be allowed to be adopted by parents he feels are less than qualified. Any qualified couple should be able to adopt a healthy child, should one be available, or a handicapped child, should the couple have adequate resources to care for him or her.

A special needs child isn't "less than" a fully healthy child and qualified homosexual couples aren't "less than" qualified heterosexual couples. If anything, special needs children need the *best* available adoptive parents. If an adoptive couple has it on their hearts to adopt a special needs child, then bless them, whether or not they are heterosexual or homosexual. It just doesn't matter!

Also, were it true that homosexual couples are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual couples (and I'm NOT saying it is), then that couldn't possibly be reason to deny qualified and carefully screened homosexual couples the right to adopt. Muslims are more likely to be terrorists. That doesn't mean that all Muslims should be denied the right to fly on commercial airliners. If white folks are statistically more likely to abuse children than black folks should we deny all white couples the right to adopt? Goodness.

KA

Thanks for talking sense, KA. Sometimes this board goes a couple days without someone breaking the Spell of Durrrrrr, and I start wondering if I'm crazy.

Jersey Girl wrote:Would you like me to post the stories of current abuse cases in the news all perpetrated by heterosexuals? You're giving me one story here, cks.

If you'd like to, Jersey Girl, sure. Note, however, that I don't deny the existence of "heterosexual" sexual abuse of children.

The CFR was not exactly context-specific. Just doing due diligence. Let me remind you of the CFR: "CFR that gay parents are abusive to kids."

Asked and *cough* Frank Lombard *cough* answered.

Of course, we can carry the discussion further afield.

Oh, wait, should I have referenced two gay parents abusive to kids?

Perhaps. Perhaps I should have given you two stories. But, then, what would have been the point of the CFR? That some adults are sexually predatory upon minors? We all knew that. I was just responding to the call of duty.

Yah, seemed a no-brainer to me, too.

Goodness.

cks

Celestial Kingdom, I think we all knew what the original CFR was for. I'm extremely skeptical that anybody here was under the mistaken impression that no gay person has ever sexually abused a child.

cksalmon wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Would you like me to post the stories of current abuse cases in the news all perpetrated by heterosexuals? You're giving me one story here, cks.

If you'd like to, Jersey Girl, sure. Note, however, that I don't deny the existence of "heterosexual" sexual abuse of children.

The CFR was not exactly context-specific. Just doing due diligence. Let me remind you of the CFR: "CFR that gay parents are abusive to kids."

Asked and *cough* Frank Lombard *cough* answered.

Of course, we can carry the discussion further afield.

Oh, wait, should I have referenced two gay parents abusive to kids?

Perhaps. Perhaps I should have given you two stories. But, then, what would have been the point of the CFR? That some adults are sexually predatory upon minors? We all knew that. I was just responding to the call of duty.

Yah, seemed a no-brainer to me, too.

Goodness.

cks

Read the CFR again. "CFR that gay parents are abusive to kids." Gay parents is a general term, therefore you need to address it on a general basis. I did not ask for proof that ANY gay parents were abusive, or that SOME were abusive. You can see clearly I asked for proof or reference that "gay parents" are abusive to kids. If I said "CFR that Norwegians are afraid of spices" and you tell me about one Norwegian loves boiled potatoes with tobasco, this does not answer the CFR.

"Norwegians are afraid of spices." This is probably the funniest-sounding generalization that is also true.

JohnStuartMill wrote:"Norwegians are afraid of spices." This is probably the funniest-sounding generalization that is also true.

Boy howdy.

cksnarksalot wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Would you like me to post the stories of current abuse cases in the news all perpetrated by heterosexuals? You're giving me one story here, cks.

If you'd like to, Jersey Girl, sure. Note, however, that I don't deny the existence of "heterosexual" sexual abuse of children.

The CFR was not exactly context-specific. Just doing due diligence. Let me remind you of the CFR: "CFR that gay parents are abusive to kids."

Asked and *cough* Frank Lombard *cough* answered.

Of course, we can carry the discussion further afield.

Oh, wait, should I have referenced two gay parents abusive to kids?

Perhaps. Perhaps I should have given you two stories. But, then, what would have been the point of the CFR? That some adults are sexually predatory upon minors? We all knew that. I was just responding to the call of duty.

Yah, seemed a no-brainer to me, too.

Goodness.

cks

You should have referenced a whole boatload of evidence, a research study for example, before whipping out the snarky attitude.