Michigan Votes Forum

You must think that all the citizens of michigan are stupid. This is nothing but a back door attempt to shove gay adoption down our throats. I must ask why you hate children so much? I know that you don't like unborn children at all and support killing them in the womb but to sentence the ones that live and are up for adoption to be put into these kind of situations is nothing less than criminal. It seems as though the gay lobby has put you in their pocket, I have news for you, they only make up about 1% of the population and if you add in their sympathizers that want to destroy our republic you may get up to 8%.  If you need votes this bad then maybe you should look for honest work. If you want to try to out do the moonbats in khalifornia then I suggest that you hop on a plane and go. You are truly pathetic and are the poster child for a part time legislature, you abviously have way too much time on your hands.

 Other things being equal, if two couples want the kid, one homosexual the other het, give the kid to the hets.

But what if other things aren'e equal? I have a serious question to the opponents of this bill, and I challenge you to answer it honestly with no dodging or weaseling.

You have a precious six year old daughter - the most beautiful and innocent creature in the known universe. You and your wife are killed in a car wreck. Just two couples are in the running to adopt your precious. One is two gay men who are hardworking, educated, financially secure, gentlemen, and in general solid members of the community and supporters of bourgeois, middle class values. The other is that couple you saw in Walmart yesterday - you know who I mean -  he had already been drinking at 10:30 a.m., she weighed 300 pounds and was calling the kids "stupid" and "ignorant," etc. But, they are straight, and what's more, they really hate fags and queers, too (in fact, when the 11 year old boy asked if he could get that turquoise hoodie dad screamed, "What, are you some kind of f'ing f*g?")

So - who do you really want to get your darling, innocent daughter? No weaseling or dodging now -

 the answer to that one is easy.

the "hetero" couple would win hands down.

homosexuals, by and large, want to raise LITTLE BOYS, not girls. that's where a lot of resistance comes from.

it really doesn't matter to me, but i can tell you that there are thousands of 'committed gay couples' in new orleans, and not one of them is looking to adopt a precious little girl.

i know a few that HAVE girls from previous marriages to previous 'BEARDS'. (women they marry to show their manhood.) but none that would WILLINGLY go out and ask for a girl to adopt.

I find that your statement "Homosexuals, by and large, want to raise LITTLE BOYS, not girls" is ridiculous.  Why do people make outrages statements they can’t possibly confirm?  Your knowledge of gay families is really limited. The people we know that are raising children (by choice) have both sexes, and are quite happy with them.   My partner and I have raised 4 children, 1 boy and 3 girls.  I would take the girl, any day; they are a lot easier to deal with as teens.  Most gay families don’t care which sex the child is.  All they want to do is provide them chance to be a good citizen.  A home, a good school, a good church and chance in life just like any other family.

 so why do adoption agencies routinely turn down requests for homosexual couples requesting BOYS OVERWHELMINGLY?

is it just a quirk in the system that thousands more requests for adopting boys are made by homosexual couples than girls?

i don't believe that the adoption agencies of all fifty states report it if it weren't true. this information is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to 'full homosexual rights' there are.

there is truth in stereotypes, or they wouldn't become stereotypes.

your personal case may be different, and i wish you luck, but the tide is flowing against you.

Intriquing statement crazy. It would carry a lot more weight if you would back it up with a little research, like statistics or a reference.

 don't need to. the legislature wouldn't have to write this bill if it weren't true.

we would already be allowing gay adoption.

think about why we haven't so far... and you tell me.

Typical of your I don't need no stickin' facts approach.

 you refuse to see the facts in front of your face.

why would the state NEED to write this law if it were perfectly okey dokey for homosexuals to adopt?

why would society object?

where are YOUR steenkin' facts?

Rule no. 1

You make the claim, you provide the facts.

 YOU made the claim that I was wrong...

so where are YOUR facts?

not forthcoming i take it...

of course not.

First rule:  He who makes claims is obligated to validate them with documentation.

Crazycajun made some pretty bold claims up above here:

so why do adoption agencies routinely turn down requests for homosexual couples requesting BOYS OVERWHELMINGLY?

is it just a quirk in the system that thousands more requests for adopting boys are made by homosexual couples than girls?

i don't believe that the adoption agencies of all fifty states report it if it weren't true. this information is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to 'full homosexual rights' there are.

Time to put up, crazycajun.

(I almost added the customary "or shut up," but recognize that is as futile as asking or challenging crazycajun to document the frequent claims he makes on this forum.  Crazycajun always evades by using an assortment of tired tactics.   But it is fun calling crazycajun out, to see what little evasion tactic he'll use next.  What's your prediction:  Will it be the old change-the-subject gambit, the red herring drag, the old name-calling and labeling move, the "use Google" weasel, or what?  See how much fun we can have here, entertained by our own idiot jester known as crazycajun.)    

 rule 1. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

rule 2. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

rule 3. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

simple enough?

you said i was wrong. prove it.

you CAN'T DO IT, can you?

obviously not... you haven't so far.

you just cackle on about rules....

COME ON, INSANE.. ANYTIME YOU'RE READY...

crazycajun:

 rule 1. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

rule 2. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

rule 3. insane people DON'T MAKE THE RULES.

You should read your own babbling here, crazycajun.  You definitely do not get to make the rules..  

You named yourself as the insane one here.  Nobody else lays claim to that distinction.  Aren't you proud?

you said i was wrong. prove it.

There you go, lying again.  You really are incorrigible.  My tote board is running out of space to tally up cajun whoppers.

You have merely been asked by two different posters now  to document several pretty bold claims (in the form of your usual rhetorical questions) you made earlier in this thread.  Those claims are:

so why do adoption agencies routinely turn down requests for homosexual couples requesting BOYS OVERWHELMINGLY?

is it just a quirk in the system that thousands more requests for adopting boys are made by homosexual couples than girls?

i don't believe that the adoption agencies of all fifty states report it if it weren't true. this information is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to 'full homosexual rights' there are.

Now you refuse to provide the documentation.  Why is that?

Oh, we get it!  You made up those assertions, too!  

Shoulda known, with your history of making up stuff here.

Have a great day in your twisted up little ol' LaLa Land, crazy.  (Do the walls talk to you?  Boo!  )

 hey... no proof that i'm wrong...

must be right.

pffft...

crazycajun:

 hey... no proof that i'm wrong...

must be right.

pffft...

Your evasions tell it all.  More craycajun lies.  

You may go back to LaLa Land now.

 i'm not the one EVADING anything.

YOU said i was wrong, you have been EVADING PROVING THAT now for several posts.

you haven't done it because you CANNOT do it.

if what i said wasn't true, you wouldn't need a law to accomplish what you wish.

but you DO need a law, and the iron fist of government to ram this down the people's throat.

an abhorrent idea that no one will vote for, accomplished by government fiat through this bill.

how do you define that as change for the better?

and while you are at it. please explain how this bill will make michigan any better off than we are now?

the truth is, you can't.

all you can do is whine about how wrong i am, and wring your hands because YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.

crazycajun:

 i'm not the one EVADING anything.

YOU said i was wrong, you have been EVADING PROVING THAT now for several posts.

You always evade documenting your claims.  

Above in this thread you made four assertions, phrased in usual crazycajun question style:

so why do adoption agencies routinely turn down requests for homosexual couples requesting BOYS OVERWHELMINGLY?

 

is it just a quirk in the system that thousands more requests for adopting boys are made by homosexual couples than girls?

 

i don't believe that the adoption agencies of all fifty states report it if it weren't true. this information is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to 'full homosexual rights' there are.

Nobody has said you were wrong.  That statement by you is a straight out lie.

What a couple of posters have done, though, is politely request that you document your assertions.  You evaded.  You then were challenged to document your assertions.  Again, you prefer evasion to cooperation.

Why is that?   

 i would imagine cajun does it for the same reason you do it. tell us why you evade questions first, then i'm sure that we can get cajun to tell you why he evades questions. of course, if you start answering questions now, it just wouldn't be the real you.

you haven't told us why you think we need a law to accomplish what you say every liberal in the country is in favor of, but none have voted for. when i was a liberal, i was against homosexual marriage on the grounds that it accomplished nothing concrete except clogging up the courts with more useless fooferah. two men in a long term, stable relationship gain nothing by being 'married'. they are both allowed to a tax exemption if one is employed and the other is the 'stay at home'.

they still get to claim interest on home purchases, and still get to claim their partner's expenses if he is sick and needs major hospitalization.  what they CANNOT DO is get the 'marriage deduction'. but they CAN still file jointly.

perhaps the government is TAXING homosexual couples because they don't like them. they don't like subjects consuming alcohol, so they tax it. they don't like subjects driving too much so they tax gasoline. they don't like subjects smoking, so they tax cigarettes. and they don't like two male subjects getting the same 'discount' that married 'both sex' couples get.

perhaps it's their version of a SIN TAX. perhaps we need some more time till the idea of two men or two women getting 'married' becomes acceptable. or perhaps we need to get rid of the prohibition against it in the bible. yeah... that might work.

 okay sane... why DON'T you answer cajun's questions?  you use the 'old change-the-subject gambit', 'the old name-calling and labeling move' on a daily basis. why shouldn't cajun, and everyone else for that matter, use them too?

you say you enjoy 'calling out' cajun, but when 'called out' yourself, you fudge. you squirm, you hide, you evade, you change the subject, you call people names like 'idiot jester'. but you never, never, ever answer the question.

if you want to hear some funny stuff, you should hear what the high school students call you.  by the way, you are the least popular character in the 'mock debates'.

Theres a bill passed that allows social services to call "relatives first" before forcing a child into foster system or adoption,hopefully courts will use this new law,  this bill was passed because there are so many children in the overcrowed system ,once a child is pushed into it, its hard for relatives to legally get the child . However with so many children waiting for someone to care, to get them out of foster game of moving place to place.  Point of both, is reality ther are some who don't deserve to adopt, and agencys will not take time to check on all.  Parents rights are being taken away so easy, children are forced into foster home,or put up for adoption faster,get them in get them out money for system, Perhaps Mich. should have a open adoption law, for all these unwed mothers, or changed dna laws get real fathers. It is always a domino effect, the legislature don't get it . Different adoptions need different code laws. but yet Mich only has direct adoption the point is there is not even a relative adoption code law, but yet unmarried couples want a new code law to adopt.  Cart before horse. Pass a "relative adoption code law" first, then work on a unmarried couples adoption.  

Perhaps to nip it in bud, mich. needs to give out free birth control methods.  There are many couples who adopt or have children and are not married,(pitt-angl) subject is to allow two unmarried couples to adoption in Michigan. Children are influenced by people who raise them, wheather its walmart people, or a gay uncle, hopefully social service or courts choose wisely, whom will care for a lonely child.

 perhaps we need to take a candid look at why we don't allow non-married couples to adopt now. what mores are at play here, and how we came to the decision not to allow 'that kind' of adoption.

 This topic is a non-issue for me but............

I guess I wouldnt really see a purpose for this legislation, except for the fact that all people are not allowed the same human rights as others to be allowed to marry, so I guess it is necessary.

Until marriage discrimination is ended, I guess I am FOR this legislation.

 isn't marriage discrimination the job of religion, not politics? i wonder if the law might just in some small way parallel some religious beliefs? who knows, to start messing around in such matters might be considered by some to be starting a new "secular" religion.

sort of "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

All children deserve the right to be cared for by healthy and devoted parents. House Bill 4131 is above else a child welfare bill. Research has consistently shown that children flourish psychologically, academically, and socially when raised in a loving and healthy two parent home. Granting this opportunity should never be denied regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. I would also like to remind you that being gay or *** is not a mental illness. Many gay and *** people are parents. 33% of female same sex couples and 22% of male same sex couples have a child under the age of 18 in their home. There is no scientific evidence for concluding that *** mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents. and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in child rearing approaches. Research suggests that same sex parents are just as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. Some studies suggest even that *** mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. In regards to a child’s development, gender identity, gender role behavior, and sexual orientation develop in much the same ways among *** mothers as they do heterosexual parents. This is the same in other aspects of development such as personality, self-concept, and conduct. Research also demonstrates that children of gay and *** parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Overall, research suggests that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with *** and gay parents do not differ markedly from children with heterosexual parents.

I can provide references if anyone would like.

I don't know why but when it posted it turned the word "***" into ******

Allowing homosexuals to adopt children defies simple biology.  Homosexual couples are not able to procreate naturally.  This should tell the open minded thinking person that this union is not a natural environment for any human being most especially children.  Truly, biology has all of this worked out and it’s been under the control of basic science since the bringing of mankind.  What unbridled hubris to think that we need to “correct” biological science and create an unnatural environment for children to satisfy a political agenda. 

Many gay and *** people take in foster children and adopt the kids that heterosexual people can't take care of properly.They take in the "throwaways." Are you a foster parent? Have you adopted?

It is a completely natural environment. I don't know if you know gay and *** people, but it's not a political agenda. It's being true to how God (or another higher power - whatever you believe) made them.

In addition, some heterosexual couples can't have children due to fertility issues and are not able to procreate naturally - they defy "simple biology". Maybe God doesn't want them to have children and then it would be unnatural for them to be parents?

Our society is changing and our laws need to change in order to protect children. Gay and *** people are having children and not passing this bill isn't going to stop them. They've been rearing children for centuries without legal protection for the children. Regardless of your thoughts on whether or not you believe it is moral, is irrelevant. Research has shown that children flourish in a two parent household regardless of the parents' sexual orientation.

It is hubris to think that one way of living (heterosexual) is right. We all have our own personal relationship with God and it's none of your business posing your position on others. We live a nation that values (or supposed to value) separation of church and state for the benefit of citizens. Children need to be protected under laws. If this law protects them by giving them health insurance, inheritance rights, etc and lets both parents give necessary medical authorization when accidents occur - so beit. It does not threaten "heterosexual marriage" it only offers protection to those who need it. If you don't need this protection then it won't effect you.

 I dont agree w/this bill. I agree that its a crime that there is even 1 child in this country up for a adoption w/all our riches, w/all our endless support for families in need - it doesnt make sense BUT it doesnt justify giving a child to gay folks. They can never provide what every child has a right to - a Father and a Mother. The desire to mainstream, normalize, be accepted - whatever you want to call it, doesnt trump denying a child to a lifetime of true Motherhood/Fatherhood. Our laws, communities, neighborhoods, churches, schools need to solidly get behind supporting the traditional family. Its fallen apart over decades of divorce, abortion being 'ok', kids in state run facilities from birth till highschool, and both parents working for all the growing up years  ---- the children suffer from lack of constant, consistent , nuturing, direction toward personal responsibility, and being others focused. Instead, the T.V., video games, same age peers and total strangers develope a child's sense of self. We have complete generations of children w/no focus except themselves - and it is our fault. And even after all that i still dont agree w/homosexual adoption... I have no stats or figures to 'validate' my claim and I feel sorry those who think they're doing right by a child to bring them into a gay household.. but i still dont agree..

 In a perfect world I suppose it would be better to place children with good heterosexual parents.  However, there are certainly worse circumstances out there than having a loving gay couple raise a child.  There are plenty of bad heterosexual parents and a well screened gay couple is very capable of raising a child. 

Do we need this law?  I don't really know enough about the adoption process to know.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Crazy.. First off I want to say, "Your Name Says It all" ! And I often wonder how in the world you have the time to watch and post all the opinions you have on all the topics you seem to be so well versed in.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I would hazard a guess that you are sitting in front of your computer with absoutly nothing else to do. Yes I would bet you are on welfare, or some form of financial assistance.

With that said, here is some justification as to why we need this legislation here in Michigan.

I was just going to post the link but I doubt you would have gone to it anyway.

Feb. 4, 2002 -- Children thrive in same-sex families, studies have shown. Yet in most states, the co-parent -- the second parent -- is not allowed to adopt the child. That should change, says the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

"When two adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition," says a statement issued by the AAP's Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The statement appears in the current issue of the medical journal Pediatrics.

"The Academy supports the legal adoption of children by co-parents or second parents," says the statement. "Denying legal parent status through adoption ... prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having two willing, capable, and loving parents."

In the statement, the committee says when the law recognizes co-parent adoption, it produces these benefits:

• It guarantees that the second parent's custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated.
• It protects the second parent's right to custody and visitation if the couple separates.
• It establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents' separation.
• It ensures the child's eligibility for health benefits from both parents.
• It provides legal grounds for either parent to provide consent for medical care and to make education, healthcare, and other important decisions on behalf of the child.
• It creates the basis for financial security for children in the event of the death of either parent.

It's time to stop looking for problems in gay and *** parent-child relationships, says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston. Perrin served as a consultant to the AAP committee. Her technical report also appears in this month's Pediatrics.

"There's very clear research showing that children whose parents are gays and lesbians are not at any disadvantage compared to children of heterosexual parents," she tells WebMD. "They grow up like any other kid. There are no data that suggest there is a special problem conveyed to those children. We can feel pretty comfortable about that."

Also, research shows that gay and straight parents have similar attitudes toward parenting, Perrin says, adding that all parents want to do the best they can for their children.

The child's emotional and cognitive development -- their ability to perform well in school and in jobs -- is just like other children, she says. "It's indistinguishable." Children's play and friend choices and interests are all exactly consistent with their anatomic sex," she says.

In fact, children growing up in gay homes seem to be "more tolerant of diversity, which is certainly of value in our multicultural society," Perrin tells WebMD. They also seem to develop different coping mechanisms. "The children also seem to be less aggressive, more nurturing at a young age -- in preschool and early elementary school. They seem to be able to resolve conflicts in a less-aggressive way than other children."

continued...

But are the kids more likely to be gay? Both environment and genetics do seem to help determine gender identity, says Perrin. However, two long-term studies -- in which the children are now aged 30 -- show that gay families don't produce more gay kids. While the data aren't definitive, they "would suggest there is no difference," she tells WebMD.

Children of gay parents may be more likely to experiment, however. The long-term studies show that both boys and girls indicated they would be more willing to think about the possibility of a same-sex relationship, says Perrin.

Allowing co-parents to adopt is crucial, she tells WebMD. "There are legal issues plus the emotional security of knowing they can have continuity in their caretaking relationship."

"There's a lot at risk," Perrin says. "If the one legally recognized parent gets disabled or dies, the child is left out of luck. Legally and financially, it's a very big issue. If there is a separation between the parents, there are emotional issues. One parent -- someone that child has known for maybe 10 years -- suddenly has no rights and the child will never see them again. These are big issues."

 If you ever looked to adopt a child, you would see that there are many more male children up for adoption compared to female. If you just wanted a child to love, boy or girl, which waiting list would you choose? the one that has many (male) children available to increase your chances of getting one, or the (female) list and just hope that someday - years and years later - you might get chosen to be a parent. CrazyCajun you need to see the obvious rather than being so ignorant about adoption and homosexuals.

Mich.needs to getout of just direct adoptionLaws do some AddOns. Do agree in half w/society must hold on to Mom/Dad norm.

Reality is thr "overcrowdedSystem" stand by my before remarks.Different AdoptionsNeed,differ codeLaws. Mich needs change.

Seems ther areNot enough MomDad norm homes to go around. Pass a "relative adoption code ADDon law first, or open adoption

then "couples adoption" codes. Question is then why are SOmany children being adopted out of USA,cause laws here need to change

Senate needs to get ofF th silver horse,pass law to help children of America, PASS ADD-ON CODE LAWS TO DIFFERENT ADOPTIONS.

to allow different Adoptions -more relative adoption,open placements,thereBy ther would Not be so many kids in foster care,waiting for loven home, there are 1000schildren born in USA WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO LOVE THEM.

In as a single person can adopt, or two married people can adopt, I see no reason why two single people couldn't adopt a child.

The legislative analysis of this bill dated 7/27/09 describes its content and ramifications clearly, and in meaningful detail.

Based on that, I believe this legislation should become law.

 I am totally against this concept and idea.

The last time I heard the term "massage parlor" was my neighbor's great uncle nearly forty years ago. You must be old or a .

gmat preparation

 I'm betting that Barney Frank is watching this thread.

 .......and Rosie O'Donnell, another liberal, 9/11 truther and Barack Obama supporter that supports OWS also!  Pathetic!  You losers are and have become the laughing stock of the world to say the least!  Pathetic!