THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

Soo... The state of Illinois legalized something like gay marriage, which enables gays to adopt. Rather than actually find a good home for their orphans, the Catholics shut the whole thing down. Therefore, they were "forced to stop by the gays".

I don't think I have anything to respond to that with.

That's freedom, everybody! FREEEEDOMMM!!

To take away everybody else's freedom anyway. LOL. You don't have the freedom to give your baby up for adoption to a family who shares your faith. You don't have the freedom to not participate in a sacriligious ceremony. Nope. Do that stuff now and you get shut down, fined, and in some states you go to prison.

Don't get me started on that sweet FREEDOOMM! in California of degenerates to take custody of children away from parents so they can abuse those children with hormone therapy.

Fuck yeah. Freedom.

Seems you have nothing either. Nobody forced the Catholics to stop sheltering orphans. They shit themselves down, abandoning the children, rather than accept that they could find a home for them in an environment that they didn’t agree with.

Dogma > Children. Same as they ever were.

The only “freedom” that they lost was the right to restrict where those kids went.

Note how SubaruFlounder first denied that gay marriage laws eviscerated freedoms, specifically questioning my assertion that women no longer had the right in some places to give their babies up for adoption to families who share in their faith. When I provided him with such an example, he then declared that she should not have such a freedom. Then when he got blasted in the face for his hypocrisy in declaring he is all about freedom, he wants to pretend like it didn't happen again.

Fuck off.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's freedom, everybody! FREEEEDOMMM!!

To take away everybody else's freedom anyway. LOL. You don't have the freedom to give your baby up for adoption to a family who shares your faith. You don't have the freedom to not participate in a sacriligious ceremony. Nope. Do that stuff now and you get shut down, fined, and in some states you go to prison.

Don't get me started on that sweet FREEDOOMM! in California of degenerates to take custody of children away from parents so they can abuse those children with hormone therapy.

Fuck yeah. Freedom.

Seems you have nothing either. Nobody forced the Catholics to stop sheltering orphans. They shit themselves down, abandoning the children, rather than accept that they could find a home for them in an environment that they didn’t agree with.

Dogma > Children. Same as they ever were.

The only “freedom” that they lost was the right to restrict where those kids went.

Note how SubaruFlounder first denied that gay marriage laws eviscerated freedoms, specifically questioning my assertion that women no longer had the right in some places to give their babies up for adoption to families who share in their faith. When I provided him with such an example, he then declared that she should not have such a freedom. Then when he got blasted in the face for his hypocrisy in declaring he is all about freedom, he wants to pretend like it didn't happen again.

Fuck off.

And I directly questioned why you would think that a mother abandoning her child had any "right" to determine where it went, and what faith it was raised under.

Also, do you assume that all orphans dropped off at Catholic orphanages were originally Catholics?

[Okeefenokee]

California's voting on a law right now that will make it illegal for pastors to minister to gays.

Is that freedom too?

[pineapplemike]

that doesnt sound like freedom. is restricting the legal privileges from homosexual couples granted to heterosexual couples freedom?

seems like a fair question

If you abandon your child, what right do you have to determine where they are raised?

can the mother personally choose who the adoptive parents are for herself? for instance say she goes online and finds a couple and everyone agrees, is that prevented?

or is it her freedom to demand the government find a suitable home, according to whatever religious group she belongs to, for the child she is giving up?

legitimately asking this question, seems sketchy for a woman to demand where the state places her child after surrendering the child to the state

[Okeefenokee]

Seems you have nothing either. Nobody forced the Catholics to stop sheltering orphans. They shit themselves down, abandoning the children, rather than accept that they could find a home for them in an environment that they didn’t agree with.

Dogma > Children. Same as they ever were.

The only “freedom” that they lost was the right to restrict where those kids went.

Note how SubaruFlounder first denied that gay marriage laws eviscerated freedoms, specifically questioning my assertion that women no longer had the right in some places to give their babies up for adoption to families who share in their faith. When I provided him with such an example, he then declared that she should not have such a freedom. Then when he got blasted in the face for his hypocrisy in declaring he is all about freedom, he wants to pretend like it didn't happen again.

Fuck off.

And I directly questioned why you would think that a mother abandoning her child had any "right" to determine where it went, and what faith it was raised under.

Also, do you assume that all orphans dropped off at Catholic orphanages were originally Catholics?

The part you're missing is that not everyone is in favor of murdering babies like your degenerate ass.

So the last resort for a mother who can't care for a child is adoption.

I know it completely blows your mind because you think the appropriate path is to cut the baby up into pieces and pretend it was just a tumor.

The mother that gives her child up for adoption, rather than murder it like you would prefer, is doing what is best for the baby, unlike you who support murdering the baby because that's what's best for you.

That mother would also like her child to grow up in a healthy home, free of degenerates like you.

That's what you're not getting.

Did that help?

[SuburbanFarmer]

California's voting on a law right now that will make it illegal for pastors to minister to gays.

Is that freedom too?

Source?

[Fife]

And I directly questioned why you would think that a mother abandoning her child had any "right" to determine where it went, and what faith it was raised under.

I'm confused.

So long as the father's rights have been addressed, a mother has an absolute right to place her child for adoption with any family, or group of families, she wishes.

Here's a question if anyone doesn't agree with that statement: Why is the state a necessary party to approving adoptive parents?

[SuburbanFarmer]

And I directly questioned why you would think that a mother abandoning her child had any "right" to determine where it went, and what faith it was raised under.

I'm confused.

So long as the father's rights have been addressed, a mother has an absolute right to place her child for adoption with any family, or group of families, she wishes.

Here's a question if anyone doesn't agree with that statement: Why is the state a necessary party to approving adoptive parents?

Ah, but we aren't discussing a mother meeting with her surrogate parents, and handing the kid over, are we? We're talking about a woman that abandons her kid on the doorstep of an institution known for pedophilia, and walks away.

[Fife]

A mother abandoning her child, yet maintaining some claim on the child's placement?

Have you heard the term non sequitur before? Check the dictionary for the definition of "abandon," maybe.

Your slight of hand might draw some water around the cubicle farm, but I can't get anything out of it.

[Okeefenokee]

He's just making shit up, aka, lying.