On Aug 17, 1:12 am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/...
>
> On Aug 16, 11:39 pm, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 9:49 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 15, 1:43 pm, LK <Patis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://millennialsw.wordpress.com/
>
> > > > Here is my opinion of the statements made in the blog you link to:
>
> > > > Good, fine, someone, anyone, is gay. I got nothing against gay
> > > > people. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. I find some
of
> > > > the flaming femme guys a little offensive in their downright hate
for
> > > > women (mad because my breasts are real?, sorry!), their demeanor,
and
> > > > their attitudes, but other than that, I don't have to tolerate it,
so
> > > > don't care.
>
> > > > Now, where this gay parenting things comes to pieces in my most
humble
> > > > opinion is here: If you have a kid, and you're gay, regardless of
> > > > what your ***ual preferences AFTER you have that kid, it's still
your
> > > > kid, and still your right to rear that kid. Even if you choose a
life
> > > > partner of the same *** to help you rear your kid.
>
> > > > When you take a child and place them in a same *** home that is a
BIG
> > > > NO NO.
> > > > Why? Not because I have a preference against gays, but because
the
> > > > mandate of DFS, who removes children from their families, is to
place
> > > > the child in a setting MOST LIKE THE HOME OF THEIR BIOLOGICAL
FAMILY.
> > > > That means in regard to the *** of the parents, religion,
political
> > > > views, heritage, etc.
>
> > > > If DFS removes a child from the family home, and that home has one
> > > > mother, one father, and both are hetero***ual, then it is DFS's
> > > > mandate to place the child in a home exactly like the one they
came
> > > > from. Not in a home with two female parents, not in a home with
two
> > > > male parents. If the child comes from a home where both parents
are
> > > > the same ***, then it is DFS's mandate to place the child in a
home
> > > > where both parents are the same ***.
>
> > > > I know that will never happen, but that's the way it's supposed to
be.
>
> G > I have said this myself, Betty, but I didn't see you
> G > chiming in with your agreement! Why was that?
>
> BW > Because I didn't see you say it?
>
> How much ya wanna bet you QUOTED it?
Word for word? Show me.
>
> BW > You see me saying it now, so what's the beef?
> BW > It's not as if I'm disputing, is it?
>
> It was politically convenient for you to stand idly by
> and remain quiet when I said the same thing!
So, what you are saying is that I had some kind of politically
motivated reason to have not commented (remain quiet) on something you
said at some unknown time in regard to some unknown subject? You're
joking, right?
>
>
>
> > > Another way to describe it is respect for the the family's culture.
>
> > > I even mentioned a story the kids of a CLERGYMAN
> > > in MO (YOUR STATE) were put in a GAY home.
>
> > > The truth is that the agency geeks actually DO
> > > attempt ""social engineering"" like taking kids
> > > from a straight laced anti-gay home and placing
> > > them into a gay home to ""correct"" that.
>
> > > In that MO case, the Clergy and their
> > > followers raised some hell anf got a
> > > politician in MO to raise some hell as well.
> > > The perverse placement was changed.
>
> > > The agency made a PUBLIC RELATIONS boo boo
> > > when they messed with those people!
> > > The agencies do seem to be more on the side of
> > > allowing little boys to be indoctrinated into the
> > > gay community (pederasty) than finding a way
> > > to weed out those gays (pederasts) from gays
> > > who are NOT pederasts. They may be two
> > > slightly different lifestyles, but the agencies seem
> > > unable to tell pederasts from other gays.
>
> BW > Do you have some foolproof method that
> BW > you could recommend that would
> BW > accomplish that for social services?
>
> I don't think they can find their way out of a paper bag.
> But they REPRESENT themselves as competent!
Funny how you didn't answer the question. Do you have some fool proof
method for weeding out those who should not foster children that could
be implemented by DFS to ensure the safety of our children placed in
care?
A simple yes, or no would suffice.
>
> I've said many times that the Child Protection INDUSTRY
> needs to weed out the perverts among their OWN ranks
> before they point any fingers at anybody else!
And they may do so by what method, Greg?
>
> I've also countered *****ing about "homophobia"
> by pointing out that "homophilia" is an ill as well!
>
> CPS being "groupies"/patronizing gays/lesbians
> is just as wrong as being phobic about them.
Huh? Did you read that before you posted it?
>
> And CPS has a long track record of homophilia
> and affinity for gays, and that is likely part of their
> problem with numbers of PEDERASTS within the
> Child Protection INDUSTRY itself.
I am sure that the first question on the application after 'address'
is '***ual preference' with a little note in parenthesis saying that
homo***uals get first consideration. <rolling eyes> Only you could
come up with such a boogie man out to get you theory.
>
> Give me an AMEN Betty! LOL
|
