AFA's Bryan Fischer advocates kidnapping gay couples' children

That's just a rehash of the same article. Fischer is kooky but what's your point? Chick-Fil-A did not donate money to the AFA directly like you asserted.

 

I suppose that you don't want to see the connection. In any case, this thread is primarily about Fischer and his suggestion/approval of "rogue" behavior (kidnapping).

I'll leave it there.

 

The underground railroad didnt kidnap slaves.

 

...which is part of why Fischer's call for an "underground railroad" to "deliver innocent children from same-sex households" is so offensive. How does one "deliver" a child from a household headed by same-sex parents? An "underground railroad" suggests some sort of illegal activity (and Fischer acknowledges as much in the second twitter response I linked). That activity would appear to be kidnapping. Children do not have the power to legally consent to being "delivered" from their legal parent or guardian.

There is no wiggle room here. Fischer is suggesting that people take illegal actions to remove children from same-sex households. Do you likewise advocate this action?

 

Dont need the childs consent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/frank-lombard-duke-univ-o_n_221900.html

 

I don't see that you have a point here.

1) Fischer wasn't talking about the court removing children from parents who have demonstrated their unfitness through acts of abuse or neglect.

2) Fischer was talking about an illegal, "underground railroad" to remove children from same-sex households.

3) Lombard isn't representative of the average same-sex household raising children. Your bigotry is showing.

 

Underground railroad didnt "remove" slaves from slavery and I didnt read anything from this guy suggesting anyone be "removed" from homes.

 

appropriate response= nothing because he has done nothing illegal

what he said- I saw nothing which advocated kidnapping

again, more faux outrage against anyone who has a different opinion than yours.

 

If what he said wasn't advocating the kidnapping of children or the removal of them from gay/lesbian households then pray tell us what you believe he means when he said, "Why we need an Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households:http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065"

What do you think he meant by saying this?

 

Brian Fischer is an extremist bigot. Hes an arse. I cant think of enough bad things or names to call this guy. Hes pure evil in human form. I liken him to the likes of Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy. And anyone who follows and approves of this jerks message, I honestly would think of them in the same light.

 

Then we need to outlaw divorce, and single parent homes also. right? Also, we need to do something about allowing pregnancy out of wedlock.

See? It can lead to a bit of a downhill slide when you start determining what the "best" house hold make up is to raise a child, and then start legally enforcing that environment.

 

My one parent household was much better than my two parent household because my father was abusive to my mother. When she left him we were in a far better and safer environment to be raised in. I still visited my father on weekends, but my mother wasn't there for him to verbally attack every night. So I agree, people cannot sit here and decide how many parents and what gender they must be to make a proper home to raise children in. Two parent households with mother and father can still be bad depending on their relationship with one another. I think it's more about how the parents are nurturing the children and how they are raising them rather than if there is a mom and a dad present.

I don't know why people think they know what the ideal home to be raised in is since so many of us have had different experiences with our own homes and families.

 

I have no clue any more than you. I did not see any real reference to kidnapping. You see what you want and I can't see what isn't there.

In any event, who did he harm? What law did he break other than holding a different opinion than yours?

 

The phrase is nonsensical in this context, seeing that was determined before the the first man set foot upon Terra Firma.

I'm pretty sure most of us would be satisfied if the law did not go out of its way to sanction child rearing environments wherein the children are implicitly obligated to serve as props which buttress the fraudulent sense of self-esteem enjoyed by the "parents".

 

Bill Maher also publically denounces the fringe elements within PETA that commit terrorist acts.....

Dan Cathy does not denounce anti-gay nutjobs, he openly supports them.

 

Apparently Mr. Fischer has run across some children who have been abused in these homosexual relationships. I suspect there is a lot of that going on. Being in such a family has got to affect children in negative ways.

 

That is such BS.....any abuse that happens to a child in a gay household has the same chance of happening in a straight one. There is no proof that gays have negative effects on children they raise, simply by being gay. I am sick and tired of biggots and morons making that claim with abosultely nothing but their own baseless assumptions to back it up.......

And please do no post any BS "scientific" studies paid for by anti-gay groups like the AFA.....Any study paid for by an organization thathas a direct stake in the outcome can not be trusted.

 

Exactly!! What you say is common sense. The AFA is anti-gay... any study from the AFA which supports their anti-gay position likely speaks directly to their organization's interests.

 

you of course would say "anti-gay" while others may call it "pro-tradition"

it's all in the parsing of words

calling something anti-gay is to try and elicit a particular reaction from folks because the word "anti" tends to be used negatively for example

I could say that gay people are anti traditional family who are against all that we hold dear like motherhood and apple pie

 

I dont think the law going out of the way to sanction anything. I think its going out of its way to create an even and balanced approach to all forms of child bearing / raising.

The problem here is, you WANT the government to pick a "favored" method. ( which of course, just happens to coincide with the method YOU personally also think is best ). It shouldnt really be the governments buisness. As long as it is detrmined that the child will be raised in a home with will love, cherish, and support them, I think that should be good enough. Foster / adopted children have enough problems in this country as it is, without people throwing up barriers for them to live in a loving home. Regardless of who gives that love.

Its funny. Conservatives wants the government to pick the winners and loosers when it comes to social issues ( of course, picking them as the "winners"). But they want the government to stay out of picking winners and loosers in the buisness world. I find it ironic.

 

You have absolutley NO data to back up this claim, and your just making yourself out to be a hateful bigot. Just thought I would let you know.

 

It IS meant to be negative. And they deserve it.

 

For the uninitiate, this is how common sense appears in the minds of leftards.

Yes, only studies conducted by God-hating academics - preferably homosexuals - have any value here.

Then brother, you don't think too good.

If by this you mean it's going out of its way to protect the "right" of perverts to rear children, thus putting said children at increased risk of abuse, I agree.

No, I want the government to maintain its longstanding recognition of the method which is not only self-evidently superior to any other, but also time proven to be so.

I'm perfectly aware of how wedded you are to the idea that this is a matter of opinion, but it isn't.

The problem, of course, is that you're utterly clueless as to what that means.

Actually the bigotry is all yours, hth.

 

The ideal environment simply because you say so. Truth is, kids benefit from a "loving" household where one or both parents are involved in their child's life more than anything else, and the research done on this correlates that. The drawbacks are the social ramifications that kids may endure because of the social taboo's against it. That seems like something that the people on your end, the ones that don't like homosexuality and consider it a sin, etc etc, need to take care of with YOUR kids. If we have parents who turn a blind eye to their children bullying others, or even worse, condone it or take part in it(even if this taking part happens at home), and then we turn around and point to that bullying as evidence that children in same-sex households will do worse, that's bogus.

 

Nonsense.

Here it is: If it opposes the reasonable rights of other human beings, then it should and WILL be challenged. Get used to that being reality.