SF Chronicle cites hate group leader as expert.
By on May 22nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
SF Chronicle cites hate group leader as expert.
As AMERICAblog notes, a story in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle on adoptions by same-sex couples quoted Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado, as advocating against such adoptions. But it leaves out that his organization is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has also called for the “extermination of homosexuals” and tattooing AIDS patients in the face.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well he would have to kill himself, because he is most likely secretly Gay like Ted Haggard.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 amOh, Daaaaaarryyyyyyyll……..
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 amwe got a hot one for you today!
Maybe cause they thought it would be obvious enough from the article:
“Any child that can be adopted into a married-mother-and-father family, that’s the gold standard,” Cameron said. “An orphanage would be the second choice, and then a single woman.”
If it walks like a bigot and talks like a bigot…
Also, why dosn’t the gay guy in the article mention having a single father home?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am“I wouldn’t have cared if my adoptive parents were a married man and woman, two gay guys or a single woman”
It doesn’t take an “expert” to know that the best thing for a child is a father and a mother. A Male/Female duo should always be allowed to adopt over any other group or single person as other groups and solo people simply cannot provide the male/female connections children need. Now if we have to many child in need of a home, I have no problem allowing others to adopt. We simply need to keep the male/female duo’s in the front of the line.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 amThe SF Chronicle tries to quote the most extreme person on the right to get their input. The Chronicle does this all the time and I applaud them for making the right look extremely stupid.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 am#4…Thanks for the input from the bigots point of view.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:44 am#4..
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 amPerhaps, then, you should change your screen name to
Roger-Rogette…..
“Southern Povery Law Center”
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 amWell, if we tatooed individuals with AIDS, i would know who to sleep with and who not to sleep with, right?
It is known that there is a sector of the homosexual community that gets a kick out of giving STDs to each other and others that are not aware they have AIDS.
I know this, I was President of the United States of America and the smartest person to ever set foot on the Oval Office rug.
Also, please my sycophant followers, let us not forget that we have an issue with Christians.
It is well known amongst Democratic Party circles that we are bigots toward Christiains and we all, in the Democratic Party, suffer from Christianphobia.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 amregardless roger, somone with his rather extremists views should not be cited as an expert. What if Clinton was cited as an expert on marital fidelity? Exactly how would you react to such a premise?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 amIt’s a misnomer that the Chronicle is a liberal paper. At least since Hearst Corp bought them. Otherwise we wouldn’t have to put up with that idiot Debra Suanders 5 days a week.
God how much I miss Molly Ivins.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 amShit, daryll was just on the gonzo site ragging on dems for not impeaching. Come on to the light, daryll, and regale us with your bible thumping.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 amKrazny
What if Clinton was cited as an expert on marital fidelity
Well my drivers ed teacher had 7 crashes under his belt… his view was this way he knew what could go wrong, and he could teach you to notice the same things. So maybe Clinton would be awesome at it.
Then again, I’ve crashed 3 cars, so maybe he wasn’t the best at it after all.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 amDamn that liberal media!
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 amYeah rogain2, especially when mommy and daddy are crack addicts looking for the money for supporting the kid.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am#9 = dipshit troll
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 amPresident Clinton,
I’m not a bigot towards Christians, I’m intolerant of those who use superstitious beliefs to implement and guide policy docisions.
Faith in Zeus, Odin, or Yahweh, gets us nowhere. Reason is a much better tool.
Perhaps you could get some to pray to Poseidon to stop the hurricane’s and the tidal waves. That might help.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 amRoger_Roger:
According to you a male/female duo will get first dibs? Hmmm, let me throw one at you.
Family 1: Barely makes minimum wage. Has no children but wants to adopt a child and love it as their own. Can barely afford their own food, but will do anything to have a child or adopt.
Family 2: Is very affluent. Has a wonderful paying job and can afford to give the adopted child anything and every thing he/she every wanted. Has money to spare and is often giving to charities. Only one wage earner is necessary.
Which one would you place the child in? If family 1 is the only male/female couple, what then? If family 2 is a female/female couple, then what? If either family has the love and the understanding to raise a child then either one would be fine. Granted family 1 will struggle, but are you going to give family 1 priority?
Please, I’d love to hear how you work this one out.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 amI love you Daryll…
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 amI’ve always loved you…
It is amazing how TP can denigrate the FRI Colorado chapter for upholding/protecting God’s laws. If homosexuals want children, they should divert from their wicked ways and become heterosexuals. Only man and woman can procreate. The ability to not have a child is a consequence for same-sex couples.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 amIt is well known amongst Democratic Party circles that we are bigots toward Christiains and we all, in the Democratic Party, suffer from Christianphobia.
Comment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Actually, what we really fear are Republican pedophiles, Republophiliacs and the hardcore stupid… Stupidofascists, if you will.
BTW, you can’t even spell “Christians” right, President Clinton.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 amThis is reported as though the SF Chronicle were a real newspaper or something. Unfortunately, those of us in SF need to get our news from outside the 7×7 mile city as any newspapers within city limits are used to line bird cages or wrap fish. The Chronicle is as serious a paper as Fox is an unbiased news source.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 amIt doesn’t take an “expert†to know that the best thing for a child is a father and a mother. A Male/Female duo should always be allowed to adopt over any other group or single person as other groups and solo people simply cannot provide the male/female connections children need. Now if we have to many child in need of a home, I have no problem allowing others to adopt. We simply need to keep the male/female duo’s in the front of the line.
Comment by Roger_Roger — May 22, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Are your a true Christian? If so, why do you support this act?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmThis group sounds a lot like the left’s beloved Taliban.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm“…especially when mommy and daddy are crack addicts looking for the money for supporting the kid.”
Or Mommy and Daddy are using the kid to support their crack habits…
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 pmRoger_Roger:
According to you a male/female duo will get first dibs? Hmmm, let me throw one at you.
Family 1: Barely makes minimum wage. Has no children but wants to adopt a child and love it as their own. Can barely afford their own food, but will do anything to have a child or adopt.
Family 2: Is very affluent. Has a wonderful paying job and can afford to give the adopted child anything and every thing he/she every wanted. Has money to spare and is often giving to charities. Only one wage earner is necessary.
Which one would you place the child in? If family 1 is the only male/female couple, what then? If family 2 is a female/female couple, then what? If either family has the love and the understanding to raise a child then either one would be fine. Granted family 1 will struggle, but are you going to give family 1 priority?
Please, I’d love to hear how you work this one out.
Comment by Proud Dem — May 22, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Proud Dem, my friend, my dear, dear proud democratic party member, the problem with your premise is that you assume that money is what make syou happy.
take it from me, I am rich, filthy rich, like my buddy kerry, and money doesn’t make you happy.
You don’t need money to create a family, to have a happy family.
You need a mommy and a daddy. You see my daddy was an abuser and then he left and look how screwed up I turned out to be.
Also it is well known, through studies, that children that come from a mother and father household turn out to be a lot more succesful and happier than children that came from other types of families.
Believe me because I was YOUR President and you are a proud Democrat.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pmLet’s see…4 trolls so far…not bad.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmWhen I lived in Mill Valley back in the 70’s the newspapers were just as bad.
-Dave Dragon
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pmRide it like you stole it!
Roger_Roger:
According to you a male/female duo will get first dibs? Hmmm, let me throw one at you.
Family 1: Barely makes minimum wage. Has no children but wants to adopt a child and love it as their own. Can barely afford their own food, but will do anything to have a child or adopt.
Family 2: Is very affluent. Has a wonderful paying job and can afford to give the adopted child anything and every thing he/she every wanted. Has money to spare and is often giving to charities. Only one wage earner is necessary.
Which one would you place the child in? If family 1 is the only male/female couple, what then? If family 2 is a female/female couple, then what? If either family has the love and the understanding to raise a child then either one would be fine. Granted family 1 will struggle, but are you going to give family 1 priority?
Please, I’d love to hear how you work this one out.
Comment by Proud Dem — May 22, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Per biblical standards, the child should be placed with family one. Family two can be wealthy, but they’re not following biblical standards, and their ultimate ending will be hell. They shouldn’t be allowed to convince another being to commit sinful acts.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pmThis group sounds a lot like the left’s beloved Taliban.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 22, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Opps, another Stupidofascist sneaking on board…
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmDaryll
Only a male and female together can procreate – OK, I’ll give you that one. However, many of those males and females can’t parent, which is why there are so many adoptable children in the first place. Should we just leave those poor kids in the abusive, neglectful home of heterosexual couples or give them a chance to be happy and healthy with a homosexual couple or a single parent? BTW, the last I knew God was a single dad.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pmThey shouldn’t be allowed to convince another being to commit sinful acts.
Comment by Daryll
_______________________
What makes you think they would?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmI love you Daryll…
I’ve always loved you…
Comment by Paul in Co — May 22, 2007 @ 11:58 am
I love you as an associate, but have you followed Acts 2:38?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmDaryll
Only a male and female together can procreate – OK, I’ll give you that one. However, many of those males and females can’t parent, which is why there are so many adoptable children in the first place. Should we just leave those poor kids in the abusive, neglectful home of heterosexual couples or give them a chance to be happy and healthy with a homosexual couple or a single parent? BTW, the last I knew God was a single dad.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 22, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
There’s an easy solution. Approve more heterosexual families to adopt. Also, God was never a father. There is only one God.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmDaryll, fair warning. Don’t make me post the List.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmThey shouldn’t be allowed to convince another being to commit sinful acts.
Comment by Daryll
_______________________
What makes you think they would?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 22, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
If they’re growing up within a household that believes two individuals from the same gender should be able to show affection toward each other, they will consider this as a normal act. More than 50% of children within homosexual households become homosexuals.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 pmI wrote Acts, remember? (Honey>>>)
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pmThere’s an easy solution. Approve more heterosexual families to adopt. Also, God was never a father. There is only one God.
Comment by Daryll
____________________
Not so easy since there are too few heterosexual families who offer to adopt to accomodate for the large number of kids, especially non-babies. You might want to re-read your Bible and see how Jesus the Son of God referred to God the Father
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmMore than 50% of children within homosexual households become homosexuals.
Comment by Daryll
____________________________________
Where are you getting this ridiculous fake statistic? I can make them up, too, so here goes: more than 80% of homosexuals grew up in heterosexual homes (and I’ll bet my made up one is much closer to the truth).
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pmWe simply need to keep the male/female duo’s in the front of the line.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Yeah, that’s why so many mass murderers, including the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine, came from families with a mother and father. It’s always the perfect situation.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pmWhat’s it like Daryll, being an AI program, with a whole congregation of programmers for parents?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 pmIt is well known amongst Democratic Party circles that we are bigots toward Christiains and we all, in the Democratic Party, suffer from Christianphobia.
Comment by President Clinton
Because we don’t believe Christians are more human or more important that other people you see that as bigoted. Interesting. And Bill Clinton is more of a Christian than Bush could ever be and many of us would vote for him again if we could.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pmFrom the American Psychological Association:
The primary difficulties facing children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are associated with misconceptions about their parents that are held by society at large. Three areas of concern have been raised by those in the legal and social welfare systems about the impact a parent’s lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation may have on children. These concerns include the influence of a lesbian, gay, or bisexual parent on a child’s gender identity, gender role conformity, and sexual orientation. The body of research on lesbian mothers is currently considerably larger than that on gay fathers. In her comprehensive review of the literature, Patterson (1996b) concluded that there was no evidence of gender identity difficulties among children of lesbian mothers. She also reported studies indicating that gender role behavior among children of lesbian mothers was within normal ranges. Furthermore, children of lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents appear to be no different than peers raised by heterosexual parents in their emotional development and their likelihood of becoming homosexual (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Golombok & Tasker, 1994).
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pmI hope our church organization visits SF after our Rio de janeiro trip. We need to convert these homosexuals.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmIt is well known amongst Democratic Party circles that we are bigots toward Christiains and we all, in the Democratic Party, suffer from Christianphobia.
Comment by President Clinton
Because we don’t believe Christians are more human or more important that other people you see that as bigoted. Interesting. And Bill Clinton is more of a Christian than Bush could ever be and many of us would vote for him again if we could.
Comment by Shane — May 22, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I know that you, my sycophant fans, would vote for me if you could. You are obssesed with me. You wish you would have been in Monica’s place.
How sad that I did so much wrong to America and yet you ill-informed Democratic masses would love to vote for me again.
Well, sorry kid, FDR was the last President to serve more than two terms.
and let us thank the Almighty that I could not get re-elected. Do you know all the interns I would have done and all the military secrets that I would have sold to the Chinese?
But I love it how I use women and men like you.
Not matter how much I used and abused women, you people who claim to love and fight for women’s right, would vote for me again.
I am flattered, but I think you are pathetic, Shane.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmWell, I’m not sure I’m convinced by your argument, roger_roger. Although a mother/father/child would be an ideal, we don’t live in an ideal world. And, as the story points out, there is a shortage of adoptive parents. I’m not sure why single parents aren’t an option, or are they? It would seem the only criteria would be ability to care for the child and to be a suitable match for that child’s needs. I don’t see gender orientation being a big issue here.
Daryll, I’m not sure which Christianity you are following. Paul didn’t want followers of Christ having sex at all. Marriage was his concession to the needs of the flesh. Not exactly the best recommendation for parenthood. Indeed, Jesus’ teachings are very much for adults. I suspect Christians can be good parents, but most of what advice there is in the Old Testament and is rather patriarchal. Thank goodness that Judaism as practised today seems to be matriarchal. It seems to me that the best Christian parents are those with a heavy dose of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene.
I think, Daryll, you’ll find the Early Church did not have a consistent policy on either marriage or homosexuality. And I think you might benefit from reading this interview with the Dr Rev Cheri DiNovo: Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmI am flattered, but I think you are pathetic, Shane.
Comment by President Clinton
Hiding behind a moniker, thats pretty stupid. But, hey, some people live like that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm#36 Daryll, prove with statictic’s and a link that 50% create more gay’s or shut up…Second…It does not take a male and female to create it take’s sperm and an ovum (egg) even in a petri dish can do the job and then a woumb to carry to term..Next point darth cheney’s daughter, who’s your 50% in that family….Last but not least who makes the radical relegious reich in charge of peoples pro creation or lack there of….You are not able to prove any of these thing’s except in you 2000 year old book which carries no weight with the thinking mind’s…Granted there are many good christian’s, I know a few and none that I know spew the crap you and the other troll’s do here daily..You and radical rabid roger are just that….Now go put your tent up and preach your junk else where cause I’m not buying nor contributing to you bigoted way’s….
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm#4
It doesn’t take an “expert†to know that the best thing for a child is a father and a mother. A Male/Female duo should always be allowed to adopt over any other group or single person as other groups and solo people simply cannot provide the male/female connections children need. Now if we have to many child in need of a home, I have no problem allowing others to adopt. We simply need to keep the male/female duo’s in the front of the line.
Comment by Roger_Roger — May 22, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Obviously you are neither an expert nor an educated, intelligent individual who walks upright.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pmThe ability to not have a child is a consequence for same-sex couples.
Comment by Daryll
Is that why you and your “wife” don’t have children, she’s a … gulp … man?
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmI am flattered, but I think you are pathetic, Shane.
Comment by President Clinton
Hiding behind a moniker, thats pretty stupid. But, hey, some people live like that.
Comment by Juan C — May 22, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
I don’t know who you are, but how dare you question my name on this.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…well actually I was.
sorry, the want and need for power got to my head. Sorry about that.
but still…HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME?!
I AM THE SMARTEST PERSON TO HAVE SET FOOT ON THE OVAL OFFICE!
or at least that is what my sycophant followers keep on telling me. Since I was good at selling my policies, somehow it translates to being a good person and President.
go figure, right?
anyway, I am going to unleash my Liberal pundits on you and destro you for daring to question the smartest man alive.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pmI think Christians should be tatooed across their forehead so we know not to bother entering into a discussion about anything that requires thinking on their part. It would simply be a waste of time. (of course, for the trolls sake, I think I need to inform them that this is what you call sarcasm). Can you say sarcasm?
Cameron’s statement is just an example of the right-wing, nazi mentality of most Evangelical, born-again, so-called Christians.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmJust got back from my 30 minute walk. and I happen upon this:
BTW, the last I knew God was a single dad.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
to which I was going to comment “Game. Set. Match.”
but then this little ditty comes along:
Also, God was never a father
Comment by Saint (now capitalized) Daryll
All I can say is……whuh???? So much for the trinity, eh, daryll? And that one particular prayer that begins, “Our Father, who art in heaven…”? anything to comment on that?
Back on topic, I do believe O’Reilly stated this, that it’s much better to have a child raised by a loving couple (hetero or same sex), than to be raised in any type of abusive (sexual, physical, mental) household. And last I checked, most abused children are from heterosexuals. And why wouldn’t our God want His children raised in a loving, non abusive environment?
Daryll, you are the worst kind of pseudo-Christian, who hypocritically picks and chooses Chapters from the Bible to fit your almost creepy, homophic agenda.
BEGONE! (or at least COME OUT OF THE DAMN CLOSET!)
Just saying (rambling)
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmBelieve me because I was YOUR President and you are a proud Democrat.
Comment by President Clinton
You need to take your medication, little troll. I think you’re beginning to believe you are Bill Clinton. And obviously, you are no Rhodes Scholar. If you went to college it had to be Liberty or Regent College but I suspect you’re still working on your GED.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm#36 Daryll, prove with statictic’s and a link that 50% create more gay’s or shut up…Second…It does not take a male and female to create it take’s sperm and an ovum (egg) even in a petri dish can do the job and then a woumb to carry to term..Next point darth cheney’s daughter, who’s your 50% in that family….Last but not least who makes the radical relegious reich in charge of peoples pro creation or lack there of….You are not able to prove any of these thing’s except in you 2000 year old book which carries no weight with the thinking mind’s…Granted there are many good christian’s, I know a few and none that I know spew the crap you and the other troll’s do here daily..You and radical rabid roger are just that….Now go put your tent up and preach your junk else where cause I’m not buying nor contributing to you bigoted way’s….
Comment by Sharon — May 22, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Sharon, my sweet child….would you like to go Monica on me? :) wink, wink…
by the way, I see you are a man hater. How sad? Don’t worry, Monica and all the Liberal women that vote for me are men hater, but they love how I treat women, like dogs that are there for me to fuck. ahhh, awesome!!!
How easily to I fool my sycophant followers.
Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that whether it is done in the womb or on a lab, you still need men, you know the sperm part comes from us.
Go ask Monica and how I stained her red dress. Yummy!!!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm#51
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 pmReally, I thought you were someone’s 12 year old who got ahold of mommy’s computer. ‘Cause that is how you come across.
The ability to not have a child is a consequence for same-sex couples.
Comment by Daryll
Is that why you and your “wife†don’t have children, she’s a … gulp … man?
Comment by Shane
Actually, Shane, she’s inflatable.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I guess you do believe everything Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and Coulter tell you. Take your meds because it’s really scary that you are schizophrenic and stupid all in one icky little troll body.
I’ll take Clinton’s place in history over either Bush any day. But you keep quoting the likes of Mr. Coulter, it shows what a genius you are.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pmDaryl
Try this logical progression on for size:
All children come from a male (sperm) and a female (egg)
Combining male and female sexually is heterosexuality
All homosexuals were once children
Therefore, all homosexuals were created by heterosexuality
I’ll hold the logical progression that “Therefore, Christian parents create homosexuals” for another time perhaps.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmAlso it is well known, through studies, that children that come from a mother and father household turn out to be a lot more succesful and happier than children that came from other types of families.
Comment by President Clinton
Prove it.
And no links from Focus on the Family et al.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmGood one Shane, maybe Darryl is realy Darrylene.? No matter….No one has the right to interfere with other people’s right’s to ptocreate or not to, neither should any thinking mind be obsesed with what other consenting adult’s do or not in their bed room’s..These nut job’s like D and R.R. have no right and privlage to interfere with privacy…The fact they hump on these sites and go balistick show’s how terribly lacking their own love live’s are, so much so they want to impose their twisted will on the populace…Blessings
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmI’ll hold the logical progression that “Therefore, Christian parents create homosexuals†for another time perhaps.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
I can’t wait!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmActually, Shane, she’s inflatable.
Comment by the republic of stupidity — May 22, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
As long as it’s a she Darryl’s okay with it. Do you think he keeps a male blowup in the closet? Well Darryl, do ya punk?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmI’ll hold the logical progression that “Therefore, Christian parents create homosexuals†for another time perhaps.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — May 22, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
the sound you just heard was of St.Daryll’s head exploding.
I got another one for you.
Daryll, if God was so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why did he choose a non-married couple to begin His Son’s mission?
I mean, you do know, at that time, women caught having pre-marital sex where stoned to death. Why would God jeopardized the Mother of His Son?
Boom….the remaining braincells just exploded!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I guess you do believe everything Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and Coulter tell you. Take your meds because it’s really scary that you are schizophrenic and stupid all in one icky little troll body.
I’ll take Clinton’s place in history over either Bush any day. But you keep quoting the likes of Mr. Coulter, it shows what a genius you are.
Comment by Shane — May 22, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
How dare you claim I listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. These imbeciles destroyed my legacy, my Presidency.
HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME?! ARE YOU NOT AWARE WHO I AM?!
I am the smartest President ever!!!
I mean look at you, you would vote for me again! Yes, yes, yes, yes!!
I knew I still have sycophant followers out there.
Thank you Shane, thank you. You love me, that is all that matters. Despite my failed policies, despite my use and abuse of women, despite the fact that I sold military secrets to the chinese, despite the fact that I refused to capture Bin Laden, despite the fact that my economy crashed in 2000, despite the fact that I did interns, despite that I was convicted of perjury, despite the fact that I was impeached, despite the fact that i down sized our military, despite the fact that I spied on the american people, you still will vote for me.
Thank you shane, thank you!!! My ill informed masses love me. That is all I care about.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmPaul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado
Translation:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmJoeseph Mengele, Chief Medical Director – Auschwitz
Also it is well known, through studies, that children that come from a mother and father household turn out to be a lot more succesful and happier than children that came from other types of families.
Comment by President Clinton
Prove it.
And no links from Focus on the Family et al.
Comment by Zooey — May 22, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I DON’T NEED TO PROVE IT!
I speak, you say yes sir, whatever you say.
This is what you guys did during the 1990s, I expect you to keep on doing the same.
Follow me, don’t ask questions and jump of the cliff with me.
You all did it during my Presidency, why not now?!
Have you been speaking to Hillary?
I swear, I swear, she is a liar, don’t believce her.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmI AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I DON’T NEED TO PROVE IT!
I speak, you say yes sir, whatever you say.
Comment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
You can only prove you are full of shit. Your parents must have been heterosexual.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmSharon, thanks. If R2dumb2 and Darlene had their own sex lives maybe they could worry less about other’s.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmBoom….the remaining braincells just exploded!
Comment by DRxJ
Definitely. Darryl, Darryl, are you there? Nope.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmComment by President Clinton
Better up the dosage before you end up with electroshock, just trying to help.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pmI AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I DON’T NEED TO PROVE IT!
I speak, you say yes sir, whatever you say.
Comment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
You can only prove you are full of shit. Your parents must have been heterosexual.
Comment by Zooey — May 22, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Actually, Zooey, my daddy left me when I was young. Oh my dad, how much I miss him.
that is why I became a womanizer. Daddy was never home.
but regardless, how dare you question the smartest President ever to set foot on the Oval Office?!
man, it was easier in the 1990s, I spoke, regardless of whether it was true or not, the Liberal masses drooled in amazement at what great orator I was. You all followed me without question in the 1990s.
I am telling you, Chealse and Hillary are getting the word out aren’t they.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pmBoom….the remaining braincells just exploded!
Comment by DRxJ
Definitely. Darryl, Darryl, are you there? Nope.
Comment by Shane — May 22, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
BOOM! that is how it sounded when I stained Monica’s red dress.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmActually, the “only begotten son” is a later formulation. What one can take from Luke is the idea that Mary was a single mom. She was pregnant before marriage and Joseph was not the father. Joseph drops from the picture, but Mary does not.
We could discuss Mary as a welfare mom. She went on to have other children. We may assume they were “legitimate” by Joseph while Jesus –the name is a Greek corruption of Joshua– was illegitimate. And I think that makes a more powerful statement of Loving the Stranger and the Outsider. No?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
F*ck off, moron.
If you can’t see that there actually are worse things going on than a womanizer who received a BJ in the Oval Office, then you are beneath contempt.
Dismissed.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmPresident Clinton
Also it is well known, through studies, that children that come from a mother and father household turn out to be a lot more succesful and happier than children that came from other types of families.
Actually our northern brothers just finished a study that shows that gay couples that adopt have children that turn out better than straight couples.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmThe Oregonian did something similar a month ago, with regard to spreading GOP propaganda from a new guy at the Department of the Interior, Kempthorne about how the raping of the environment is good for Portland…or some such bullshit.
I posted the article, and my response to the Oregonian, on Indy Media, followed by an article on Kempthorne’s anti-environmentalism as Idaho governor. A couple of the intro paragraphs are below, and the whole thing is at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356382.shtml.
How else can people respond to Neocon/Far Right propaganda so that we discourage local media from serving as Bushian mouthpieces?
Styve
————————–
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
DRxJ, Lady Z and Shane you are priceless..Not to mention very funny…Do they get it? Nah, the no humor no sex croud never get’s (it).,,,LOL,,,,.Blessings
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmRight, I suppose I should have provided the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070508/co_po/canadianstudygayparentsatleastasgood
My only issue with the study is it compared gay parents who adopt to the full spectrum of straight parents, as opposed to just adoptive one.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmMy issue being that I would hope parents who went thru all the hoops to adopt really want kids, and would be better parents for that reason.
President Clinton
Also it is well known, through studies, that children that come from a mother and father household turn out to be a lot more succesful and happier than children that came from other types of families.
Actually our northern brothers just finished a study that shows that gay couples that adopt have children that turn out better than straight couples.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 22, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
are these the same northern brothers that need our Air Forced, Navy and army to protect them?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pmCan we impeach the Clinton troll off this board?
We don’t worship our leaders like you do to St. Ronnie.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmPresident Clinton
are these the same northern brothers that need our Air Forced, Navy and army to protect them?
They seem to be doing fine on their own.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmYes, you can also read more about the Canadian Justice Dept study HERE. It’s a longer story with more background information and some personal stories.
The Canadian experience reveals that the fears of the Christian Right in America are unfounded. But I can understand where this hysteria comes from; it seems many Born Again Christians come from awful upbringings and turned to God to bring meaning to their childhood nightmare. I suspect there’s a good deal of projection in their views on same-sex parenting.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmAccording to the Chronicle article, Cameron thinks kids are better off in orphanages than with gay parents. He also ranks orphanages as better than being raised by a single mom.
I can’t be sure whether Cameron is an idiot, a lunatic, or if he’s simply pushing this agenda because it’s how he earns a living. And, I suppose, it could be all of the above.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
F*ck off, moron.
If you can’t see that there actually are worse things going on than a womanizer who received a BJ in the Oval Office, then you are beneath contempt.
Dismissed.
Comment by Zooey — May 22, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
You know, Monica kept on telling me to “f@ck off” so I did as she wanted and I stucked it in her. i tell you, she yelled in complete and utter pleasure!!! yes, baby, yes!
Anyway, sorry about that….
So, you believed my lies that the only bad thing I did was receiving a BJ and then lyin gabout it? wow! my communications director what an amazing person. Or are you the typical sycophant Democrat that believed me because well, I am Clinton?
Did anyone tell you about me selling top military secrets to the Chinese?
did anyone tell you about me doing nothing to prevent 9/11?
Did anyone tell you that Osama Bin Laden called America, a paper tiger, while I was in power?
did anyone tell you that in 1993 the WTC was bombed and 7 people died and hundreds were injured?
did anyone tell you that the intention of the terrorist then was to bring down the WTC?
did anyone tell you that in 1996 American troops were attacked by Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia?
Did anyone tell you that in 1998 American embassies were bombed and destroyed in Africa? obviously Al Qaeda did it..
Did anyone tell you that just like Prez. Bush received a Daily briefing telling him about Al Qaeda wanting to hijack airplanes, I also got a similar daily briefing and I did nothing about it?
did anyone tell you that in 2000 the USS cole was attacked and I did nothing about it?
did anyone tell you that I was spying on American citizens during my tenure at the white house?
did anyone tell you how much I screwed up with Waco?
yes, you are right, the blow job Monica gave me (man and it was good) was the less severe crime that I committed while being in the Oval Office.
You are my typical sycophant follower that is too ill-informed to know how much harm my administration did to this great nation of ours.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pmPresident Clinton
are these the same northern brothers that need our Air Forced, Navy and army to protect them?
They seem to be doing fine on their own.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 22, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
really you mean to tell me that our F-16, etc don’t patrol their skies? really?
you might want to call NORAD and tell them that. You seem to know something they don’t.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pmAccording to the Chronicle article, Cameron thinks kids are better off in orphanages than with gay parents. He also ranks orphanages as better than being raised by a single mom.
I can’t be sure whether Cameron is an idiot, a lunatic, or if he’s simply pushing this agenda because it’s how he earns a living. And, I suppose, it could be all of the above.
Comment by gummitch — May 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
there are lunatics on both sides of the eisle. Just look at my wife. Man is she a lunatic.
and please don’t tell this to Al Gore, but geez that man is a lunatic. Believe me, I worked with him for 8 years. Ouch, he was out there!
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pmYou seem to know something they don’t.
Yah, the cold war’s over. We’re just wasting fuel and/or giving our pilots a few more hours of flight time.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmDear President Clingon, We Canucks can do fine without your protection. Indeed, we have for 200 years. And we beat your sorry ass in 1812 and burned your home so badly in a skirmish that you had to paint it White to hide the char.
In World Wars One & Two, you sat out for more than two years each time while we Northerns fought the good fight. Always late. And we were too smart to join your illegal invasion of Iraq.
Same-sex marriage is legal up here. Should you switch teams, there’ll always be a place for you up here along the tree line. Don’t forget to bring your mukluks.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Again — PROVE IT!
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmDear President Clingon, We Canucks can do fine without your protection. Indeed, we have for 200 years. And we beat your sorry ass in 1812 and burned your home so badly in a skirmish that you had to paint it White to hide the char.
In World Wars One & Two, you sat out for more than two years each time while we Northerns fought the good fight. Always late. And we were too smart to join your illegal invasion of Iraq.
Same-sex marriage is legal up here. Should you switch teams, there’ll always be a place for you up here along the tree line. Don’t forget to bring your mukluks.
Comment by david — May 22, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
The War of 1812? you had to go that far back to tell us all how Canada had won something? eh? Don’t forget that that wasn’t Canada, but teh British. Geez, I have always known that Canada doesn’t teach history.
and don’t forget that we won the War of 1812…ouch!
As for WWI and WWII, yes we were late, but guess what, we won these wars for you. Once again, America to the rescue.
as for gay marriage and all that nonsense, that is all that it is, a lot of noise and stupid nonsense.
But anyway, keep on telling yourself that the War of 1812 was fought by Canadians, and that you won. too funny guy.
Al Gore was funnier than you when we was ranting and raving about Global Warming. Man, he wouldn’t shut up about it. Talk about an inconvinient VP.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmActually our northern brothers just finished a study that shows that gay couples that adopt have children that turn out better than straight couples.
Comment by squegeebooo
Thank you, Squeegy. I don’t care what anyone says, you’re alright. :)
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmI can’t be sure whether Cameron is an idiot, a lunatic, or if he’s simply pushing this agenda because it’s how he earns a living. And, I suppose, it could be all of the above.
Comment by gummitch
All of the above — and more.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmComment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Again — PROVE IT!
Comment by Zooey — May 22, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Again—Believe me like the Democratic Party and my sycophant followers believed me in the 1990s.
they believed me because when I spoke, words of wisdom came out of my mouth.
It was fun to see people like you drool and drool and drool when I spoke.
I am YOUR President, now believe me.
I don’t need to prove anything. I, William Jefferson Clinton, don’t have to prove anything. when I speak, only the truth comes out of my mouth.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pmdon’t forget that we won the War of 1812…ouch!
It was more of a draw. We failed to take Canada, the Brit’s failed to reconquer us.
But from a Canadians point of view, it was a win. After all, they are a country, not a state.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmI don’t need to prove anything. I, William Jefferson Clinton, don’t have to prove anything. when I speak, only the truth comes out of my mouth.
Comment by President Clinton
You are pathetic — hiding behind “President Clinton.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 pmYou’ve got nothing. You are nothing.
Zooey
Thank you, Squeegy. I don’t care what anyone says, you’re alright. :)
Yah, what can I say, now and again I let some light escape my black heart.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pmAw, President Clingon fell out of character attacking me. What? A little rattled by the truth?
We learn our history very well up here and we’ve been refered to as Canada as early as 1566. It’s Americans who are taught crappy history that begins with an Exceptionalist birth in the late 18th Century. (Columbus, BTW, never set foot in the USA.) Of course the French in Quebec didn’t join your Revolution because they knew you were nothing but Catholic-hating thieves.
And as for WWI and WWII, you didn’t win them. Wilson negotiated a truce, which the isolationists in your Senate botched and which probably lead to the second WW. And by the time you active forces in Europe, we had already stopped the Axis. You ought to buy yourself a historical timeline and stop watching Hollywood movies.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pmIt’s a shame. This coulda been a really good thread.
Hard not to feed the trolls…I know.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pmAw, President Clingon fell out of character attacking me. What? A little rattled by the truth?
We learn our history very well up here and we’ve been refered to as Canada as early as 1566. It’s Americans who are taught crappy history that begins with an Exceptionalist birth in the late 18th Century. (Columbus, BTW, never set foot in the USA.) Of course the French in Quebec didn’t join your Revolution because they knew you were nothing but Catholic-hating thieves.
And as for WWI and WWII, you didn’t win them. Wilson negotiated a truce, which the isolationists in your Senate botched and which probably lead to the second WW. And by the time you active forces in Europe, we had already stopped the Axis. You ought to buy yourself a historical timeline and stop watching Hollywood movies.
Comment by david — May 22, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
David, my dear, dear friend.
Canada is a joke, more than half of if is unpopulated.
You didn’t win WWI as you claimed, we did. A truce that was only achieved after Germany saw that if it kept on fighting it would lose. A truce, yes a truce that the British, French used to shove down the throat of the Germans, which led to WWII. Talk to your conquerors, the British, about WWII.
WWII, you hadn’t stopped squat when we joined. Yes, the British were quite brave in the Battle of Britain, but what did you exactly do in the Battle of Britain? It was an air Battle and it was this battle that stopped Hitler from conquering England.
How many beaches did the Canadians invade in Normandy? now compare that to the number of beaches that we invaded and how many of our brave soldiers died during the battle for europe. Also look at what weapons you and the British were using to fight Nazi Germany. That is right, over 80% of the weapons you used to fight Germans were American made. Oh, so sorry.
did you guys send one propeller to help the British fight the Battle of Britain?
Catholic hating? wow, you Canadians do hold a grudge, eh?
Sorry my friend, here in the USA we love all races and religions. Or so say my sycophant followers.
Canada needs the USA, it begs the USA to defend it. Canada would be nothing but a poor third world country without the USA.
and as for Columbus not landing in the USA, NO WAY! you guys learn that in school?
Anyway, keep on dancing about the war of 1812. I am sure Canada is happy about the war of 1812.
man that war of 1812, don’t you think it was great David. the war of 1812, fought over how many centuries ago? but geez, thank goodness the British came to your aid, that war of 1812.
I, President William Jefferson Clinton, prefer to travel to Mexico before I give American dollars to the Canadian economy.
I think I will call NORAD and ask them to stop patrolling the Canadian skies. American F-jet fighters shouldn’t be helping such ingrates as the Canadians.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pmWhat happened to my post about GOPropaganda?
I really dislike arbitrary forums, and I guess the troll surge that results from a lack of community self-policing goes hand-in-hand with such a lack of sophistication.
Bummer!!
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pmdon’t forget that we won the War of 1812…ouch!
It was more of a draw. We failed to take Canada, the Brit’s failed to reconquer us.
But from a Canadians point of view, it was a win. After all, they are a country, not a state.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 22, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Actually, English Canadians still pay tribute to the Queen of England.
Poor Canadians, they still have a Queen up their behind.
I asked Monica to do for me, but she said, “hell no” I don’t know where you ass has been lately.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pmWell, it’s been over 2 hours since I issued the challenge to St Daryll, aka quickdraw Mcgraw.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pmand……..nothing.
Must be he’s preparing for his “booty call”ing in Brazil.
typical. Spout off stupid a$$ $hit. Attack! But when confronted, and challenged, he disappears.
Well, at least he’s not namejacking past presidents to make a complete fool of himself.
Boy, President Clingon, you are one ignorant dumb f*ck. Over 100 Canadian pilots flew in the Battle of Britain. We trained your air force here in the Canadian West. And you don’t know squat about what happened in either World Wars, do you? The Canadians landed in Normandy at Juno Beach. And the Canadians penetrated further on that first day than any other Allied Force.
I suspect the real reason the America Right doesn’t like Same-sex marriage and oppose adoption rights for same-sex couples is because they live in this fantasy world where they’ve won all the wars single-handedly and everyone adores America and wants to be just like them. It’s Hollywood crap. There is no IDEAL FAMILY. Even the Holy Family of Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus was dysfunctional by normal standards. That is, a girl pregnant after extramarital sex –albeit she said it was ‘divine’– a step-father with a speech disorder, and a child that had to be raised in a cattle trough because the family couldn’t afford a home.
BTW, you still owe us compensation from the American Revolution. We know Americans never live up to their treaties. And Canada supplies the USA with more oil than the Middle East. Sheesh! Just another clueless Yankee pretending to be someone famous, aren’t you President Clingon? And you can’t even keep up the patter long enough to suspend disbelief.
And why are you here? You don’t know much about History, Geography, the Bible, or Sex? So what’s your motive? Or are you just terrified someone will find out about your own little same-sex trysts?
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pmActually, English Canadians still pay tribute to the Queen of England.
Poor Canadians, they still have a Queen up their behind.
I asked Monica to do for me, but she said, “hell no†I don’t know where you ass has been lately.
Comment by President Clinton — May 22, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
And you Republicans pay tribute to the “queen” of the Press Corps – “Jeff Gannon”….
Do us all a favor Bush&Rove, just go to Canada, get married, and leave America the f*ck alone!
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmEnglish Canadians still pay tribute to the Queen of England.
They sure do, as do the peoples of several other countries. Nothing wrong with being part of the Common Wealth, better than the Common Poor.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pmPresident Clingon, you don’t seem to know anything about the Monarchy, do you? And I must say your Mad King George W is such an improvement on Liz –NOT.
Bush is an embarrassment. The first time he met the Queen he was drunk. His mother sat him on the opposite side of the room hoping the two would not meet and he made a bee-line for Her Majesty and introduced himself, “Hi, I’m the black sheep of my family. Who’s yours?” The Queen politely said, “None of your business.”
Of course, dear Clingon, you’d be better off if you still were under the British flag. If only those rotten French hadn’t won the Revolution for you.
I’m still confused why you want to pretend to be Bill in a thread on same-sex adoption? I take it your namesake approves of the idea. Does that mean you, Clingon, approve as well? Or did you take on this persona because the first thing that pops into your wee mind when you hear “sex” is Bill. Funny, isn’t it? Bill is still married to Hillary, but Newt and Rudy have six wives between them as well as numerous mistresses. And Rudy’s children aren’t speaking to him. I suppose they would if they were adopted.
Are you adopted, Clingon?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pmthey want to impose their twisted will on the populace…Blessings
Comment by Sharon — May 22, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
So now heterosexuality is twisted and fagg*ts are normal?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pmokay can we get back on the subject. the san francisco chronicle corrected their error. can we talk about that?
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:31 pmPaul Cameron = ENEMY OF THE STATE!! A TREASONIST!!!
If you love democracy you will resist ph*cked up bastard at every turn.
NAZIS WERE CHRISTIANS!!! DO WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS SH!T ALL OVER AGAIN??
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pmSo now heterosexuality is twisted and fagg*ts are normal?
Comment by chloe
No chloe, leaving children to rot in foster care and orphanages because it feels icky to some people to have gays raising children.
All the f*cked up people I know were raised in heterosexual homes.
I guess we don’t need to see your black heart, in order to know it exists.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm“*Pietrzyk claims that Cameron advocated the “extermination of male homosexuals.”
Response: The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted in the same article as saying that such an idea is “not politically, ethically or socially acceptable” today. Where former Surgeon General Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron whether he advocated such a policy.”
- Revisiting the New Republic’s Attack on Paul Cameron
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pmSounds like someone from Cameron’s site has come to complain
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 pmHere is a radical idea, to be hated by both sides I’m sure.
Draw up a list of desirable parenting, educational and economic conditions that would be in the best interest of the child. Score applicants. If a child is available for adoption, it would go to the highest scoring person(s). Think of the child first, last, and in the middle.
All of you who think that a hetero drug-crazed hippie couple should just naturally receive a child are .
Those you who think a gay couple whose marriage is 6 minutes old and will last two months should receive a child for social justice are .
Children are not some toy for you to play with just to further your sophomoric agendas.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pm