When more than 60 concerned people contacted The Eagle Thursday in response to an article about the two beavers that had become trapped in a fountain near Century II, it brought back memories of the 200 to 300 calls made to the Kansas Humane Society in 2005 about an abused puppy named Magnum. This week also saw many people donating food to help Kay County, Okla., care for the more than 100 neglected pit bulls rescued from a farm.
To their credit, the compassionate people in this area often rally to help animals in peril or at risk. But it would be appropriate if citizens would act just as emphatically when the creatures in need aren’t furry – say, by expressing outrage over Wichita’s nine child homicides this year or rushing to help Youthville place the 350 children awaiting adoption in Sedgwick County.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
94 Comments
I think if it was put to a vote to have these children adopted or leave them as orphans then the voters of Kansas would prefer them to be orphans. That’s what the voters of Arkansas recently did, I can’t imagine Kansas being any different.
http://www.godandstate.com/2008/11/05/arkansas-adoption-act-show-how-far-america-has-not-come/
Should we treat children like we do animals? I don’t know if the local dog catcher can be called to round up some stray kids in the neighborhood and ship them off to the incinerator. Or if a kid is playing in a fountain can they be captured and locked up in a zoo? People still receive much better treatment than animals.
Plus there is less commitment for animals than for people…it’s easy to donate money to the Human Society or adopt a pet…taking on the expense and commitment of raising a human being for 20 plus years is something all together different.
A big part of the problem is that many people’s lives are out of control..with drugs and alcohol, severe financial pressures, dysfuctional relationships, and all others sorts of personal problems. This whole issue is complicated and multilayered, and no amount of government intervention in people’s lives will make that much difference unless parents are willing to take a good look at themselves and commit to making the life changes they need to make.
Apples and oranges. People love animals.
If I might though, hold a mirror up to the writer and ask about the efforts of the Eagle in promoting the adoption alternative rather than abortion. Instead of trying to shame people for loving animals, perhaps you could help promote adoption. Maybe feature a kid a week in an article.
We need to build the number of stable couples willing to adopt. As an adoptive parent I can testify that the rewards are enormous.
Amen, Out!
Expressing outrage is always easier than actually doing something. Adopting a kid takes effort and expense, not to mention love.
outlander
Posted December 7, 2008 at 7:51 am | Permalink
Apples and oranges. People love animals.
If I might though, hold a mirror up to the writer and ask about the efforts of the Eagle in promoting the adoption alternative rather than abortion. Instead of trying to shame people for loving animals, perhaps you could help promote adoption. Maybe feature a kid a week in an article.
We need to build the number of stable couples willing to adopt. As an adoptive parent I can testify that the rewards are enormous.
—
Let’s see. Which constituency would be the most natural source of “stable couples willing to adopt?” Since they are by definition incapable of reproduction through recombination of their DNA, the answer is obviously “stable couples of the same sex.”
However, yall have done everything possible to destabilize the stability in stable gay couples, so any efforts by the Eagle in that area would be like using a thimble to scoop water out of a boat the bottom of which yall have punched a yawning hole in by waging a legislative war on the very core of stability of same sex couples (yall get yourselves off the hook by telling yourselves that “hey they can be gay and do whatever, but that don’t mean we have to help ‘em be stable”).
Amazing amount of conflict in your post, staggering. If I may I would point out the source of your conflict is very likely your personal religious beliefs.
And yall wonder why religion is regarded by some as a pox on humanity?
When we get serious about the overwhelming social problems in our country, we’ll see less child abuse and abandonment.
The best thing by far is to put off becoming a parent until one has completed their education, has financial stability and is in a healthy, mature, and committed relationship.
The biggest underlying factor to a life of poverty is becoming a parent before the age of 25. All the social programs in the world won’t solve the problem after the fact.
Amazing amount of conflict in your post, staggering. If I may I would point out the source of your conflict is very likely your personal religious beliefs.
And yall wonder why religion is regarded by some as a pox on humanity?
————
You have quite an imagination Pedant.
Oh, and Pedant? If you want to advocate for homosexual adoption, just man up (or woman up) and do it instead of imagining straw men to fight.
So how many gay couples want to adopt children in foster care? No more than straight couples, I’d say. Most people don’t want to take on the challenge of children who may be “damaged” by their circumstances.
outlander
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Oh, and Pedant? If you want to advocate for homosexual adoption, just man up (or woman up) and do it instead of imagining straw men to fight.
—
I do, and I have.
There is no strawman at all in my post.
You, and people like you, are the people who have decided to wage war on the stability of homosexual couples. If you really cared about maximizing the adoption of children, you would stop that.
Pedant, you clearly speak from ignorance. You cannot speak for me. You don’t know my motives or position on this. BTW, how many children have you adopted?
Out of Christian love and duty, a couple we know are adopting two girls from foster care. They have children of their own already.
Pedant, you are being intentionally divisive on an issue where that is not helpful. Go peddle your dislike of religion somewhere else. We are talking about a solving a problem here.
I support anyone who is willing to adopt a child and give them a stable home…gay, straight, single, married, any race, creed, nationality, etc.
It’s a huge challenge and anyone willing to commit has more than earned my respect.
Bless your friends, Out. Too bad there aren’t more people in the world like them.
That is my last comment on this. I’m not going to allow responding to a personal attack detract anymore from an important issue.
outlander
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Pedant, you clearly speak from ignorance. You cannot speak for me. You don’t know my motives or position on this.
…you are being intentionally divisive on an issue where that is not helpful. Go peddle your dislike of religion somewhere else. We are talking about a solving a problem here.
—
And so am I.
So you are saying that you support adoption by homosexual couples?
Pendant..there are all sorts of ways you can get involved to help kids in need. I say put your money where your mouth is and just do it.
Yes Mary. They are amazing. People are sometimes stopped from taking action by worrying too much about the “what ifs”, instead of just having faith that they are doing the right thing and forging ahead. Not this couple.
Well, it appears to me that “solving a problem” fits in a hierarchy.
First wage war on the stability of homosexual couples, THEN “solve a problem.”
outlander, I apologize upfront if I have mischaracterized your personal views on this.
Have I?
To my knowledge there are only 5 states where there is an actual law against homosexuals adopting.
Kansas isn’t one of them.
I spent 7 years working with high risk kids and I know what the challenges are….my hats are off to the few people willing to make the effort it takes to bring these kids out of their situation. If there is a heaven, there has to be a special place in it for them.
Mr_Kia
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:51 am | Permalink
To my knowledge there are only 5 states where there is an actual law against homosexuals adopting.
Kansas isn’t one of them.
—
Yes, so again I ask.
If you’re truly interested in maximizing the adoption of children, why wage war on the stability of the relationship between a couple who are lawfully eligible to adopt children?
Why?
I know several gay couples who have adopted and provided stable homes for kids in need. God bless them.
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:53 am | Permalink
I spent 7 years working with high risk kids and I know what the challenges are….my hats are off to the few people willing to make the effort it takes to bring these kids out of their situation. If there is a heaven, there has to be a special place in it for them.
—
I second that, and without condition.
wage war?
Get off the cross,someone needs the wood.
Do you think that gay couples can’t be stable unless they’re allowed to get married? I’d say that’s giving a lot of power to forces outside their control. I know many gay couples who have been together for a long time and are very stable, regardless of the fact that they aren’t legally married. I’m all for gay marriage, but I don’t think the absence of it should make or break any couple in a committed relationship.
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:55 am | Permalink
I know several gay couples who have adopted and provided stable homes for kids in need. God bless them.
—
Yes.
But there could be more such couples, right?
Same sex couples are by definition not able to procreate, so to me it seems they’re a virtual wellspring of potential adoptors.
If maximizing the adoption of children is the goal, why do we suboptimize by waging war on the stability of such couples?
Mary_Caruso
Posted December 7, 2008 at 8:58 am | Permalink
I’m all for gay marriage, but I don’t think the absence of it should make or break any couple in a committed relationship.
—
No doubt.
But does the war being waged on gay marriage increase, or decrease, the number of children being adopted?
It can’t help: it must decrease this number.
I really don’t know…I know that there are gay couples who aren’t legally married and have adopted children. I don’t know that gays being married will increase the number of gay couples who are willing to adopt. It would be nice to think that it would. Lord knows we need homes for our children who don’t have families.
“Wichita’s nine child homicides this year or rushing to help Youthville place the 350 children awaiting adoption in Sedgwick County.”
Proof once again that straight people shouldnt be allowed to marry or have children. Look at their track record…
Well, look.
Does anybody doubt that the following scenario is repeated over and over and over, in every town and city in America?
One spouse or another, in a heterosexual couple, is in fact gay. However, due to family circumstances (including estate and tax implications) the gay partner chooses to remain married? Happens every day, right? (ans: yes, of course)
If these circumstances were to change, however — suddenly there were no estate or tax disadvantages to divorcing and remarrying in a homosexual marriage, and the cultural war being waged on homosexuality went away as well — then it seems logical to me that these heterosexual couples would divorce and new homosexual couples would be created.
Currently the creation of such new couples has low/no incentive, and adoption by such couples therefore can’t happen (because they don’t exist).
If homosexual couples enjoyed exactly the same secular rights as heterosexual couples, then more such new couples would be more likely to occur. More such couples could lead directly to more adoptions.
(In fact, the incidence of unwanted children OVERALL might actually decrease since much of the social pressure to appear heterosexual would go away, especially just as humans become capable of reproduction, in their early teen years.)
This is my argument: that the war being waged on homosexuality has AT LEAST one unintended consequence, lower than possible adoption rates in the US at large (and may actually result in more unintended pregnancies as well).
How many of us actually watch the programs on T.V. that tell of the plight of children in Africa or for that matter in our own country? The immediate impulse it to switch channels and often it is done without a conscious thought. This is as much a self indictment as it is of others, know the one from St. Judes?
I force myself on occasions to watch rather then give into the reaching for the remote. Yes it brings tears and a desire to do something, anything to stop the suffering or help.
But do I? The answer is for me to know at the end of the day not something that is for the approval of
or damning of others. It is my mind that has to rest on the pillow in my bed with the answer.
“Proof once again that straight people shouldnt be allowed to marry or have children. Look at their track record…” — chicken lady
I doubt if it is any worse than the records of gays who father or bear children. I suspect it is much better.
And do child homicides include 16-year-olds shooting it out on the street with Glocks. Bet it does.
“I doubt if it is any worse than the records of gays who father or bear children. I suspect it is much better.”
Proof? Or just bloviating?
Prove it otherwise. Since gays have higher incidences of mental issues (because we don’t accept them) I assmue that would cause problems.
And remember, your parents were likely straight.
You can take that however you wish, chicken lady.
I hate stories like this.
We take one good quality, (compassion for animals) and weigh it against another and find then somehow something wrong with the former. Why can’t we CELEBRATE compassion for animals AND bemoan the perceived lack of compassion for kids in peril?
“I hate stories like this.
“We take one good quality, (compassion for animals) and weigh it against another and find then somehow something wrong with the former. Why can’t we CELEBRATE compassion for animals AND bemoan the perceived lack of compassion for kids in peril?”
I strongly agree with this statement. It is simplistic bloviating to look at concern for animals and then translate it to lack of concern for children. As was pointed out by Mary, there is an enormous difference in commitment between taking on an animal (e.g., a dog) and taking on a child. And yet, what I find is that people who do one are likely to do the other. For example, people who adopt children, particularly at risk children, also adopt animals. The concern and compassion that motivates one motivates the other. The apples and oranges comparison simply doesn’t highlight a contradiction, it simply makes people feel guilty for the compassion they express (if it is expressed to animals).
And outlander, there was an absolutely excellent editorial in the Eagle this week that pointed out that simplistic nature of the absolutist pro-life position, one that equates a fertilized egg and genetic individuality with personhood. One way, not the only way but one way, to reduce the horror of children going from foster home to foster home is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and assisting people who shouldn’t have children in the first place in either giving them up for adoption, or not having them. I am all for people who advocate adoption over abortion (and there ARE pro-life activists who walk this walk, they are some of the best people I have ever known), as long as the latter remains an option for women, particularly in the early months. Maggotpunks pointing out the horrible act committed by stupid, short sighted voters in Arkansas is also worth noting. Those nitwits sacrificed the marginal well being of children in the name of moralistic prejudice, and damn right that moralistic prejudice was fanned by Christian Rightists.
For one, you pick up a stray dog, give it food, water, and a warm shelter, and it will usually give you a lot of affection. Unfortunately kids need more than food, water, and a warm bed to sleep in, before they become respectful and loving to their new adoptive parents. You don’t have to drop a dog off at school, help it with it’s homework, and a long endless list of differences between dogs and people. Now maybe if you said homeless people instead of kids, then the article would have made more sense. Hell, go up to a homeless person and leave them a bowl of food and water and give them a couple of wool blankets, and you might as well name him while your at it.
Heheheh. So beber, that would be a no on proof for your bloviating.
“Since gays have higher incidences of mental issues”
I dont suppose you have any proof for that either?
nitwit
“Prove it otherwise.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Debate 101. You make the assertion, you prove it.
nitwit
I didn’t make an assertion. I enunciated a suspicion. Retake the class. We’ve been through this before. I’ve done my research. Let me restate that: As a group gays have more mental and health problems than straights and they live shorter lives. What you always forget, chicken lady, is gays include gay males, whom you don’t really give a damn about, but you have to bring them along for the ride so you can marry your honey.
As for Lesbians, they are probably less apt to spread STDs than heterosexuals and male homosexuals, if it weren’t for their higher rate of poking themselves with needles. They also have higher rates of alcoholism than the general population, and again, it’s because (we don’t accept them.)
“beber” –
Left-handers have shorter lifespans than righties.
Perhaps we should vote to deny southpaws equal rights.
Farm Gal,
Actually, children adopted by gay couples are considerably more at risk of being targeted by school bullies, and Beber and crew are working overtime painting those targets on them.
Oh Pul-eeze!
“We’ve been through this before. I’ve done my research. Let me restate that: As a group gays have more mental and health problems than straights and they live shorter lives.”
Typical nut case. It’s true because he says it is true. No link. No sources, no nothing.
Except the know-nothing’s opinion.
And you did make the assertion. Now let’s see you back it up. Unless… you really are a crack pot crack head…
crack pot crack head.
Now there’s the pot calling the kettle black.
heheheheheheheheheheheh
The following two videos are a plea for legislators to pass Kate’s law, a law that will demand insurance companies start covering therapies for autistic spectrum disorders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GED__j1WYhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yoWlmS7bjo&feature=related
My son’s doctor is featured on the first segment. And some of those kids are my son’s friends.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to help animals but I think that there are many people who do put animals over people. Micheal Vick was demonized for killing a dog and I’m not defending him but theirs people who kill other people who get less jail time than Vick. Theirs other sports stars who have killed people, beat their wives, drove drunk or on drugs and for the most part the public is silent yet in Vicks case the public screamed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603521.htm
“The number of young homosexual men being newly diagnosed with HIV infection is rising by 12 percent a year, with the steepest upward trend in young black men, according to a new report.
The double-digit increase in young gay men is about 10 times higher than in the homosexual community overall, where the number of new infections is going up about 1.5 percent a year.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/101682.php
“The odds of substance use for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) youth are on average 190 percent higher than for heterosexual youth, according to a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers published in the current issue of Addiction. What’s more, for some sub-populations of LGB youth, the odds were substantially higher, including 340 percent for bisexual youth and 400 percent for lesbians, researchers found. “
. “
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayteens/a/gaysuicide.htm
“Did you know that according to the Center for Disease Control/Massachusetts Department of Education Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide? In fact, gay teen suicide attempts are four times that of heterosexual youth.”
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10849
“Gay suicide risk: High rates of suicide have consistently been reported among homosexuals, particularly among adolescents and young adults. A 1989 report concluded that “gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30% of completed youth suicides annually.”
In 1999 it was reported in two independent studies (one of twins in the U.S. and the other with 21-year follow-up in New Zealand) that homosexual and bisexual men and women are at greater risk of suicidal ideation and overall mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts.“
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/10083242-0442-4250-8754-223295C8F8E1.asp?wk=1
“The sexual health of gay and bisexual men in England and Wales deteriorated rapidly between 1997 and 2002, according to an examination of recent trends in diagnoses of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) that was recently published in the the online edition of Sexually Transmitted Infections. In addition, compared with heterosexual men, in 2002, gay and bisexual men were twice as likely to be diagnosed with genital warts, herpes or chlamydia, eight-times as likely to be diagnosed with gonorrhoea, and greater than 50-times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV or syphilis. “
No wonder you want benefits.
Why as a society are we more quick to turn in abuse of animals than we are abuse of children? Its a good argument. And I absolutely agree that we should be looking more at helping other humans than animals….but both do deserve to be treated well.
Would gay couples adopt more foster kids? I don’t know. But itd sure be nice if they had the option.
Just remember today’s throw-away kids are tomorrow’s inmates. I would love to adopt a foster child, but I’ve really got my hands full with my own.
Blacks are also facing an epidemic in AIDS increases, their life spans are shorter. Does your study mean that they shouldn’t be parents too?
Get over yourself Beber. You’re even more freaky than any other group with your self admission of getting turned on by pubescent girls. It is no secret that adolescence is no picnic for gay kids. Teaching acceptance of them will result in fewer suicides. That doesn’t mean they have a mental disorder.
Ask chicken lady about being turned on by pubescent girls; she gets the toaster oven. And almost all men on the planet are turned on by pubescent girls. It’s the shape. It’s been proven in hardonometer trials. Unless of course, you are homosexual. Why do I get dissed for simply telling you what’s true? And remember, I’ve seen your picture too.
Chicken lady asked me to put up or shut up. I put up. And the whine that homosexuals are maladjusted because we don’t accept them is bull crap. It certainly didn’t take you long to trot that crap out.
Mean teachers are doing it. Bah!
No, real men do not get turned on by pubescent girls. Not unless they have something wrong upstairs.
What does seeing my picture have to do with any of this? Because I’ve seen yours?
And yes, any kid that gets bullied and treated poorly is going to have more trouble adjusting in society. This is true of fat kids, of handicapped kids, and of gay kids. Most of those get support from family while gay kids are also more likely to be shunned from religious or intolerant families. They have lost ALL their support systems.
Political_mama
Posted December 7, 2008 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
No, real men do not get turned on by pubescent girls. Not unless they have something wrong upstairs.
=================
One of the few times I agree with Pmom.
Pre-pubescent girls are sweet little things to be protected and nurtured into women. How anyone can abuse innocence is beyond my thinking.
“What does seeing my picture have to do with any of this? Because I’ve seen yours?” — p.m.
Pre-emption; I can predict every single move you make.
In Ks. once a kid has been delivered, it’s on its own!
And once they can pour their own Corn Flakes, so is parenting.
“Why as a society are we more quick to turn in abuse of animals than we are abuse of children? Its a good argument. And I absolutely agree that we should be looking more at helping other humans than animals….but both do deserve to be treated well.”
Like I said, people who are quick to turn in one are quicker to turn in the other. Compassion is compassion.
Re: beber
DNFTT
Beber,
The problem with your stats is that it was a measurement of gays and blacks. Nothing in there about straight, white men or women. AIDS hasn’t been a gays-only disease for a long, long time. I serioiusly doubt the stats for straight white men and straight white women has been static.
Read the rest of the site, predestined.
In researching this, I found out things that surprised even me, such as heterosexual AIDS is largely a myth. At least that’s what some people are saying. As with many hot topics, finding the facts is obscured by advocacy. If the comparisons to the heterosexual community do not exist in the first citation, it is probably for reasons of “political correctness.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1DC1F3BF93BA15753C1A960948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
In New York City, 156, or 2 percent, of the 7,696 AIDS cases totaled as of Sept. 15 were attributed to heterosexual contact. But among cases reported in the first nine months of 1986, the proportion has dropped to below 1 percent. Eighty percent of these patients are black or Hispanic. (Cases of presumed heterosexual origin among immigrants are excluded from these figures.) Of those 156 patients, 154 are women and only 2 are men, leading New York health officials to argue -against the grain of much expert opinion elsewhere – that passage of the virus from female to male in intercourse is extremely rare.
Anyway, I quit, and so do you. I recognize that most people on this blog are incurious and incapable of incorporating into their thought that which contradicts their preconceptions or makes their soap boxes slippery.
Oh, and:
Cockadoodle-doo.
“I recognize that most people on this blog are incurious and incapable of incorporating into their thought that which contradicts their preconceptions or makes their soap boxes slippery.”
Does that include thinking that any grown man who gets turned on by young girls is sick?
“heterosexual AIDS is largely a myth.”
That’s stupid..I don’t know where you did your “research”, but I can assure you that there are many heterosexual IV drug addicts who are HIV positve.
Notwithstanding dumb arguments, couples who want to adopt should be judged on their own merits. That doesn’t happen, due to dumb prejudices and stupid laws.
KANSAS CITY, MO – The American Civil Liberties Union today asked a Jackson County Circuit Court judge to overturn the Missouri Department of Social Services decision that denied a woman’s application to become a foster parent because she is a lesbian. The denial came in spite of an administrative judge’s opinion that she was “”exceptionally”" qualified.
More here:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/21258prs20051103.html
That’s stupid..I don’t know where you did your “research”, but I can assure you that there are many heterosexual IV drug addicts who are HIV positve.
HIV is a virus. It doesn’t care who it infects. In we lived in Zimbabwe, Bumbler could argue (equally incorrectly) that homosexual AIDS was largely a myth, and it’d be just as pointless.
Ryan white and magic Johnson aren’t gay
I think Beber creates his own reality just as much as the fundies do.
Correct, sharing needles to inject drugs can transmit AIDS. What does that have to do with heterosexual sex?
Cockadoodle-doo.
See, your preconception is that there is a great danger than AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex. For males, the chance that can happen is almost zero, for females, sadly, somewhat higher, but still much lower than the chances of getting the disease from homosexual sex among males. That’s reality. I’ve proven everything I said was true is true. Where are you chicken lady? Cockadoodle-doo.
Who the hell is Ryan White? As for Magic Johnson, well think of the last name. And how do you know?
There is risk. All fluids and blood carry the virus. Say you and the woman go at it a little rough, and the friction causes an open area. Or anything can cause a break in the skin in the vaginal/penal region because the skin is fragile there. All it takes is a wound that WEEPS, not even bleeds. Think about all the bumping and grinding- and you tell me how you think heterosexual sex is oh so safe. Add oral into it and you’ve just opened a whole new area. Add heterosexual anal, and the game is over.
The blood supply to both male and female genitalia is rich, and it doesn’t take much to gain infection.
You don’t understand the qualification “largely” do you, p.m? Of course AIDS can be transmitted heterosexualy, if you care to ball until your dick is lacerated. But there is one thing I know for certain. No one on this blog will do any reading except from the wells of their own imaginations.
The fact remains, in this country, AIDS is largely a disease of male homosexuals and drug users who shoot up. Now clap, there’s a different story.
No M.C., that includes thinking that any man who does not get turned on by youth and beauty is sick.
Let’s take Regular’s statement that the proper response to pubecent females is the urge to protect. Protect them from what? Is the response the same for the pubescent male? No, the reason the protective response is activated is because the male recognizes the budding sexuality of very young women and wants to protect them from sex. Thus he has responded sexually.
As Father taught me: “Some people are too stupid to pound sand down a rathole.”
Uh, that’s about the most twisted justification for a perverse ideology that I think I’ve ever heard.
So, by your rationale, my desire to protect my children is based on sexual desire? Gee, that’s odd, I didn’t feel any arousal state when I shooed my kid away from the highway the other day.
I feel a protection of elderly people too, and disabled…does that make me sexually attracted to them?
The honest truth is that Beber, you should NOT be turned on by kids. There is no justification of it whatsoever.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346857
Because we know that African Americans are also most likely to be homosexuals?
I don’t think so.
Bebe,
Are you sure your father wasn’t talking about you?
There is a big difference between the dogs at the pound and the kids in foster care.
The dogs at the pound were tossed out like garbage by someone that “didn’t want a dog anymore”, or just “wanted a different dog”, or “had too many dogs”.
The kids in foster care,(most of them) were kidnapped by the State, from their parents who love them and want them. They were taken from their crying, pleading mother(or father) because the State wanted to “save” them because they looked a little skinny, or a little dirty, or their parents worked too many hours, or a vengeful relative or neighbor or ex filed a false report, or whatever. Then the State gets enormous grants from the Federal Government to care for the kidnapped children, (while collecting child support from the parents in ridiculously inflated amounts) and when the parents in their efforts to comply with the family courts orders in hopes of getting their kids back have spent all their money, lost their jobs, and lost their homes, the State labels them UNFIT and puts the kids up for adoption (which earns the State another huge bonus)and then cries to the media about “all these poor homeless kids” that need support from YOU!!! Supporting the kids in foster care enables the State to keep on destroying innocent, loving families!!!!!
Supporting the humane society keeps a lot of animals from suffering. the government does not help the humane society, they rely solely on private donations.
Why does the editorial board think there is no equal compassion about murdered or neglected Children? There has always been an outpour of emotion when a child is murdered. When a family loses their home, or when there is a situation when one of the parents is lost, there is always a fund raiser and people give generously. They are many social agency’s that help children. From Big Brothers and Sisters, The Wichita Children Homes, Segwick County Com Care, Wichita Woman’s Cris Center, Kansas Children’s Service League, YMCA, Rainbows United, Catholic Charities, Youth Crisis Center, & Safe Homes just to name a few. With the things that us as Human’s do to each other we need even more. But to compare helping another living thing on this earth such as an animal, who has no one to speak for them, especially when it is usually Humans that cause their injures and deaths, to want to help them when a situation arises, in no way takes away from the concern for injured, murdered or orphaned children here in Kansas.
No. P.m., Regular’s desire to protect your pubescent female children is based not on arousal, but his recognition that they are of sexual age. How does he know that? He looks at their tits and ass just like I do, and every male on the planet. And why does everything always have to be about you?
AIDS is a hetererosexual disease in much of the world, including and especially Africa, where there are literally millions of AIDS orphans.
“What does that have to do with heterosexual sex?”
YOU stated that “heterosexual aids is largely a myth”. You’re wrong and now you’re just back tracking.
And any man who is looking at a little girls “tits and ass” is a pervert. You make me sick.
Here’s the thing about HIV/AIDS when it comes to funding research and cures vs. other deadly diseases (Cancer, ALS, the list could go on forever)…it is near 100% avoidable.
Good, M.C., I hope it’s fatal. By the way, plethysmograph test show that many normal heterosexual men with no criminal records respond as strongly as convicted child molesters to child pornography. I repeat, how do you know a girl is pubescent? You observe their secondary sexual characteristics. You too, M.C. look at their tits and asses. The sickness is in denial.
In addition, it would be really hard to navigate in Wal-Mart if we did not observe other people. Some of them have nices asses. Ask chicken lady.
But why argue with people to dumb to pound sand in a rathole? You might as well try to tell an Orthadox Jew that it’s O.K. to eat ham.
While I won’t vouch for the validity of this site, if what the authors say is true, another of your cherished myths about AIDS is dumped on.
http://www.mfc.org/SOS/AIDS%20Epidemic/The%20African%20heterosexual%20AIDS%20myth.pdf
The African heterosexual AIDS myth
Michael Fumento (archive)
April 14, 2005
Ninety-nine percent of AIDS and HIV cases in Africa come from sexual transmission,
virtually all heterosexual. So says the World Health Organization, with other agencies
toeing the line. Massive condom airdrops accompanied by a persuasive propaganda
campaign would practically make the epidemic vanish overnight. Or would it?
A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years – with little success
– to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from
sexual intercourse and most of that is anal. By ignoring the real vectors, they say, we’re
sacrificing literally millions of people.
I’ve thought the same thing about the African statistics myself for some time, that they simply can’t be accounted for by heterosex. Either that, or there’s a hell of a lot of ass-pumping going on. Very possible, from what I observed of my African-
American co-inmates in my old STRATCOM company.
“tits and ass”
====================
Man, I love those things.
“…talk about mud flaps, my gal’s got ‘em!”-Spinal Tap
You are one sick fuck.