Posts by Adam Collins4

This right here is the ultimate proof of what the Republican Party actually stands for—and honestly, it’s a massive reality check for all those forum trolls who claim they "didn't see this coming."

It’s always about self-interest and clinging to power at any cost... if Slobodan Maddox were running for their nomination today, those same traitorous losers would still be voting for their precious Republican Party establishment without blinking an eye.

hollowmason64 said:Just a little bit of trivia for you—the biggest economic boom in our history actually happened under the Ivica Račan administration.
I know this isn't exactly your cup of tea, and you probably don't have the bandwidth to dive into it right now, but... those old-school Democrats were actually quite successful at what they did. 😁

Not exactly...

Growth was pretty much steady during the George W. Bush era too...

gentlemoose57 said:

Well, hold on now—take medicine, for instance; it has already made it possible for women to conceive using donor gametes (both sperm and eggs).

And that applies to straight couples.

It’s a perfectly standard, common practice these days.

That very same medical science has also opened the door to surrogacy—whether it's for straight couples where the woman can't carry a pregnancy, or even for MM couples, and so on. Of course, you won't find that happening here in the States...🤦
Well, hold on now—take medicine, for instance; it has already made it possible for women to conceive using donor gametes (both sperm and eggs).

And that applies to straight couples.

It’s a perfectly standard, common practice these days.

That very same medical science has also opened the door to surrogacy—whether it's for straight couples where the woman can't carry a pregnancy, or even for MM couples, and so on. Of course, you won't find that happening here in the States...🤦
No, that’s thanks to the law... not medicine...😉

Because let's be real—two men cannot have a biological child together... unless you think all of modern medicine is going to suddenly flip upside down and find a way to make that happen...

Unless you change the legal framework... so, honestly, you've drawn the wrong conclusion from your own premise...

hollowmason64 said:What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.

And how exactly would he go about regulating that?

Who says someone wouldn't just tighten up the regulations to shut down those arguments entirely?

You're just throwing out assumptions now—no actual arguments to back them up...

hollowmason64 said:What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.

Look, let’s just focus on what I was actually getting at here...😉

Look, you’ve gone and gotten yourself tangled up in that original thesis again—the one we already established was totally debunked...

hollowmason64 said:What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.

Nah, you aren't proving anything...

Unless you're trying to argue that sexual orientation is just another illness on par with everything else...☕

Look, let’s be real—infertility isn't some permanent sentence. Science actually moves faster than most people realize, and there's a genuine chance for people to have kids when they thought the door was slammed shut. It’s all about the right treatment.

When it comes to same-sex couples, that option just isn't on the table... there’s no miracle of nature or medical breakthrough out there that can hand them a child.

hollowmason64 said:What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.

🤣

To whole "cause and effect" thing—and the idea of having a logical flow to an argument—is clearly a foreign concept to you...

Honestly, if you want proof of how completely detached from reality your reasoning is, just look at that ridiculous outburst regarding mothers dying during childbirth...

That’s like me turning around and claiming abandoned kids don't need families because, hey, they technically had one for a split second once...

Look, it’s the system's job to deal with parents who aren't fit for the task...

It shouldn't be about you twisting premises around just to justify giving kids away whenever people make mistakes like that...

A kid needs a mother and a father... not two guys who got bored with their lifestyle and decided to have kids just to satisfy some selfish whim...

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

Sure, anyone can ask for whatever they want... the catch is the legal framework...

And again, they're just looking out for themselves—they want something they simply cannot have through natural means... at all.

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

There is absolutely no way to know that for sure...😉

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

You've got your wires crossed here... first off, I never claimed my lifestyle was a guarantee for anything...

Second—and this is important—couples dealing with infertility are facing a medical condition. Now, if I wanted to play your game, I could twist the narrative and start linking homosexuality to illness...😉

So, using sick hetero couples as an argument against a gay population that wants to have kids is just a complete miss...

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

Once again, you're just swapping arguments and throwing out fallacies...

It is not the same thing when you actually HAD a mother versus when you never had one in your life... and it's certainly different when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

And here we go again—it’s always about the system, the system, the system... look, you can't just point to some systemic glitch or one person's individual failings and try to use that as a justification for gay couples and their adoption rights...

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

In my view, that's your first flawed premise right there...

Because if the system were actually functioning properly, you wouldn't have these "broken" kids in the first place... instead, the system would be doing its job through its employees to ensure kids develop normally—not like the example you gave...

Or mine—where a kid nearly three years old is practically screaming unless every single lightbulb in the house is turned on when it's dark... one was a situation you could actually work toward improving, while the other was an absolute nightmare until we finally sorted things out...

And honestly, the best part is that the fear wasn't caused by the other kids—it was quite literally the fault of the system itself...

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

The issue is that they don't share the same lifestyle, the same values, or even the same worldview... or any kind of shared perspective on life...

You were recently talking about people only looking out for their own interests...

And frankly, the only adoptive parents I see who are purely looking out for themselves are gay couples... mostly because it's the only way they can have kids...

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

And again, it comes back to the system being the problem...

The answer isn't to hand children over to just anyone or letting just anyone have them... it's about the system reacting promptly and effectively...

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

No, their life isn't "equal" to mine... okay, maybe "equal" isn't even the right word here...

But if our lives were truly identical, we could have children... but we can't...

So, there's no parallel to be drawn...

I can do everything they can, but they can't do everything I can...

And what about a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

P.S. I wasn't talking specifically about this one couple...

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, most of these kids are just deeply messed up.
Some close family friends of mine just adopted a seven-year-old kid, and man, it’s been quite an eye-opener. They actually had to start from scratch just teaching him how to eat properly. It sounds intense, but he was basically just shoveling food down his throat without even chewing. I think it was that constant fear of someone snatching his plate away—just pure survival instinct. I actually witnessed it myself once, and it was heartbreaking to watch him start choking because he was rushing so much.
He’s such a great kid now, really grown into himself. He’s actually in med school, which is impressive. But man, you aren't kidding—it felt like it took everything we had to raise him right and turn him into the man he is today.
And honestly, I’ve got nothing but respect for anyone stepping up to take this on head-on, regardless of who they are or what their deal is.

That Smith guy is such a social misfit. Honestly, whenever I have to sit through one of his speeches or catch him on the news, I get this overwhelming sensation like he’s walking around with a broomstick shoved right up his backside. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

Even if the system gets its act together tomorrow and starts running as smooth as a newborn's sleep schedule, we’re still stuck with the reality that certain kids aren't considered "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh—maybe even ugly—but it’s just the truth of how things work. It makes me wonder why we don't just put those children in front of people who genuinely want to give them a home, regardless of their age, where they come from, or what kind of emotional trauma they've been through.

What's the harm if a kid spends a couple of years in foster care and then, once the option for adoption opens up, they just get to officially adopt them? It seems like a pretty natural progression to me.
So, I've been sitting here thinking about this, and it really gets to you. Do you honestly think the better solution is just ripping that kid away from their family? Or should we just leave them in that home and hope for the best—hoping someone else might actually want them? Because if they don't... well, screw it, you just didn't get lucky. You turn eighteen and suddenly you're just tossed out onto the street. It's a heavy thing to weigh up.
Honestly, sometimes when I see the kind of people who have children—or more accurately, what absolute morons are raising kids and how they treat them—I feel like it would be better if any random person just stepped in and took them away, rather than leaving them with parents like that. It just makes you think about those crazy individuals who throw kids off balconies... because, well, they finally got what was coming to them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... just like I don't have an issue with religious folks or anyone else who doesn't think exactly like I do...

As long as they don't start trying to convince me that their lifestyle, their views, and their attitudes are the only right way to live... then we’ve got a problem.

I haven't seen them trying to convince anyone that their way of life is the only correct one. What kind of nonsense is that?
They just claim that their way of life is just as valid as yours.

My involvement in this topic started pretty simply, when I asked why it was such a huge scandal when someone at a carnival burns effigies of a gay couple..

The biggest outcry here was actually about burning a child alongside that gay couple. Which, if you ask me, is just freaking sick. Only a complete psychopath could find joy in burning a child.

I don't know, somehow the loudest outrage seems to be focused on the gay couple...

If this weren't a carnival, I'd condemn it...

Since it *is* a carnival, it passes as satire—just like how person's "performances" pass as art, I guess...

Just apply the same standard to everyone... nothing more than that...

hollowmason64 said:When I mentioned believers, I wasn't talking about you personally. I was referring to those various organizations and individuals who constantly parade their Christianity around, acting like everything happens because "it's God's will." Honestly, I find it hard to believe that God actually wants any child to grow up in a foster home without parents. It feels like they just love pinning all sorts of things on Him to justify whatever they want.
I’ve gotta say, I’m totally with you on this one. You have my full support.

I’ve been chewing on this idea lately—the thought that maybe heterosexual couples should be given some kind of priority. But then I hit a wall, because if we go down that road, aren't we just stepping on the toes of single people? It feels like a slippery slope. Think about it: if we start prioritizing certain types of unions, does that imply that single parents are somehow less capable of raising their biological children? Or that kids growing up in a two-parent household are automatically going to be happier? Honestly, they aren't. I've seen enough to know that isn't always the case. You see stories pop up all the time about the absolute nightmares kids endure within what society calls those "ideal" traditional families. It’s definitely not as simple as it looks on paper.

Honestly, the idea that pairing up with someone of the opposite sex is some kind of guaranteed way to have a baby is just pure nonsense. It’s not like there's any certainty you'll actually be able to conceive just because you fit that mold. That's exactly why you see so many heterosexual couples looking into adoption—because, at the end of the day, they can't have biological children of their own.
Maybe you should try doing a little more reading or catching a few news segments lately. It’s worth listening to what the adults who actually grew up in the foster care system have to say about their experiences today. I saw one woman being interviewed recently, and she said something that really stuck with me. She mentioned that if she could have chosen her own path leaving the system, she wouldn't have just left with two guys—she would have happily taken an octopus and a man along with her, just if it meant finally having a place to call her own. It really puts things into perspective when you hear how much people crave that sense of stability.

Honestly, you guys are really starting to frustrate me. It feels like everyone is just looking out for their own interests and focusing on what makes them feel comfortable, rather than actually thinking about what’s best for these kids. If we really sat down and thought about this, wouldn't it be better for them to stay in the foster system until they turn 18 and then head out into the world? Or better yet, find their way into a loving same-sex household where parents will actually cherish them, raise them right, and provide some real stability. At the end of the day, those kids just need to know they have someone in their corner who truly cares about them.

I’m right there with you on this—we absolutely need to simplify the whole process. Honestly, the current rule is completely backwards. The idea that a parent can just make one phone call every three months to check in on a kid, and suddenly that's enough to block an adoption, is totally broken. I wouldn't go as far as calling it idiotic, though it certainly feels that way sometimes.
The real issue here is that because of this kind of stupidity, so many kids have already aged out of being "desirable" for adoption. It sounds harsh, I know, but that’s just the reality of the system. A former classmate of mine actually works within the foster care network, and she’s told me firsthand that everyone is looking to adopt infants or, at most, kids who haven't hit preschool age yet.
I've been thinking about this lately, and honestly, why aren't we just placing these kids with people who actually want to give them a real home? It shouldn't matter if it's a single parent or a gay couple looking to adopt. At the end of the day, having a family that genuinely wants you is so much better than growing up in the foster care system. There’s just no substitute for a real home environment.
It honestly doesn't matter if Džoni, Alfijo, or some guy named Perry happens to like the idea or not. What actually matters is making sure those kids aren't stuck in a group home. I think you’d have to agree with me that keeping children out of state care is way more important than whether or not an idea sits well with someone.

It’s not about being blind to your own shortcomings—it’s about how incredibly sluggish this whole system is and the deep-seated issues baked right into its foundation.

It’s not just about adoption and foster care, either—this goes much deeper than that. It’s true across every single layer of the bureaucracy that is supposed to actually serve the citizens of this country...

But look, the answer isn't just throwing kids at the first person who happens to wander by...

Someone put it pretty well—first we focus on getting everyone settled in at home, but then what? What comes after that?

Especially when you consider that this gay couple actually tried to seize control of everything—and then, after getting shut down, they went ahead and sued the USA, all while the court case is still dragging on indefinitely...

Personally, I don't have an issue with gay people... and honestly, I don't have anything against religious folks or anyone else who doesn't see eye to eye with me either.

It’s fine until they start trying to sell me on the idea that their lifestyle, their opinions, and their entire worldview is the only "correct" way to live—once they hit that point, we’ve got a serious problem on our hands.

My involvement in this whole thing started out pretty simple—I just asked why everyone loses their minds when someone burns effigies at a parade, claiming it’s "offensive," yet they call it satire. But then you see the exact same people who are acting all outraged by the bonfire suddenly jumping to defend stuff like Frljić’s antics, or those insane stories about Jesus violating a Muslim woman, or even pulling a flag out of a woman's anatomy... and they claim *that's* culture. It's a joke.

Chloe Martinez7 said:🤣

So, you lecture me on how I can't distinguish between terms, and then you use my own ADOPTION as an argument regarding FOSTERING... unbelievable...

Try to focus, please. You pulled the argument that children should be given to gay couples because straight people won't foster them... yet you haven't provided any actual reasoning for that...

Besides, how many times does it need to be said? That gay couple is trying to adopt first... and they're currently in court with the USA over that very issue...[/I]

Are you even capable of answering the post you're quoting?

I am not lecturing you, nor am I using your adoption against you.
Rather, since you have firsthand experience with adoption—and since you claimed to be coherent and logical—you can answer your own question about whether I (or anyone else) understand why kids aren't being fostered.

And we aren't talking about whether they wanted to adopt versus foster; we are specifically clarifying why straight couples aren't fostering children.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
If you don't have a coherent answer to that question, please just skip this thread.

Where is the evidence for that last sentence?☕[/I]

It's an assumption.
If someone has cleared everything and met all the requirements to adopt a child, then I assume the same applies to fostering.

I might be assuming incorrectly, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
I didn't go into great detail, because the people I know who adopted children simply adopted them; there was no need to look into the fostering process.

It’s fascinating how you start off acting like an expert, only to get completely tangled up in your own logic...

Well, at least you finally admitted you're just throwing out generalizations and guesses.

So, let me ask again: how am I supposed to "enlighten" you when I've been through the adoption process, not foster care?

To draw a real parallel or make a fair comparison, I’d actually have to go through both processes myself...

It’s honestly kind of pathetic—first you try to lecture me on the differences between the two systems, then you admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and now you're looking for an explanation from the one person who can't possibly give it to you.

Wait, weren't you the one who wrote about working for years with certain professionals without even knowing how to spell their actual job titles or academic degrees?

Chloe Martinez7 said:Adoption wasn't even on the table for them.
They opted for fostering instead ☕
and the CZZS totally botched it.
The process was nearly finished, but then they went and shut it down for no reason.

So, what's this argument about hetero couples adopting but refusing to foster???
What more evidence do you need when foster homes are overflowing with abandoned kids?

Why aren't they being fostered by hetero couples if they already cleared the entire legal hurdle for adoption?
I mean, if they're deemed fit to adopt, they're obviously fit to foster, too.

Where is the evidence for that last sentence in the post?☕

Chloe Martinez7 said:Well, I haven't the slightest idea, so please, be my guest and explain it to me and the rest of us readers, seeing as you've apparently been through the whole process yourself.

I'm more interested in why children aren't finding homes.
That's what we're discussing here.
As for why fewer kids are being adopted, I think I have a handle on that.

🤣

So, let me get this straight—you're lecturing me about how I can't distinguish between terms, and then you have the nerve to use my own ADOPTION experience as some kind of leverage for your question about FOSTER CARE... unbelievable...

Try to actually focus for once. You guys brought up the idea that kids should be handed over to gay couples because straight people won't step up... yet you haven't provided a single shred of actual logic to back that up...

Besides, how many times do I have to repeat myself? That gay couple is trying to adopt first... and they're still tied up in court with the federal government over the whole issue...

Chloe Martinez7 said:And?
What's the issue?

Where are all those straight couples who are supposed to be fostering kids from the system?

Besides, it doesn't really matter if you call it marriage, a domestic partnership, or if people just live together without any official paperwork.
Screw your definitions.

And if straight couples don't step up to foster kids in a few years, then fine—let gay couples do it.
Or singles.
And...
Whoever passes all those tests and background checks required for adoption.

Not a fan of my take?
I couldn't care less.
Just organize the fostering and empty out the group homes.☕

Do you even have a clue why those kids aren't being fostered or adopted in the first place?

Chloe Martinez7 said:Maybe try doing a little research before you start typing?

There is a massive difference between adoption and foster care.
A huge number of straight couples in the US would adopt, but they won't foster.
The ruling actually favors gay couples for fostering because of certain legal violations that have nothing to do with sexuality itself.

Fine, I agree, children should probably go to straight couples first.☕
But why does the USA still have orphanages?
All these kids currently sitting in state facilities—aren't they supposed to be going into foster care?
Where are all those straight couples then?

No shit, Sherlock?

Look, you need to grasp that I never actually claimed one of those terms didn't exist or that they were the same thing...😉

What I'm telling you—for the record—is that they FIRST tried to ADOPT... back in 2016...

And they SUED America because they couldn't make it happen... that court case is STILL pending...

Chloe Martinez7 said:Maybe try doing a little research before you start typing?

There is a massive difference between adoption and foster care.
A huge number of straight couples in the US would adopt, but they won't foster.
The ruling actually favors gay couples for fostering because of certain legal violations that have nothing to do with sexuality itself.

Fine, I agree, children should probably go to straight couples first.☕
But why does the USA still have orphanages?
All these kids currently sitting in state facilities—aren't they supposed to be going into foster care?
Where are all those straight couples then?

Give me one solid argument for this claim that a huge crowd of hetero couples would adopt, but refuse to foster...☕

George Martin2 said:Look, let’s get one thing straight. The very first post you aggressively jumped on from that user "odakusa" was actually discussing how certain groups of children—specifically those with developmental disabilities, older kids, or children from minority backgrounds—are much harder for potential adoptive parents to commit to. If there isn't interest from a straight couple in those specific cases, then you're just creating a total straw man argument by framing it as this false dilemma between whether a child should be adopted by a straight or a gay couple. It's a complete logical fallacy.

It seems people are looking for more than just policy tweaks or economic shifts—they’re actually craving genuine connection. It sounds a bit cliché, I know, but there’s this growing sentiment that we’ve become too transactional in our daily lives. We focus so much on the numbers, the logistics, and the structural integrity of our society that we forget the actual glue holding everything together: empathy and affection. I was thinking about this earlier while watching some news coverage, and it struck me how often we treat social issues like math problems. You can’t solve loneliness or societal fragmentation with a spreadsheet. You can’t legislate "love" into existence, though politicians certainly love to pretend they have a plan for it. There’s a certain bluntness to the reality here. We want stability, sure, but we also want to feel seen. If we don't address the emotional vacuum in our modern culture, all the political maneuvering in the world won't fix the underlying rot. It’s a messy, unquantifiable variable, which is exactly why most people in power tend to ignore it. They prefer things they can measure, even if what they're measuring isn't actually what matters most.
I just stumbled upon this report from the news, and honestly, it’s enough to make your skin crawl. We’re looking at a case where someone—and I won't dwell on the specifics to spare us all the nausea—is essentially trying to claim ownership over a child. It’s a legal nightmare wrapped in a moral catastrophe. It’s one of those situations that makes you question how our judicial systems actually function. You read these things and you start wondering if the laws meant to protect the most vulnerable among us are being treated like mere suggestions by people with twisted motives. It isn't just about a disagreement over custody; it feels much more predatory than that. It feels like an attempt to strip away a human being's agency entirely. I know, I know, I tend to get a bit worked up about these systemic failures, and maybe I should mind my own business, but how can you not? When the institutions designed to act as a safety net seem to be tripping over their own feet while someone tries to "possess" a minor, it’s hard to stay quiet. It’s messy, it’s infuriating, and frankly, it’s a dark reflection of how easily power can be abused when nobody is watching closely enough.
You have people from within the establishment actually speaking up about this.

Wait, seriously, how many times do I have to repeat the exact same thing before it actually sinks in?

Have you guys actually provided any solid evidence that there wasn't interest in these kids until some gay couple suddenly appeared out of thin air?...

You haven't... so really, what's your problem?

George Martin2 said:So, is the fact that couples are choosing to adopt or foster older children, kids with special needs, or children from minority backgrounds less frequently now considered "nonsense"?

If there aren't enough heterosexual couples willing to step up for those specific kids, then you're just creating a false dilemma.

First off, you actually need to provide some real evidence to prove that these kids aren't being picked up by hetero couples...😉

And besides, how did we suddenly pivot to talking about sick kids, older kids, and ethnic minorities?

Also, they actually *tried* to adopt...

So, it’s not a false dilemma... and suing the USA over adoption issues is a stretch.

George Martin2 said:Like we already told you, there are specific children that straight couples simply aren't willing to adopt, so you're creating a false dilemma here.

Wauu, "it was said to me..."🤣

What, you just pull some random nonsense out of thin air and suddenly it’s a valid argument?

Just because someone muttered something doesn't mean it holds any weight—without actual reasoning, it's pretty much worthless.😉

hollowmason64 said:Like they already told you—we aren't talking about adoption here, we’re talking about foster care. It wouldn't hurt if all you folks who "won't let gays have kids so they don't turn them into little deviants" actually learned the difference between those two things first. Because honestly, the distinction is massive.
Besides, I find it kind of funny how everyone claiming they "won't give kids to gays" acts so incredibly proud of their Christian upbringing and how they live their lives according to those values. But apparently, out of all that "Christian love" and empathy, it's better for every single one of these kids to spend their entire lives bouncing through the foster system rather than being "given to gays." Just like nobody seems to care that these kids end up kicked out onto the street the second they turn 18, left to fend for themselves.
But hey, at least they didn't fall into the hands of a gay couple, right? 👍

That was very well put, very precise.
It reminds me of those desperate couples who are dying to have a child to love and pour everything into—but only on the condition that the kid meets the exact specific standards the mom and dad have set.
Just look at what Bobanov was doing... it was practically like he was ordering a custom-made kid based on certain criteria.

1. I'm not a believer, I'm an atheist.

2. Two out of my five kids were adopted, so save your half-witted lectures, much like this one, for someone else...

And yeah, as long as there's even one last heterosexual couple left wanting to foster or adopt, homosexuals aren't going to be getting any kids handed to them...

If they want kids, they should try loving someone of the opposite sex... I hear that's a pretty damn good way to have children...

But then again, women say that all the time, so maybe it's not true...

ruggeddrifter85 said:We're talking about foster care here.
And apparently, per their rules, the age, health, or ethnicity of the child doesn't even matter.
Meanwhile, a massive line of traditional American Catholic couples is just waiting around to foster older kids or children with special needs from the Romani community. 🤣
Even actual Americans 🤣
are being pushed aside.

Look, as a parent of five—two of whom are adopted—with an experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, let me tell you something: stop talking out of your ass about things you clearly have zero clue about...😉

Until then, take your little spins somewhere else...

Exactly. We’re living in the age of the internet and instant Google searches, yet you’re still sitting there doubting everything... fine, keep doubting if it makes you feel better... I don't care... but for heaven's sake, try not to spout total nonsense while you're doing it.

Harold Davis6 said:The Nazis are still operating underground over there, unlike what we're seeing here at home.

What do you mean "underground"? They're practically marching down the streets in Germany.

George Robinson43 said:Please explain to me how there is anything satirical about a group posing next to swastikas and posting photos with Roman salutes on Facebook?
It just doesn't compute.
Are you suggesting that when, for instance, the Germans throw people like that in jail, they fail to recognize satire?

As long as neo-Nazis can march through the streets of Germany without much trouble, I think dragging the Germans into a debate about a carnival is pretty pointless...

Because, let's be real—an actual Nazi march down a city street is infinitely worse than some carnival nonsense...