Oregon rejected foster application of woman who didn’t agree with LGBTQ child respect rule. Now she’s suing
U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson asked lawyers Wednesday, "Who takes priority?... Should it be the rights of a prospective foster or adoptive parent or those of a child who has experienced instability in a home and needs placement by the state?"
As a bonus: Check out the /r/Portland thread about this situation to see some truly impressive mental gymnastics.
Anyone pointing out the hypocrisy gets attacked because she's "grooming children" with her agenda.
The sheer irony of it all is amazing.
These people are retarded. You're allowed, and even societally/evolutionarily encouraged to "groom" your children into your culture, thought process, ideology, religion, or what have you. It's part of being a parent. There's right ways and wrong ways to do it, sure, but it sure beats cutting off your child's parts or putting them on life-altering drugs. Or even just fucking up their identity and sexuality by crossdressing or pronouning them.
These people are evil, and their evil needs to be stopped.
Quick reminder that the whole reason for the foster system is that the state is logistically incapable of taking care of even a small fraction of the kids in their jurisdiction.
So they ask parents to help them, like this mother of five. Then these woke (and inevitably female) judges have the gall to suggest that the parents aren't up to the task.
Like, really think about this. This mother successfully raised five kids with her beliefs, none of whom were taken by the state. She is now offering to help kids of other parents who couldn't raise their kids and the state is arguing the she isn't qualified.
They're literally arguing that it's better for the kids to live in a dysfunctional, abusive, or neglectful home, rather than one that doesn't encourage them to embrace homosexuality.
Liberals say that if conservatives cared so much about children like they say when they are against abortion, they would support the babies who are born.
Yet they do shit like this to conservatives who actually want to help kids.
Those fucks say anything if they think it’ll get them something. Their words mean nothing.
Communication as transaction. Language as a collection of passwords.
They want 2 gay guys to raise a stable of little boys. Thats whatsup.
Leftists are abusing language, as usual.
Grooming, in this context, refers to planting gender theory and sexual ideas into a child's mind to influence him into accepting sexual acts ( pedos ), or fucking-up his health by chemical castration ( NPC gender theorist ).
Leftists abuse language almost as much as they abuse children.
An avowed racialist could groom a child into an ideology, which is something you should watch out for in an adoption process; but that is a very different thing from raising a kid.
Raising a kid isn't indoctrinating them into your value system. Raising a kid involves protecting them and giving them a safe space to grown naturally. They will adopt and keep your values if it makes sense to them as adults.
"Grooming" children to be normal human beings that procreate and keeps the human species going.. the meaning of life.
We really need a law that, if a state/federal agency gets successfully sued, they get their budget slashed next year. We need disincentives; as is, the taxpayer ends up paying for it.
I still hope she wins, as fuck these jackasses in government, and it will still send a message...but I would love for the government to have to pay, not the people from whom they steal money.
All of the tools to do exactly this were already provided in the bill of rights, but we're all too chicken-shit to do our duty.
Including me.
Budget slashed and the offending parties all fired/blacklisted out of government work and pensions.
Because only slashing the budget punishes everyone but doesn't actually remove the problem. Who, since they are government employees are still incredibly difficult to remove and still get lots of benefits when they are.
I fully accept and embrace your addendums.
Certainly the best interest of the child is to remain in an orphanage (or with their abusive parents, which are the reason the kids is in the foster system in the first place) so long as the state can tell them they're gay...
One of the games of guilt these people like to play is "do you want a dead child or a trans child."
The truth is, they'd rather have a dead child than a normal one.
A normal child might grow up to reproduce (think of the Climate!) or vote Republican (think of our Democracy!).
EDIT: Oh, yeah, also less likely to let leftists, uh...spend time with them, and more likely to have parents who will shoot said leftist in the face if they try.
Leftist parents also tend to breed Leftist children. The parents resent the children for ruining their elongated adolescence. The parents teach the children that the world sucks and they can't succeed. The children become resentment mongers who hate their parents and society because they've never been loved by anyone.
And then we all end up here where these same leftist children are screaming at a pro-abortion rally that they wish they were aborted.
This is really sad. I remember being told that I’m paranoid years back for thinking there was some sort of agenda
Step 1: You're paranoid and probably bigoted.
Step 2: That doesn't happen, will never happen, and we totally wouldn't stand for it.
Step 3: It happens, it's a good thing, it's always happened, we need to make sure it keeps happening, it's a human right. It's a hate crime if you try to say it's a bad thing.
It's a lefty classic. My favorite part is how they completely ignore any past complaints, or how those were actually correct. We're seeing the exact same thing with Covid/vaccine/lockdown arguments. "Conspiracy theorists" and "bigots" can be correct about everything, but because they aren't Experts™ (even the ones that are...especially the ones that are), it's swept under the rug. We've already seen articles where they blame antivaxxers for not warning people...hahaha.
There's a step 4 that comes into play when the terrible consequences that were obvious from the start to anyone who spent three seconds thinking about the matter become impossible to ignore anymore: "It's happening and it's all the Right's fault"
There has to be a term for this because I’ve seen it so many times in the last few years
And THIS is exactly why I laugh so hard when people like Imp and some others here say men need artificial wombs to have kids grown for them.
After all this, some here are still naive enough to think that suddenly the established powers, medicine, etc. would grow a conscience and do the moral thing.
Artificial womb technology will be owned and controlled by the same medical industry as the COVID vax.
To be fair, who else but Imp has advocated for that? One or two others at most, and nowhere near as vociferously as Imp.
Don't remember, but he always had a couple people agree with his stupid shit.
Here's an alternative archive, as the linked one wasn't working for me.
As if the child adopted by parents who don't support trooning-out and sterilizing children has his or her rights violated by that.
Delusional leftist.
I would rather a child be taken out of a violent and abusive home and raised by loving stormfags in a safe community.
Obviously don't give them a black kid, but if the kid is white, and you manage to find the equivalent of a non-retarded stormfag, then good.
Broken homes are worse than racist parents by leaps and bounds.
And this wasn't even an issue of racism. This was Christianity. That discrimination is so much scarier than discriminating against racists (which is still bad.)
Yes, because a religious objection to the state's established narrative is not oppression, does not risk the child, and the state's narrative actually causes the most danger.
Lots of old studies compiled on the MRA circles found that kids were better off in violent and abusive homes most of the time than just simple single mother homes in terms of future violence and incarceration as well as diagnosed mental illnesses.
Its almost certainly not that simple, but focusing on the "mega obvious evil" option when we still allow and condone the "we got used to it" super evil option will still leave us pretty fucked as a society.
I'm not going to disagree on that, I'm just saying that obviously uncouth options are way the hell better than the obviously bad ones. Hence criminalizing uncouth options makes no sense.
Never heard that, almost blew my mind, but the more I think about it, it makes sense in some ways.
Not that there aren't people who succeed from a single-mother household, but there are seemingly so many more stories of people rising from actual abuse in a two-parent household.
This is in no way justifying said abuse, but it does seem like it is, at the very least, possible that it's more likely to rise from an abusive two-parent household, than rise form a household with no dad. Perhaps especially for boys/men, although not having a dad fucks up girls and women too, of course.
It's interesting to think about, if having even an abusive father was better than having an absent one.
I think it requires thinking about things a lot more complexly than most like.
Such as, are men really that fucking psycho so often? Or is the woman making him insane enough to become abusive? Because speaking from my own experience, my mother was never directly "abusive" but she would absolutely push every button she could until you just broke and reacted. Sometimes just as simple as a shove to get her away from you after that 40th little "girl slap" or psychotic screaming accusation while you are trying to sit/sleep that suddenly has the cops coming for Domestic Violence and everyone treating you like a monster forever now, which then strengthens her hold on you as now she is all you have.
I could go on about my personal experience but you get the picture. Its not just a way to blame women for what men do but a way to consider the actions women do that people just don't even note that set the stage for men's actions.
Not to mention getting into the discussion of the eugenical aspect. In that, what kind of man abandons his family entirely, what type of woman sleeps with that man, and what type of woman is crazy enough to turn a regular man into one who abandons his family and what all of those genetics will do in a child.
Its almost certainly not one specific factor, but the raw numbers in the most neutral sense possible paint the picture that having a father at all is better for you no matter how bad he is over single motherhood (barring some extreme exceptions I'm sure). Why that is the case, I can keep going, but that seems to be the case.
Ah, you know my parents?
I don't, buts its probably not hard to guess a lot more than it should be about the situation as it played out. You have my sympathies brotherman, was a hard hand to be dealt.
Foster kids are the ones primed and ready for indoctrination. They’re the most easily influenced since they don’t have their parents and since state government on the west coast is making it law that you have to conform to whatever ideals these kids spout then it’s much easier for teachers to do the influencing.
They are also almost certainly already molested, beaten, or of poor breeding stock, because that's how they ended up there in the first place. Making them unstable enough to be led into anything if you sell it right.