Judge won’t hear gay adoptions because it’s not in a child’s ‘best interest’

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 8:35 am

A family court judge who sits in Barren and Metcalfe counties has announced he will no longer hear adoption cases involving “homosexual parties” because he believes allowing a gay person to adopt could never be in the child’s best interest. Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people. Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual.” Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates said they are appalled by Nance’s order.

Dan Canon, a Louisville lawyer who helped win the right of same-sex marriage in Kentucky, said: “The bottom line is if this judge can’t fulfill his duties because of his duties because of his personal biases, he should resign.”

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

SOURCE USA TODAY

by eddie Tue May 02, 2017 11:54 am

He is the kind of person I dislike with a passion. Ignorant and ancient beyond words!

by Original Quill Tue May 02, 2017 3:55 pm

When a judge recuses himself, he is basically taking a paid vacation. Perhaps other judges will recuse themselves from hearing the criminal docket because criminal cases involve the death penalty, and they are morally opposed to it. Other judges might recuse themselves from hearing larceny cases because chattel is sold via the market, so they are morally opposed to private property.

When they have accumulated two weeks time from recusals, take a trip to Rio. That's what Trump is doing going to Florida each weekend.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 5:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:When a judge recuses himself, he is basically taking a paid vacation. Perhaps other judges will recuse themselves from hearing the criminal docket because criminal cases involve the death penalty, and they are morally opposed to it. Other judges might recuse themselves from hearing larceny cases because chattel is sold via the market, so they are morally opposed to private property.

When they have accumulated two weeks time from recusals, take a trip to Rio. That's what Trump is doing going to Florida each weekend.

Is he/she not automatically assigned to another pending case on the same circuit calendar and that involves issues outside the scope of his/her moral considerations?

by Original Quill Tue May 02, 2017 5:56 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:When a judge recuses himself, he is basically taking a paid vacation. Perhaps other judges will recuse themselves from hearing the criminal docket because criminal cases involve the death penalty, and they are morally opposed to it. Other judges might recuse themselves from hearing larceny cases because chattel is sold via the market, so they are morally opposed to private property.

When they have accumulated two weeks time from recusals, take a trip to Rio. That's what Trump is doing going to Florida each weekend.

Is he/she not automatically assigned to another pending case on the same circuit calendar and that involves issues outside the scope of his/her moral considerations?

I'm being facetious. But some judges hate the criminal docket...some, domestic cases. It would be a good way to screw with the chief judge, who makes assignments.

Just find an issue you are morally opposed to, and start recusing yourself...eg, claim you are morally opposed to divorce and get off the domestic docket.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 6:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Is he/she not automatically assigned to another pending case on the same circuit calendar and that involves issues outside the scope of his/her moral considerations?

I'm being facetious. But some judges hate the criminal docket...some, domestic cases. It would be a good way to screw with the chief judge, who makes assignments.

Just find an issue you are morally opposed to, and start recusing yourself...eg, claim you are morally opposed to divorce and get off the domestic docket.

Ah, I see. I simply wondered whether a recusal meant that a judge was obliged to set himself aside from the entire calendar for a given period. It didn't make much sense to me, but my knowledge of US law is, to say the least, limited.

I think I will claim to be morally opposed to washing the dishes tonight...though the possibility of my being allowed to recuse is, shall we say, about as likely as Donald Trump becoming a Trappist monk.

by Original Quill Tue May 02, 2017 6:09 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm being facetious. But some judges hate the criminal docket...some, domestic cases. It would be a good way to screw with the chief judge, who makes assignments.

Just find an issue you are morally opposed to, and start recusing yourself...eg, claim you are morally opposed to divorce and get off the domestic docket.

Ah, I see. I simply wondered whether a recusal meant that a judge was obliged to set himself aside from the entire calendar for a given period. It didn't make much sense to me, but my knowledge of US law is, to say the least, limited.

I think I will claim to be morally opposed to washing the dishes tonight...though the possibility of my being allowed to recuse is, shall we say, about as likely as Donald Trump becoming a Trappist monk.

Now you've got the spirit. I'm morally opposed to taxes, so I will recuse myself from paying any this year.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 6:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ah, I see. I simply wondered whether a recusal meant that a judge was obliged to set himself aside from the entire calendar for a given period. It didn't make much sense to me, but my knowledge of US law is, to say the least, limited.

I think I will claim to be morally opposed to washing the dishes tonight...though the possibility of my being allowed to recuse is, shall we say, about as likely as Donald Trump becoming a Trappist monk.

Now you've got the spirit. I'm morally opposed to taxes, so I will recuse myself from paying any this year.

Fie on you sir! I thought you gentlemen of the Left were ecstatic at the very thought of paying your taxes, while it was wicked ultra Right wing Tory toffs like me who evade paying tax and hide our misbegotten millions away in the Cayman Islands....while beating the local peasants and abusing our housemaids, of course....

by Original Quill Tue May 02, 2017 8:13 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Now you've got the spirit. I'm morally opposed to taxes, so I will recuse myself from paying any this year.

Fie on you sir! I thought you gentlemen of the Left were ecstatic at the very thought of paying your taxes, while it was wicked ultra Right wing Tory toffs like me who evade paying tax and hide our misbegotten millions away in the Cayman Islands....while beating the local peasants and abusing our housemaids, of course....

Nobody likes taxes. We just dislike them a bit less that the RW.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 10:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Fie on you sir! I thought you gentlemen of the Left were ecstatic at the very thought of paying your taxes, while it was wicked ultra Right wing Tory toffs like me who evade paying tax and hide our misbegotten millions away in the Cayman Islands....while beating the local peasants and abusing our housemaids, of course....

Nobody likes taxes. We just dislike them a bit less that the RW.

Spoken like a true lawyer!

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 10:39 am

have there been any studies into the interests of children adopted by straight vs gay couples that he bases his opinions on.

I think that in an ideal world kids should have a mother and father, but as long as they are loved it shouldn't matter.

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 10:41 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:have there been any studies into the interests of children adopted by straight vs gay couples that he bases his opinions on.

I think that in an ideal world kids should have a mother and father, but as long as they are loved it shouldn't matter.

You are missing the point on blatant prejudice, because he believes homosexuality is wrong

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 10:46 am

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:have there been any studies into the interests of children adopted by straight vs gay couples that he bases his opinions on.

I think that in an ideal world kids should have a mother and father, but as long as they are loved it shouldn't matter.

You are missing the point on blatant prejudice, because he believes homosexuality is wrong

no I am asking if there have been any actual studies on children brought up by gay couples and straight couples.
are we all supposed to believe that homosexuality is right and have no choice in the matter? Try that approach with islam and see at you get. I don't think we have got to the state yet where you have to accept it. this judge does not appear to be saying gay people cannot adopt, just that he wont hear the cases. Unless he is the only judge in the village then it really is not a problem.

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 10:49 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are missing the point on blatant prejudice, because he believes homosexuality is wrong
no I am asking if there have been any actual studies on children brought up by gay couples and straight couples.
are we all supposed to believe that homosexuality is right and have no choice in the matter? Try that approach with islam and see at you get. I don't think we have got to the state yet where you have to accept it. this judge does not appear to be saying gay people cannot adopt, just that he wont hear the cases. Unless he is the only judge in the village then it really is not a problem.

There is plenty of studies to show they fair better with Homosexual parents.

Well you need to show what is wrong with two consenting adults in love raising children.

If he wont hear cases, he is admitting to his own prejudice, in a nation where such adoption is acceptable by law.

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 10:52 am

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
no I am asking if there have been any actual studies on children brought up by gay couples and straight couples.
are we all supposed to believe that homosexuality is right and have no choice in the matter? Try that approach with islam and see at you get. I don't think we have got to the state yet where you have to accept it. this judge does not appear to be saying gay people cannot adopt, just that he wont hear the cases. Unless he is the only judge in the village then it really is not a problem.

There is plenty of studies to show they fair better with Homosexual parents.

Well you need to show what is wrong with two consenting adults in love raising children.

If he wont hear cases, he is admitting to his own prejudice, in a nation where such adoption is acceptable by law.

why do I need to show anything.
I am asking if there have been any studies comparing the outcomes of adoption directly.
do you take exception to me daring to think that a mother and a father is possibly the best choice, if available, for a child?

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 10:54 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

There is plenty of studies to show they fair better with Homosexual parents.

Well you need to show what is wrong with two consenting adults in love raising children.

If he wont hear cases, he is admitting to his own prejudice, in a nation where such adoption is acceptable by law.
why do I need to show anything.
I am asking if there have been any studies comparing the outcomes of adoption directly.
do you take exception to me daring to think that a mother and a father is possibly the best choice, if available, for a child?

Yes there has been plenty of studies, where again it shows those under homosexual parents fair better.

Not sure hat you failed to understand by that?

If you claim there is something wrong with homosexuality, then people need to reason why.

Of which you raised this point.

Yes I do take an exception to your belief, when it should be based individually different in each case, no matter if homosexual or hetrosexul

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 10:56 am

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
why do I need to show anything.
I am asking if there have been any studies comparing the outcomes of adoption directly.
do you take exception to me daring to think that a mother and a father is possibly the best choice, if available, for a child?

Yes there has been plenty of studies, where again it shows those under homosexual parents fair better.

Not sure hat you failed to understand by that?

If you claim there is something wrong with homosexuality, then people need to reason why.

Of which you raised this point.

Yes I do take an exception to your belief, when it should be based individually different in each case, no matter if homosexual or hetrosexul

so you dont think kids should have a mother and a father?
and if there have been all these studies perhaps you will post some of them, you are good at C&P

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 10:59 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes there has been plenty of studies, where again it shows those under homosexual parents fair better.

Not sure hat you failed to understand by that?

If you claim there is something wrong with homosexuality, then people need to reason why.

Of which you raised this point.

Yes I do take an exception to your belief, when it should be based individually different in each case, no matter if homosexual or hetrosexul
so you dont think kids should have a mother and a father?
and if there have been all these studies perhaps you will post some of them, you are good at C&P

1) Never made any such claim, that is your false assumption

2) I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/children-of-gay-parents-study-_n_5563547.html

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-parents-good-parents/

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11411702/gay-lesbian-parents-research

by veya_victaous Mon May 08, 2017 11:32 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
why do I need to show anything.
I am asking if there have been any studies comparing the outcomes of adoption directly.
do you take exception to me daring to think that a mother and a father is possibly the best choice, if available, for a child?

Yes there has been plenty of studies, where again it shows those under homosexual parents fair better.

Not sure hat you failed to understand by that?

If you claim there is something wrong with homosexuality, then people need to reason why.

Of which you raised this point.

Yes I do take an exception to your belief, when it should be based individually different in each case, no matter if homosexual or hetrosexul
so you dont think kids should have a mother and a father?
and if there have been all these studies perhaps you will post some of them, you are good at C&P

So you think Widows and widowers should not be legal guardians or are substandard parents? Suspect

You think Divorcees should lose access to their kids in favor of a mother and father nuclear family? Suspect

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 11:47 am

veya_victaous wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you dont think kids should have a mother and a father?
and if there have been all these studies perhaps you will post some of them, you are good at C&P

So you think Widows and widowers should not be legal guardians or are substandard parents?
You think Divorcees should lose access to their kids in favor of a mother and father nuclear family?

if it was a choice between a single parent family and a mother and father to adopt i would choose the mother and father option.

You seem to be trying to widen the issue to natural parents for some reason.

surly in the great scheme of things the ideal choice would be for kids to stay with their loving natural parents, If that is not possible then a mother and father would be a better choice for kids, but as I said if there is no choice then any loving couple would be better than nothing.

that said I dont think rich people stealing poor kids from around the world is a very good thing.

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 11:49 am

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you dont think kids should have a mother and a father?
and if there have been all these studies perhaps you will post some of them, you are good at C&P

1) Never made any such claim, that is your false assumption

2) I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/children-of-gay-parents-study-_n_5563547.html

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-parents-good-parents/

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11411702/gay-lesbian-parents-research

have you been selective in choosing your studies or are there no studies that show kids do well with a mother and father?
if that's the case then all kids should perhaps be taken away from their parents and given to gay couples.

having read the links it seems to be referring to lesbian couples as each one says few studies have been conducted on the children of gay men

by eddie Mon May 08, 2017 12:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are missing the point on blatant prejudice, because he believes homosexuality is wrong
no I am asking if there have been any actual studies on children brought up by gay couples and straight couples.
are we all supposed to believe that homosexuality is right and have no choice in the matter? Try that approach with islam and see at you get. I don't think we have got to the state yet where you have to accept it. this judge does not appear to be saying gay people cannot adopt, just that he wont hear the cases. Unless he is the only judge in the village then it really is not a problem.

There is plenty of studies to show they fair better with Homosexual parents.

Well you need to show what is wrong with two consenting adults in love raising children.

If he wont hear cases, he is admitting to his own prejudice, in a nation where such adoption is acceptable by law.

How do they fair better, exactly, if a child's happiness is only dependent upon being loved no matter the sexes of the parent?

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 12:48 pm

eddie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

There is plenty of studies to show they fair better with Homosexual parents.

Well you need to show what is wrong with two consenting adults in love raising children.

If he wont hear cases, he is admitting to his own prejudice, in a nation where such adoption is acceptable by law.

How do they fair better, exactly, if a child's happiness is only dependent upon being loved no matter the sexes of the parent?

the studies he produced are talking about lesbian couples and perhaps having 2 mums might be advantageous,in one of the links it says in some areas. The bigger question might be why there are few studies on gay men adopting.
Also they cant be the only studies done surely, have none ever said being adopted by a mum and dad is good for you.

by eddie Mon May 08, 2017 1:00 pm

My point is this: two people (or even one, but that's not what we are discussing) who love and nurture a child are what's important.
The sex of either or both parents is irrelevant.

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 2:48 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Never made any such claim, that is your false assumption

2) I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/children-of-gay-parents-study-_n_5563547.html

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-parents-good-parents/

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11411702/gay-lesbian-parents-research
have you been selective in choosing your studies or are there no studies that show kids do well with a mother and father?
if that's the case then all kids should perhaps be taken away from their parents and given to gay couples.

having read the links it seems to be referring to lesbian couples as each one says few studies have been conducted on the children of gay men

What an absurd point, when again it does not matter who is best, as that will again be based individually.

You keep making absurd assumptions not made by me.

What did you fail to grasp from the following?

I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

You wanted examples, so I gave you examples

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 2:59 pm

eddie wrote:My point is this: two people (or even one, but that's not what we are discussing) who love and nurture a child are what's important.
The sex of either or both parents is irrelevant.

Spot on

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 4:09 pm

Thorin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
have you been selective in choosing your studies or are there no studies that show kids do well with a mother and father?
if that's the case then all kids should perhaps be taken away from their parents and given to gay couples.

having read the links it seems to be referring to lesbian couples as each one says few studies have been conducted on the children of gay men

What an absurd point, when again it does not matter who is best, as that will again be based individually.

You keep making absurd assumptions not made by me.

What did you fail to grasp from the following?

I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

You wanted examples, so I gave you examples

what is the absurd point, the fact they are referring to lesbian couples and not male couples, or the fact that in some areas they appear better .
I am not sure what these assumption are that you are banging on about.

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 4:13 pm

eddie wrote:My point is this: two people (or even one, but that's not what we are discussing) who love and nurture a child are what's important.
The sex of either or both parents is irrelevant.

isn't it odd that these studies do not include male couples?
surely someone somewhere must have done a study for children of gay men.

by nicko Mon May 08, 2017 4:37 pm

NO ONE THINKS WHAT HAPPENS to the child when they go to School.
they will be picked on,----------"You'v got no Daddy-------You'v got no Mommy, not to mention," your daddy's a Queer,-------your moms a Lesbian ! And don't tell me it doesn't happen.

by Eilzel Mon May 08, 2017 4:40 pm

Bullying happens for too many reasons nicko. But bullies should not shape society. Plus as time goes by it will not be an issue at all. Times change Smile

by nicko Mon May 08, 2017 4:44 pm

I agree Eilzel, but it does not change the fact that it happens,
Agreed?

by Eilzel Mon May 08, 2017 4:47 pm

It probably does, although rarely. I have no evidence eitherway. But it shouldn't change anything.

I'm sure the parents think about them all the time. I'm sure it's very tough knowing their kid might have to deal with that. But I'm also sure the kid will love their parents and wouldn't change them regardless.

It is sad if it does happen. Bullying is always sad.

by eddie Mon May 08, 2017 5:27 pm

nicko wrote:NO ONE THINKS WHAT HAPPENS to the child when they go to School.
they will be picked on,----------"You'v got no Daddy-------You'v got no Mommy, not to mention," your daddy's a Queer,-------your moms a Lesbian ! And don't tell me it doesn't happen.

Nicko children can get bullied for being ginger. Shall we encourage people with ginger hair not to procreate?

You're sort of saying "Let the bullies win" in a roundabout, yet unintentional, way.

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 6:42 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What an absurd point, when again it does not matter who is best, as that will again be based individually.

You keep making absurd assumptions not made by me.

What did you fail to grasp from the following?

I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

You wanted examples, so I gave you examples
what is the absurd point, the fact they are referring to lesbian couples and not male couples, or the fact that in some areas they appear better .

I am not sure what these assumption are that you are banging on about.

I never referred to any couples but gave you examples of studies.

Again as I have stated,I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

Its you that went off people not liking homosexuality, if that is a reason to deny people adopting, to which you then avoided speaking about. To then say a male and female makes the best parents. Which I said is absurd, when it will be different individually in each case.

I mean do you have any reason to make here?

by nicko Mon May 08, 2017 6:43 pm

No, i'm not saying let them win, i'm saying that in some cases this is what happens. We all know children can be cruel. I bet theres no one here can say, with hand on heart , that it never happens.

I know it will upset some, but it's my OPINION that a child that is brought up with a Mother and Father is the best way !

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 7:28 pm

eddie wrote:
nicko wrote:NO ONE THINKS WHAT HAPPENS to the child when they go to School.
they will be picked on,----------"You'v got no Daddy-------You'v got no Mommy, not to mention," your daddy's a Queer,-------your moms a Lesbian ! And don't tell me it doesn't happen.

Nicko children can get bullied for being ginger. Shall we encourage people with ginger hair not to procreate?

You're sort of saying "Let the bullies win" in a roundabout, yet unintentional, way.

yes

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 7:29 pm

Didge wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
what is the absurd point, the fact they are referring to lesbian couples and not male couples, or the fact that in some areas they appear better .

I am not sure what these assumption are that you are banging on about.

I never referred to any couples but gave you examples of studies.

Again as I have stated,I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

Its you that went off people not liking homosexuality, if that is a reason to deny people adopting, to which you then avoided speaking about. To then say a male and female makes the best parents. Which I said is absurd, when it will be different individually in each case.

I mean do you have any reason to make here?

why do you have 2 accounts isn';t that a rule infringement?

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 08, 2017 7:35 pm

Didge wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
what is the absurd point, the fact they are referring to lesbian couples and not male couples, or the fact that in some areas they appear better .

I am not sure what these assumption are that you are banging on about.

I never referred to any couples but gave you examples of studies.

Again as I have stated,I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

Its you that went off people not liking homosexuality, if that is a reason to deny people adopting, to which you then avoided speaking about. To then say a male and female makes the best parents. Which I said is absurd, when it will be different individually in each case.

I mean do you have any reason to make here?

and I asked your other account why those studies only referred to lesbians and not gay men.

where did I say anything like I didn't like homosexuality.
in the case of adoption the preferential choice should go to a male and female couple first, and that does seem to be the case in general as your studies to seem to suggest the gay couples get the kids left over after all the good ones are gone, but I would love to see a study on the effects of gay men as the ones you provided did not give any info on that.

by Guest Mon May 08, 2017 7:58 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Didge wrote:

I never referred to any couples but gave you examples of studies.

Again as I have stated,I think children should be raised by loving parents no matter their sexual orientation, no matter if single or as a couple

Its you that went off people not liking homosexuality, if that is a reason to deny people adopting, to which you then avoided speaking about. To then say a male and female makes the best parents. Which I said is absurd, when it will be different individually in each case.

I mean do you have any reason to make here?
and I asked your other account why those studies only referred to lesbians and not gay men.

where did I say anything like I didn't like homosexuality.
in the case of adoption the preferential choice should go to a male and female couple first, and that does seem to be the case in general as your studies to seem to suggest the gay couples get the kids left over after all the good ones are gone, but I would love to see a study on the effects of gay men as the ones you provided did not give any info on that.

1) Where did you ask me? This is the first time you have. There are many more, that was just some I gave you. I suggest you research more.

2) never said you did, though you did say about some disagree and I asked you to show why then they would be against?

3) Why should it go first? Do you have any valid reason? Again its about those who wish to adopt and raise them lovingly

4) if you would love to see one there is countless. I guess you never read the studies properly either and I know you never did.

by HoratioTarr Mon May 08, 2017 8:08 pm

Anyone would think being gay was catching. Rolling Eyes

by eddie Mon May 08, 2017 8:17 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:Anyone would think being gay was catching.

Anyone would think that being gay stopped you being able to raise a child properly....
cos obviously gay people don't eat the same breakfast as us heterosexuals and they're not sure how to read children's books or run a bath and as for buying toys!! Well!! Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content