100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Too Fat... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Gulp away but slurping is poor form. 
not the way I " slurp "...  ...damn !!!!!!
I hope you have a lickher license!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulp away but slurping is poor form.
not the way I " slurp "... ...damn !!!!!!
I hope you have a lickher license!!
damn !!...ummmmmmm...where's that line formin'...I need to apply...FAST !!... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it getting wet..er hot in here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, let's say we ban people who keep guns in their house from adopting because well...the kid might shoot themselves. The pedophilia argument is ridiculous. Of course I am not advocating that anyone who wishes to adopt be allowed to. This is a married couple who have been together eleven years who work, maintain a home and who want to raise a child. One is technically obese but not so much that he is not a productive member of society. Like others I agree, if someone was bed bound then certainly that would be a reason to disallow an adoption. That said though if a married couple, one of whom is a paraplegic, wanted to adopt should they be allowed to? Let's say they meet all the other standards. They both work, are married, maintain a home, are financially secure, have no criminal background...what would you say? As I stated before, just because you may believe it is "ridiculous" doesn't make the powers that be wrong in their judgement. This couple is NO different than anyone else who wishes to adopt; Subsequently, one can only assume to the motive to do so. Homosexuals are allowed to adopt, yes? Interracial adoptions are allowed, yes? This as a direct result of "expanding" (some may say lowering) previously established standards. We have yet to experience the rammifications/results of the above mentioned social experiments. The powers that be have established a standard in this case, reasoning behind that judgement provided. This appears to be a couple with a sense of entitlement who are unwilling to accept being told "No". They don't meet the established criteria plain and simple. Modus operandi- Don't get your way... whine and cry to a sympathic press, then file a lawsuit. I would say regardless of who it was or their living situation (even if it were Bill and Melinda Gates) being told "No" means "No" by those in charge and have jurisdiction over the current situation. Don't fret too much, if current social trends hold true, they'll have their adopted baby quicker than you can say "ACLU lawsuit". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it getting wet..er hot in here?
nessuno commento !!... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I heard today on a couple of the morning shows the 34% of Americans are obese and 33% are overweight.
So, by the standards set for the British couple in the op 67% of Americans should not be allowed to adopt? Interesting... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, let's say we ban people who keep guns in their house from adopting because well...the kid might shoot themselves. The pedophilia argument is ridiculous. Of course I am not advocating that anyone who wishes to adopt be allowed to. This is a married couple who have been together eleven years who work, maintain a home and who want to raise a child. One is technically obese but not so much that he is not a productive member of society. Like others I agree, if someone was bed bound then certainly that would be a reason to disallow an adoption. That said though if a married couple, one of whom is a paraplegic, wanted to adopt should they be allowed to? Let's say they meet all the other standards. They both work, are married, maintain a home, are financially secure, have no criminal background...what would you say? As I stated before, just because you may believe it is "ridiculous" doesn't make the powers that be wrong in their judgement. This couple is NO different than anyone else who wishes to adopt; Subsequently, one can only assume to the motive to do so. Homosexuals are allowed to adopt, yes? Interracial adoptions are allowed, yes? This as a direct result of "expanding" (some may say lowering) previously established standards. We have yet to experience the rammifications/results of the above mentioned social experiments. The powers that be have established a standard in this case, reasoning behind that judgement provided. This appears to be a couple with a sense of entitlement who are unwilling to accept being told "No". They don't meet the established criteria plain and simple. Modus operandi- Don't get your way... whine and cry to a sympathic press, then file a lawsuit. I would say regardless of who it was or their living situation (even if it were Bill and Melinda Gates) being told "No" means "No" by those in charge and have jurisdiction over the current situation. Don't fret too much, if current social trends hold true, they'll have their adopted baby quicker than you can say "ACLU lawsuit". So you always accept authority? Somehow after reading your profile, I seriously doubt that! 
It's a very nice profile,by the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
beeorganic
on
Tue 01/13/09 01:44 PM
|
|
So, let's say we ban people who keep guns in their house from adopting because well...the kid might shoot themselves. The pedophilia argument is ridiculous. Of course I am not advocating that anyone who wishes to adopt be allowed to. This is a married couple who have been together eleven years who work, maintain a home and who want to raise a child. One is technically obese but not so much that he is not a productive member of society. Like others I agree, if someone was bed bound then certainly that would be a reason to disallow an adoption. That said though if a married couple, one of whom is a paraplegic, wanted to adopt should they be allowed to? Let's say they meet all the other standards. They both work, are married, maintain a home, are financially secure, have no criminal background...what would you say? As I stated before, just because you may believe it is "ridiculous" doesn't make the powers that be wrong in their judgement. This couple is NO different than anyone else who wishes to adopt; Subsequently, one can only assume to the motive to do so. Homosexuals are allowed to adopt, yes? Interracial adoptions are allowed, yes? This as a direct result of "expanding" (some may say lowering) previously established standards. We have yet to experience the rammifications/results of the above mentioned social experiments. The powers that be have established a standard in this case, reasoning behind that judgement provided. This appears to be a couple with a sense of entitlement who are unwilling to accept being told "No". They don't meet the established criteria plain and simple. Modus operandi- Don't get your way... whine and cry to a sympathic press, then file a lawsuit. I would say regardless of who it was or their living situation (even if it were Bill and Melinda Gates) being told "No" means "No" by those in charge and have jurisdiction over the current situation. Don't fret too much, if current social trends hold true, they'll have their adopted baby quicker than you can say "ACLU lawsuit". So you always accept authority? Somehow after reading your profile, I seriously doubt that!
It's a very nice profile,by the way. Very good question. One that required extensive personal reflection. If we are speaking in generalities, the short answer would have to be "Yes", I always publicly state that I accept authority  . Do I always agree with decisions made by authority/those in charge? No. Just because I may have the right/privilege to voice dissent/redress grievances doesn't necessarily mean it's always prudent/wise to do so(in regards to opening a proverbial Pandora's box, indulging in the laws of unintended consequences, or creating a domino effect). There is a quantum difference between societal wants and societal needs. I believe it was Sun Tzu who said it best "... to choose ones battles wisely...".
An analogy. I want to play for the NFL. Under their current league standards (the authorities of the NFL) can/will that happen? No. Can I change those standards so I can play? Perhaps yes, if I file enough lawsuits to have the standards lowered to accommodate me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I heard today on a couple of the morning shows the 34% of Americans are obese and 33% are overweight.
So, by the standards set for the British couple in the op 67% of Americans should not be allowed to adopt? Please address this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I heard today on a couple of the morning shows the 34% of Americans are obese and 33% are overweight. So, by the standards set for the British couple in the op 67% of Americans should not be allowed to adopt? Please address this. Kinda what i was asking... And if being overwieght meant you couldn't adopt because of health concerns, what about smoking or a bad driving record? It all adds up so fast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm considered obese but can keep up with my eight year old.It's funny that any old idiot can have a kid,many unwanted or unloved but people who actually want them have to jump thru hoops. I fall into the same category. I have no health issues besides being overweight and my child is well taken care of! |
|
|
|
|
