Only three states do not have identified hate groups

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 27, 4:27*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> *That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.

Well, now, Danny-boy, what specifically do you disagree with? Why is
it a "con game"?

Idiot.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.

Dees is a hero.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 27, 5:20*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> > > *That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.
>
> > Dees is a hero.
>
> *Yes, if using direct marketing tactics to fear-extract millions from
> old neurotics and do-gooders and harangue people whose ideas you don't
> like makes you a hero, he's a hero. To me he's a demagogue and a
> mountebank.

An illigal-immigrant stand-off.

To me you're an uneducated and unintelligent boor, using an
inappropraite forum to spread your message of hate, evil and
intolerance.

Where does that leave us, genius? Rubbing the pork over pictures of
Marilyn? LOL!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
> >
> > > That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.
> >
> > Dees is a hero.
>
> Yes, if using direct marketing tactics to fear-extract millions from
> old neurotics and do-gooders and harangue people whose ideas you don't
> like makes you a hero, he's a hero. To me he's a demagogue and a
> mountebank.

Of course. lol
http://www.splcenter.org/center/history/history.jsp

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Mar 27, 5:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
> >
> > That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.
>
> Dees is a hero.

Yes indeed. I have bene a supporter of Mr. Dees since I
first came to the US. Even Arny Krueger contributed to
the SPLC back in the day.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Vinylanach]

On Mar 27, 2:31�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:27�pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> > �That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.
>
> Well, now, Danny-boy, what specifically do you disagree with? Why is
> it a "con game"?
>
> Idiot.

The KKK agrees with Bret. Big surprise there.

Boon

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
know.

--


"As seen in the classified ads:

Learn how to get idiots to send you a dollar and their SSN.
Send $1 & your SSN to..." -- DarkFiber / BlockIP.org

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 27, 8:54*pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> * * You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
> know.

Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
Check Texas as an example.

white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
because whites are the primary racists in the US.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 27, 6:11*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>
> > > *That would be the Poverty Palace, Morris Dees' con game.
>
> > Dees is a hero.
>
> Yes indeed. I have bene a supporter of Mr. Dees since I
> first came to the US. Even Arny Krueger contributed to
> the SPLC back in the day.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Perhaps Danny-boy will start a pogrom against the SPLC's 'floobydust'.

It's amazing how fast Danny-boy's true colors came out once he was
confronted.

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>> You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
>> know.
>
> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
> Check Texas as an example.
>
> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> because whites are the primary racists in the US.

Are you from the US??

--


"As seen in the classified ads:

Learn how to get idiots to send you a dollar and their SSN.
Send $1 & your SSN to..." -- DarkFiber / BlockIP.org

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 29, 6:37*pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
> >> * * You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
> >> know.
>
> > Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
> > Check Texas as an example.
>
> > white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> > as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> > because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>
> * *Are you from the US??

Yes. Why do you ask?

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>>>> You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
>>>> know.
>>> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
>>> Check Texas as an example.
>>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
>>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
>>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>> Are you from the US??
>
> Yes. Why do you ask?

Because you seem out of touch with that final remark.

--


"As seen in the classified ads:

Learn how to get idiots to send you a dollar and their SSN.
Send $1 & your SSN to..." -- DarkFiber / BlockIP.org

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 30, 2:29*pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
> >>>> * * You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
> >>>> know.
> >>> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
> >>> Check Texas as an example.
> >>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> >>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> >>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
> >> * *Are you from the US??
>
> > Yes. Why do you ask?
>
> * * Because you seem out of touch with that final remark.

<morbid curiosity switch "on">

Who would you say are the primary racists in the US?

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2:29 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>>>>>> You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
>>>>>> know.
>>>>> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
>>>>> Check Texas as an example.
>>>>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
>>>>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
>>>>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>>>> Are you from the US??
>>> Yes. Why do you ask?
>> Because you seem out of touch with that final remark.
>
> <morbid curiosity switch "on">
>
> Who would you say are the primary racists in the US?

Well if you are going to count numbers, sure. But you can't really
compare the total numbers from a given group, you have to use a
percentage of that group. My point is that there are as many in other
ethnic groups as there are in the white ethnic group. Personally I find
Al Sharpton as much of a racist as David Duke. Actually probably worse
because Duke is not constantly putting himself in the spotlight of
current events and drawing racism in where there was none, let along
getting away with it. But then Sharpton and Jackson have no interest in
ending racism in the US. If they did, they would be out of a job.

--


"As seen in the classified ads:

Learn how to get idiots to send you a dollar and their SSN.
Send $1 & your SSN to..." -- DarkFiber / BlockIP.org

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:


>
> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> because whites are the primary racists in the US.

being that they are the majority of the population.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 31, 6:21*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> > as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> > because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>
> being that they are the majority of the population.

Which is the biggest problem. You can have 100% of any minority
population be racist and there's not a damned thing they can do about
it. The natural tendency is for the majority to protect the majority's
interests. What allegedly makes the US different is that we strive to
protect the rights of ALL people, *particularly* minority populations.
That is a position that is under attack.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 31, 1:19*am, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 2:29 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
> >>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
> >>>>>> * * You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
> >>>>>> know.
> >>>>> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
> >>>>> Check Texas as an example.
> >>>>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> >>>>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> >>>>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
> >>>> * *Are you from the US??
> >>> Yes. Why do you ask?
> >> * * Because you seem out of touch with that final remark.
>
> > <morbid curiosity switch "on">
>
> > Who would you say are the primary racists in the US?
>
> * * Well if you are going to count numbers, sure. But you can't really
> compare the total numbers from a given group, you have to use a
> percentage of that group.

Bull****. All you have to do is look at who controls the power,
politically, economically and otherwise.

If it is white america, then white americans have a charge to protect
those who do not have the power.

> My point is that there are as many in other
> ethnic groups as there are in the white ethnic group. Personally I find
> Al Sharpton as much of a racist as David Duke. Actually probably worse
> because Duke is not constantly putting himself in the spotlight of
> current events and drawing racism in where there was none, let along
> getting away with it. But then Sharpton and Jackson have no interest in
> ending racism in the US. If they did, they would be out of a job.

Another dumb position. I agree that all racism is bad and that you can
find black or hispanic or asian people who are racist. That does not
create a "wash".

That argument is ignorance at its zenith.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Mar, 17:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:21*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> > > as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> > > because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>
> > being that they are the majority of the population.
>
> Which is the biggest problem. You can have 100% of any minority
> population be racist and there's not a damned thing they can do about
> it. The natural tendency is for the majority to protect the majority's
> interests. What allegedly makes the US different is that we strive to
> protect the rights of ALL people, *particularly* minority populations.
> That is a position that is under attack.

I don't think it is under attack, I think that is by far the widely
held position.
Most of the rights to be protected are in common, anyway.
But all people need to have those rights protected.
There are extra safeguards to protect minorities form having those
common rights threatened.
Human relations commissions, civil rights divisions in law
enforcement, etc.
those rights are a lot less threatened then they were 40 years ago.
Its to the point that we have other things in society we need to worry
about
more than that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 31, 4:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 17:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 6:21*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> > > > as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> > > > because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>
> > > being that they are the majority of the population.
>
> > Which is the biggest problem. You can have 100% of any minority
> > population be racist and there's not a damned thing they can do about
> > it. The natural tendency is for the majority to protect the majority's
> > interests. What allegedly makes the US different is that we strive to
> > protect the rights of ALL people, *particularly* minority populations.
> > That is a position that is under attack.
>
> I don't think it is under attack, I think that is by far the widely
> held position.
> Most of the rights to be protected are in common, anyway.

One example might be gay marriage. There is a minority whose right to
marry has been denied by the majority to the point of having that
basic right (and the rights that go along with it) denied by
alterations to state constitutions in some cases.

And I know where you stand on this issue.

> But all people need to have those rights protected.
> There are extra safeguards to protect minorities form having those
> common rights threatened.
> Human relations commissions, civil rights divisions in law
> enforcement, etc.
> those rights are a lot less threatened then they were 40 years ago.

I agree that there has been progress. What I see are people like
Bratzi who would like to roll back the clock, and others who don't see
what opposition to things like gay marriage actually mean. Bratzi
recently said life was better in 1960. Is it a coincidence that this
was before the Civil Rights Act? ;-)

If you listen to the right, there is a lot of "raise yourself up by
the bootstraps" talk. While wild-west rhetoric has some charm, it is
not based in reality.

> Its to the point that we have other things in society we need to worry
> about more than that.

More important things than our basic rights? Then we can do away with
the Supreme Court. We are now a truly illuminated society.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Mar, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Mar, 17:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 6:21*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
> > > > > as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
> > > > > because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>
> > > > being that they are the majority of the population.
>
> > > Which is the biggest problem. You can have 100% of any minority
> > > population be racist and there's not a damned thing they can do about
> > > it. The natural tendency is for the majority to protect the majority's
> > > interests. What allegedly makes the US different is that we strive to
> > > protect the rights of ALL people, *particularly* minority populations.
> > > That is a position that is under attack.
>
> > I don't think it is under attack, I think that is by far the widely
> > held position.
> > Most of the rights to be protected are in common, anyway.
>
> One example might be gay marriage. There is a minority whose right to
> marry has been denied by the majority to the point of having that
> basic right (and the rights that go along with it) denied by
> alterations to state constitutions in some cases.
>
> And I know where you stand on this issue.
>

yeah, yeah, civil unions
i have no probelm recognizing the rights of same sex
couples wanting the same legal protections afforded to
married couples. Civil unions will do that.

And I am not unilaterally opposed
to gays adopting children. whatever is in the
best interests of the child is fine by me.
But remeber that adoption is more for the rights of the child, than
it is for the rights of the adopting parent.
I realize tht many gays are already parents of nonadopted
(natural) children, via maraige breakups, and then forming new gay
unions.



> > But all people need to have those rights protected.
> > There are extra safeguards to protect minorities form having those
> > common rights threatened.
> > Human relations commissions, civil rights divisions in law
> > enforcement, etc.
> > those rights are a lot less threatened then they were 40 years ago.
>
> I agree that there has been progress. What I see are people like
> Bratzi who would like to roll back the clock, and others who don't see
> what opposition to things like gay marriage actually mean. Bratzi
> recently said life was better in 1960. Is it a coincidence that this
> was before the Civil Rights Act? ;-)
>
> If you listen to the right, there is a lot of "raise yourself up by
> the bootstraps" talk. While wild-west rhetoric has some charm, it is
> not based in reality.
>


I think it is, success is more of a result of individual effort
than it is of government assistance. Not that some government
assistance is a bad thing at all, especially if it is provided
to those showing some initiative.


> > Its to the point that we have other things in society we need to worry
> > about more than that.
>
> More important things than our basic rights? Then we can do away with
> the Supreme Court. We are now a truly illuminated society.- Ascunde citatul -
>

no, not what i said. never said the rights were not important.
there are more important things than obsessing over protecting
the erosion of rights that are not really eroding.

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> On Mar 31, 1:19 am, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2:29 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 27, 8:54 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
>>>>>>>> You mean white supremacists, because there ARE other hate groups you
>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>> Hm. I saw black separatist groups, Holocaust deniers, and many others.
>>>>>>> Check Texas as an example.
>>>>>>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
>>>>>>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
>>>>>>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>>>>>> Are you from the US??
>>>>> Yes. Why do you ask?
>>>> Because you seem out of touch with that final remark.
>>> <morbid curiosity switch "on">
>>> Who would you say are the primary racists in the US?
>> Well if you are going to count numbers, sure. But you can't really
>> compare the total numbers from a given group, you have to use a
>> percentage of that group.
>
> Bull****. All you have to do is look at who controls the power,
> politically, economically and otherwise.
>
> If it is white america, then white americans have a charge to protect
> those who do not have the power.
>
>> My point is that there are as many in other
>> ethnic groups as there are in the white ethnic group. Personally I find
>> Al Sharpton as much of a racist as David Duke. Actually probably worse
>> because Duke is not constantly putting himself in the spotlight of
>> current events and drawing racism in where there was none, let along
>> getting away with it. But then Sharpton and Jackson have no interest in
>> ending racism in the US. If they did, they would be out of a job.
>
> Another dumb position. I agree that all racism is bad and that you can
> find black or hispanic or asian people who are racist. That does not
> create a "wash".
>
> That argument is ignorance at its zenith.

I disagree.

--


"Number ****ing three? You *******, I demand to be #1. Pleace to publish
teh lits, doucheweasel. " -- Cujo DeSockpuppet

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 4:56 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 31 Mar, 17:26, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 31, 6:21 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>>>>> On 28 Mar, 16:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> white nationalists and white supremacists are in there too, of course,
>>>>>> as they seem to be the predominant hate groups in the US. That is
>>>>>> because whites are the primary racists in the US.
>>>>> being that they are the majority of the population.
>>>> Which is the biggest problem. You can have 100% of any minority
>>>> population be racist and there's not a damned thing they can do about
>>>> it. The natural tendency is for the majority to protect the majority's
>>>> interests. What allegedly makes the US different is that we strive to
>>>> protect the rights of ALL people, *particularly* minority populations.
>>>> That is a position that is under attack.
>>> I don't think it is under attack, I think that is by far the widely
>>> held position.
>>> Most of the rights to be protected are in common, anyway.
>> One example might be gay marriage. There is a minority whose right to
>> marry has been denied by the majority to the point of having that
>> basic right (and the rights that go along with it) denied by
>> alterations to state constitutions in some cases.
>>
>> And I know where you stand on this issue.
>>
>
> yeah, yeah, civil unions
> i have no probelm recognizing the rights of same sex
> couples wanting the same legal protections afforded to
> married couples. Civil unions will do that.
>
> And I am not unilaterally opposed
> to gays adopting children. whatever is in the
> best interests of the child is fine by me.
> But remeber that adoption is more for the rights of the child, than
> it is for the rights of the adopting parent.
> I realize tht many gays are already parents of nonadopted
> (natural) children, via maraige breakups, and then forming new gay
> unions.
>


I have the same stance. I know of someone who was affected by this
situation when his "significant other" died young and suddenly and ended
up penniless and homeless due to the lack of a will. As a former Scout
leader I've also seen children who would have been far better off in
their home rather than the one said children were born into.


--


"Number ****ing three? You *******, I demand to be #1. Pleace to publish
teh lits, doucheweasel. " -- Cujo DeSockpuppet