Saturday, March 07, 2015

Law must be scrubbed clean of normal parents

Lesbian marriage is all about cutting off fathers from their kids. Consider this case:
Despite the advance of same-sex marriage in the US, it may be some time before the law is scrubbed clean of the presumption that a male/female relationship constitutes a family.

A legally-married lesbian couple in New Jersey, Sheena and Tiara Yates, are fighting requests for visitation rights from their two children’s biological fathers.
Most states have court precedents saying that parents have a constitutional right to their kids. Even the US Supreme Court said some similar things about 80 years ago.

All of that must be scrubbed clean now, to please the lesbians.

Britain is finding that it must take alleged lesbians from Africa:
The Home Office has been accused of having ‘outdated’ views on sexuality, after it rejected an asylum claim made by a Nigerian lesbian.

Aderonke Apata, 47, came to Britain in 2004 and is an award-winning LGBT rights activist.

Now, she is challenging the Government’s decision not to grant her asylum in Britain and fears that deportation to Africa would compromise her safety.

Yesterday, she appeared in London’s High Court to appeal her case.

She was accompanied by her fiancée Happiness Agboro and a group of gay-rights activists. Apata has even submitted footage and photographic evidence of her sex life to prove that she is homosexual. ...

However, the Home Office has refused to recognise her sexuality – arguing she can’t be classified as a lesbian because she has children from a previous heterosexual relationship.

Barrister Andrew Bird, on behalf of the Home Secretary, claimed that Apata wasn’t “part of the social group known as lesbians,” although he conceded that she had “indulged in same-sex activity.”

“You can’t be a heterosexual one day and a lesbian the next day. Just as you can’t change your race,” he added during the hearing.

Apata’s barrister, Abid Mahmood, called these views: “highly offensive”.
Highly offensive? I thought that the gays and lesbians get offended when you say the opposite. They are forced us all to switch from the term "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation", just to emphasize that it is unchangeable. California has even passed a law against changing sexual orientation.
Until recently, gay asylum seekers were liable to be asked ‘intrusive’ and personal questions about their sex lives, in order to establish the validity of claims about their sexuality.
So they don't ask those questions anymore?

If she does not care to publicly discuss her sexual practices, she could stay in the closet and no one would bother her.

These people want asylum for being LGBT activists, but they do not want to say what it is that they really do.

In the USA, when the feds suspect a marriage for the purpose of immigration fraud, they ask intrusive personal questions. I thought they did, anyway. I guess that now when a woman gets off the boat from Africa and demands asylum and citizenship by virtue of being a lesbian, it is rude to ask whether she really has sexual relations with another woman? And rude to ask how she got those kids (who are probably also getting asylum) if she is not oriented towards male-female sexual relations?

This is a funny thing about gay rights. The activists want to be in your face about being gays and lesbians, but in the closet about what they do. For example, the recent Alan Turing movie made a big deal about him being gay, but never gave any clue about any actual homosexual relationship.

I can buy into libertarian views on LGBTQIA behavior, but we are going way beyond that.

No comments: