Court Orders GA. Man to Keep Gay Friends Away from Kids//

or should she say "i know about 'him'"

or should she say "i know about 'him'"

A Georgia father has been forbidden by a divorce court from having any “homosexual partners or friends” around when his children are present.

Eric Mongerson and his ex-wife, Sandy Ehlers were prohibited by the court from having any one of the opposite sex, or deemed a paramour, and who was not a blood relative, stay overnight in the presence of the children.

But the Judge Christopher Edwards of the Fayette County Superior Court imposed additional restrictions on Mongerson, ordering, “Additionally, defendant is prohibited from exposing the children to his homosexual partners and friends” during the children’s once-per-week visits.

How great is this? Finally, a court “gets it.” And of course, the Father (if you could even call him that. I think that a Father is someone who always does whats in the best interests of their children, so technically this dude doesn’t always qualify), anyway, he appealed the court’s decision. Apparently he doesn’t want to be prohibited from having his homosexual liaisons in front of his children.

His filing argues that, “There was no evidence presented that and the court made no finding that exposing the parties’ children to any of Appellant’s homosexual friends would adversely affect the best interests of the children.

Oh really? So has he not read any of the studies, or payed attention to his children at all? He needs to read these posts here and here, and get himself straightened out. These kids do need a father, but not one who is going to parade his male “paramours” in front of them.

The lawyer for Mongerson’s ex-wife, Lance McMillian, cited as evidence to that effect the testimony by Mongerson’s daughter, who told the court that she had discovered “one of my dad’s magazines that had nude men in it doing things to each other.”

McMillian’s brief further asserted that Mongerson had been unfaithful, and that his children had suffered as their parents’ marriage ended. The presence of gay friends during time with their father, the brief claimed, might result in “potentially damaging effects on the healing process” of Mongerson’s children because they would be “reminded of the painful issue of the appellant’s infidelity, new lifestyle and keeping of pornography in the home.”

But he thinks that his behavior doesn’t adversely affect his children. What is wrong with some people? Of course his children are and will continue to be negatively affected. Thankfully the court also gave him very little visitation time. I guess it’s a toss up between children needing their father, and the father being a perverted self-centered pron addict. I agree with the court. It’s in the children’s best interested to have very little time with a parent who would parade such filth in front of them. Mongerson’s visits are limited to,

four hours once a week with his youngest children, plus one-week visits during the summer and a day with each child just before or after a birthday.

There had to be something drastically wrong for a father to get awarded so little time with his children. I am impressed with Judge Edwards and his effort to protect these kids. He obviously understands the negative effect that homosexuality has on people and how exposure to such things affects children.

Source: (article found via google news, but website for gay propaganda).

{ Sneaky, Sneaky Hollywood….Wake Up America! }

If you haven’t noticed already, then you should start paying attention to the sneaky and not so sneaky ways that Hollywood is participating in the “deteriorate the family” and “promote homosexuality” campaigns. If you just take the time to look around, the filth is everywhere. Call me a prude or whatever, but I already don’t watch rated “R” movies and it’s looking like I’ll be passing on PG-13’s for the most part as well. My husband and I are notorious for walking out of trashy and inappropriate movies and I’m an ace at getting theaters to refund our money so we can then go see something that is more in line with our values. Blogger tip: If you tell the theaters that the the movie should have a higher rating and if you had known how trashy it was, then you wouldn’t have even bought a ticket, it usually works rather well, but the catch is that you have to get a refund before 20 minutes into the movie. They won’t let you watch half and then get your money back. Sometimes we have to settle for just passes, rather then a refund, but the point is, if you don’t feel comfortable in a movie, or you shouldn’t feel comfortable in a movie, get up and walk out!!!!

So, I am a little embarrassed to admit that I didn’t get up and walk out of the movie my entire family went to see on Wednesday, “Four Christmases.” I should have though. My sister, her boyfriend and my Dad only lasted about 15 minutes before they walked out, but the rest of us stayed. There were mixed reviews about the movie, but in light of the societal upheaval as of late and being fully aware of everything the radical left, gay rights activists and same-sex marriage backers have been shoving down our throats, in an effort to indoctrinate our entire country and destroy our entire society, this movie stuck out like a sore thumb!

I just thought I would give my readers a little synopsis of what gems this movie had to offer. Read on to get the sarcasm….

  1. The movie starts off with the main couple ranting and raving to an engaged couple about how crappy marriage is. They aren’t married themselves, but they proceed to tell this engaged couple why they would NEVER marry….ball and chain and other negative marriage phrases are used.
  2. They couple spend the first part of the movie plotting to avoid their family for Christmas. (I could never imagine not being with my family for Christmas).
  3. As they hop from house to house after being roped into spending Christmas with their families, the plot thickens, or rather the muck thickens……You learn that all parents are divorced, so the couples do not have intact families.
  4. Reese’s character apparently was lesbian-esque in high school….(little plug for the gay community)
  5. Vince’s Mom now shacks-up with his former best friend from high school.
  6. The couple go on and on about how they don’t want kids
  7. Then Reece decides she does and she might want to get married, but Vince doesn’t so he storms off.
  8. Vince then comes back saying that ok, they can start thinking and talking about having kids, Reece is excited, they kiss and make up and then start in with, kids will be a good tax write-off, we will have to have 2 so, like dogs, they will have company and can be left alone…..and on and on….
  9. Then as the movie ends, it shows the couple in the hospital with their new baby, one year later……no wedding rings in sight, no in-tack family for this newborn, no plans to marry….

My husband says, “well, we don’t know they didn’t get married, or weren’t getting married,” and my response was, “well Hollywood made sure we knew they weren’t married, we shouldn’t have to speculate and finish the story for them”……

How hard would it have been for the director, producer, whomever, to just put wedding bands on their characters and at least finish the movie with some semblance of moral fiber?

This movie is clever. They placed a horrendous amount of immorality in a pretty box and packaged it up with hilarity, sexual innuendos and sarcasm. Next time…I’ll be walking out and getting a refund!

Have you seen the movie? Tell us what you think in the comments section!

Thanks for reading!