Homosexual declarations of children of homosexuals brings gay lifestyle into question..

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

It's stunning to me to listen to you people rant and rave about this issue, claiming that kids need a mother and a father, while having the temerity to expect that your appeals to ignorance anybody except those who already agree with you. I have yet to see a shred of credible evidence to back up you claims. There are numerous studies that clearly refute your crap and it's clear to me that what you are doing is motivated by nothing less than bigotry and that none of you care a whit about the kids.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

The simple and irrefutable fact is that all the videos being posted on this thread are credible evidence that same-sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harm children. Yet leftists insist there's "no evidence" by simple virtue of the fact that they refuse to ACCEPT any evidence. "I don't want to believe that's bad" is not the same thing as "that's not bad".

If you're referring to the two videos from the idiotic OP, please explain exactly what that has to do with parenting by gay people. If there is something else that I'm missing spell it out. You seem to have some strange ideas. Gay people are now allowed to adopt kids in every state, and in some states, have been for quite some time. That would not be the case if they were being harmed.

Yes, because human societies NEVER collectively decide to do things that are bad, harmful, or even evil. Governments are ALWAYS benevolent, omniscient, infallible, and unswayed by the imbecilic, selfish whims of special interest groups. And I fart rainbow glitter when I eat too much Mexican food.

Let's see, what just happened here. You stated that there is proof on this thread that gay parenting is harmful. I called you on it and asked you to point it out instead of doing so , you post this gibberish? Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you nothing but appeals to ignorance logical fallacies at your disposal

Let's see, what just happened here? You posted a demand, and I chose to respond to another part of the post instead, and YOU decided that the ONLY possible reason that you and satisfying your demands is not THE most important, pressing, urgent thing in the world to me, that MUST mean that I'm "demonstrating" something about my positions, rather than just demonstrating that 1) I'm not your waitress, and I don't take orders, and 2) you need to massively get the **** over yourself.

It is not often that I feel the urge to spend large amounts of time proving painfully obvious things to leftists who are determined to pretend that objective reality stopped existing the day they decided they didn't like it, but IF I choose to do so, I will do it on MY schedule, because I want to. I will NOT do it because an obnoxious, hubristic prick demanded it.

That is quite an hysterical boatload of bizarre blather. However, it serves no purpose other than to try to squirm the fact that I called you on your idiotic claim that there is proof-right here on this thread-that same sex parenting harms children, and you cannot back it up. Case closed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

 

[Sahba]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

Yes, yes, we have all seen the clap trap that you try to pass off as proof and your bizarre theories like the infancy doctrine You seem incapable of learning that something does not mean what you want it to mean just because you.......want it to mean something that it does not mean.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course you do, weirdo.

I am not the weirdo talking about pimping kids on the streets ... That's you ...

.​

No, it's you.

Thinking a little boy in women's makeup and heels can sell for someone, and *own the neighborhood*.

That is the definition of pimping children.

 

[BlackSand]

No, it's you.

Thinking a little boy in women's makeup and heels can sell for someone, and *own the neighborhood*.

That is the definition of pimping children.

I said he was employable ... And I indicated he could work for himself as an artist or consultant.

I don't expect you to recognize anything other than the make-up and heels ...
Or how he could be exploited ... That's what you're all about ...

.​

 

[koshergrl]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who think he's adorable and potentially would be a great business asset, perched on a counter.

People who think that a 10 year old tranny in makeup and dresses is *employable* as a draw are known as *pimps* or *sex traffickers*.

Just sayin.

You're the one who only sees a ten year old tranny ripe for exploitation.
That says more towards the way you think than anyone else.

I on the other hand saw a talented young man who was doing something he likes ...
Recognized he was good at it ... And enjoyed his sense of humor.

I never suggested he should be perched on the counter ...
With the proper direction he could probably own the city block.

.​

You saw a ten-year-old, and then promptly forgot that he's ten years old. Did it slip your mind somewhere along the way that prepubescent kids are very, VERY different from adults?

Every time I see people discussing children as though they're grownups in any context, I'm reminded of a passage in The Hiding Place, by Corrie ten Boom.

“I asked Father about a poem we had read at school the winter before. One line had described ‘a young man whose face was not shadowed by sex-sin.’ I had been far too shy to ask the teacher what it meant, and Mama had blushed scarlet when I consulted her. In those days just after the turn of the century sex was never discussed, even at home.

So the line had stuck in my head. ‘Sex,’ I was pretty sure, meant whether you were a boy or a girl, and ‘sin’ made Tante (Aunt) Jans very angry, but what the two together meant I could not imagine. And so, seated next to Father in the train compartment, I suddenly asked, ‘Father, what is sex-sin?’

He turned to look at me, as he always did when answering a question, but to my surprise he said nothing. At last he stood up, lifted his traveling case from the rack over our heads, and set it on the floor.

‘Will you carry it off the train, Corrie?’ he said.

I stood up and tugged at it. It was crammed with the watches and spare parts he had purchased that morning.

‘It’s too heavy,’ I said.

‘Yes,’ he said. ‘And it would be a pretty poor father who would ask his little girl to carry such a load. It’s the same way, Corrie, with knowledge. Some knowledge is too heavy for children. When you are older and stronger you can bear it. For now you must trust me to carry it for you.’

And I was satisfied. More than satisfied–wonderfully at peace. There were answers to this and all my hard questions–for now I was content to leave them in my father’s keeping.”

It isn't just that we refuse to carry adult burdens for our children until they're ready to carry them for themselves; it's that we load those burdens onto our kids like they're little Mexican burros, and then stand around shouting that they're not burdens at all, but glorious blessings, while they struggle.

I wasn't talking about anyone other than the kid in the video.

If you want to see or think the worst things possible about him ...
I seriously doubt that is going to change his options in life.

If you want to make inroads against the exploitation of children and the sex trade world wide ...
Join Operation Underground Railroad (or any of the other alternatives) ... Actually do something ...

.​

It's not a matter of what I WANT to see. That's YOUR schtick. This is a matter of what is, whether you like it or not.

But I think we've already established that you're not even reading posts before replying to them any more, so run along.

 

[Flopper]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's you.

Thinking a little boy in women's makeup and heels can sell for someone, and *own the neighborhood*.

That is the definition of pimping children.

I said he was employable ... And I indicated he could work for himself as an artist or consultant.

I don't expect you to recognize anything other than the make-up and heels ...
Or how he could be exploited ... That's what you're all about ...

.​

You think he's employable because he's an underaged kid in makeup and heels.

That's called pimping.

 

[koshergrl]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Sexual predators pretend that sex abuse isn't really *abuse*. It's their bread and butter.

 

[BlackSand]

It's not a matter of what I WANT to see. That's YOUR schtick. This is a matter of what is, whether you like it or not.

But I think we've already established that you're not even reading posts before replying to them any more, so run along.

You can try and employ your mystical vision on whatever I post ...
And will be just as wrong about that as well.

Don't worry ... I understand you need me to run from you.
Pretend I am if it makes you feel better and more secure with yourself ...

.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

It's stunning to me to listen to you people rant and rave about this issue, claiming that kids need a mother and a father, while having the temerity to expect that your appeals to ignorance anybody except those who already agree with you. I have yet to see a shred of credible evidence to back up you claims. There are numerous studies that clearly refute your crap and it's clear to me that what you are doing is motivated by nothing less than bigotry and that none of you care a whit about the kids.

"It is clear to me that I'm right, because THAT'S WHAT I WANT!"

Uh huh. Okay, first of all, your first sentence made no actual sense. Maybe dial back on your "how DARE you!" outrage enough to be coherent, huh?

Second of all, perhaps you could define for me what would constitute "credible evidence" in your books, and not immediately be met with your fingers shooting into your ears while you scream, "Doesn't prove anything, because REASONS!"

Third, savor the irony of you dancing around, screaming, "You haven't shown me evidence!" before turning around and saying, "There are numerous studies that say I'm right!" without actually naming any. And don't even get me started on your absurd claim that your mere dislike of what I'm saying constitutes not only proof that I'm wrong, but ALSO makes you able to make definitive statements to what I think and feel and what my motivations are.

From where I sit, you're not even clear on what YOU think and why, let alone prepared to make assertions about anyone else.

 

[BlackSand]

You think he's employable because he's an underaged kid in makeup and heels.

That's called pimping.

No ... I think he will be able to eventually get a job or work for himself.
You are the one hung up on his age, the heels and everything.

.​

 

[koshergrl]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

It's stunning to me to listen to you people rant and rave about this issue, claiming that kids need a mother and a father, while having the temerity to expect that your appeals to ignorance anybody except those who already agree with you. I have yet to see a shred of credible evidence to back up you claims. There are numerous studies that clearly refute your crap and it's clear to me that what you are doing is motivated by nothing less than bigotry and that none of you care a whit about the kids.

"It is clear to me that I'm right, because THAT'S WHAT I WANT!"

Uh huh. Okay, first of all, your first sentence made no actual sense. Maybe dial back on your "how DARE you!" outrage enough to be coherent, huh?

Second of all, perhaps you could define for me what would constitute "credible evidence" in your books, and not immediately be met with your fingers shooting into your ears while you scream, "Doesn't prove anything, because REASONS!"

Third, savor the irony of you dancing around, screaming, "You haven't shown me evidence!" before turning around and saying, "There are numerous studies that say I'm right!" without actually naming any. And don't even get me started on your absurd claim that your mere dislike of what I'm saying constitutes not only proof that I'm wrong, but ALSO makes you able to make definitive statements to what I think and feel and what my motivations are.

From where I sit, you're not even clear on what YOU think and why, let alone prepared to make assertions about anyone else.

Nice and well said.

 

[koshergrl]

The simple and irrefutable fact is that there is no credible evidence to show that same sex marriage and parenting by gay folks harms anyone. Yet conservatives won't leave it alone.

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

Yes, yes, we have all seen the clap trap that you try to pass off as proof and your bizarre theories like the infancy doctrine You seem incapable of learning that something does not mean what you want it to mean just because you.......want it to mean something that it does not mean.

I'm totally creeped out by the thought of you investigating and interrogating children.

Blech.

 

[koshergrl]

You think he's employable because he's an underaged kid in makeup and heels.

That's called pimping.

No ... I think he will be able to eventually get a job or work for himself.
You are the one hung up on his age, the heels and everything.

.​

Yeah that's straight out of the pedosexual manual as well.
"Age is irrelevant..all that matters is that they express themselves sexually"
"Love knows no age bounds"
"Children are individuals and have *rights* to experience love in all it's forms

 

[koshergrl]

"This is a worldwide list of known pederast and pedophile advocacy groups that promote sexual contact between adults and children."
When you put makeup and dresses on a little boy and encourage him to declare his sexual aspirations on line to adults, you are promoting sexual contact between adults and children.

"
United Kingdom[edit]

• Paedophile Action for Liberation, 1974, merged with PIE in 1975.[10]
• Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), 1974–1984. It was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, between 1978 and 1983, the year in which it was expelled.[35] It published the magazines Magpie, Understanding Paedophilia and Childhood Rights.[10][36]

United States[edit]

• Childhood Sensuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[10]
• North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Considered to be largely defunct.[37][38]
• Pedophile Information Society.[39]
• Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[3] Defunct.
• René Guyon Society. Possibly fictitious. Its slogan was supposedly "sex before eight, or it's too late".[27]

List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations - Wikipedia

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah that's straight out of the pedosexual manual as well.
"Age is irrelevant..all that matters is that they express themselves sexually"
"Love knows no age bounds"
"Children are individuals and have *rights* to experience love in all it's forms

You're the sicko that keeps talking about his age.
I was talking about a kid who probably has a chance on going somewhere in his life.

It doesn't matter how often you try to drag our conversation back to the sick twisted shit you want to suggest.
That is all your mind working ... And has nothing to do with what I am saying.

If you want to try and convince him he is screwed up and shit on the guy ... Knock yourself out ...
Maybe he can end up with the same miserable fucked up view of life you have.

.​