Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah that's straight out of the pedosexual manual as well.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.
.
"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
Ain't that the truth. What's sad is that they're so busy trying to argue that transgenderism is a normal sexuality for children, they don't even realize they crossed the "abnormal" way back at the point where they thought 10-year-olds HAD a sexuality at all.
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!"
A scientifically well constructed, peer reviewed study by well credentialed professionals who do not have a political agenda. Oh what? You don't know what that looks like. Here, try this on for size:
In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.
The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.
Here is a link to all the studiesEven the notion that some try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized
LGBT parenting - Wikipedia
Consensus
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]
Really? OK, maybe I have not been explicit enough, or maybe you have a comprehension problemFrom where I sit, you're not even clear on what YOU think and why, let alone prepared to make assertions about anyone else.
1. I believe that gay and Lesbian people should be treated as equals IN ALL RESPECTS including marriage, the ability to adopt children, to be free of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation
2. I believe that while there of good and bad parents of all kinds, there is overwhelming evidence that the children of same sex couples do just as well as other kinds and sometimes better-as I have documented.
3. I think that the allegations that gay people sexually exploit, or abuse children, expose them to inappropriate sexual activity, or try to influence their sexual orientation or gender identity is despicable bigotry and /or willful stupidity.
4. I believe that people who oppose marriage equality - claiming that they do so for the sake of the children- are either just that stupid, or liars who do not really give a shit about the kids, because clearly children benefit from having two married parents who both their legal guardians with all of the financial benefits, legal protections, and social status that goes with that.
5. I believe that when a child is questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation, they should be respected and supported and taken seriously and not scorned, shamed or reject which only adds to the pain and confusion that they are already experiencing.
As to why, I have done extensive research on all aspects of the topic and worked with children and families most of my long adult life. I have posted some of the evidence that I see, and there is a lot more where that came from
Fact: You avoided the part of the post that you could not, and still can not deal withFact One: I answered the part of your post I was interested in.
No you are not the moron whisperer. Apparently I have been cast in that role.I'm not the Moron Whisperer, and have no interest in trying to decipher gibberish into communication. Also, one definition of "jackass" is "a person who fucks up, and then gets angry at OTHER people for not compensating for it".
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 mindProve it!! Put up or shut up.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.
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?
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.
maybe your, (very small) world does.
It abundantly apparent that you have nothing intelligent or relevant to contribute in response to the documentation that I posted.Now that you have finally made yourself coherent, let me point out that I don't expect to convince YOU of anything. In fact, I don't consider YOU to be important enough to care what you do and don't believe.
What's at issue here is simply that I have no intention of letting you and your ilk shout your insane, evil fuckery into the world without challenge.
So if you want to be "stunned" by the fact that people actually "have the temerity" to respond to and disagree with your bullshit . . . well, no one ever accused you of being overly bright.
You are flailing around pathetically trying to avoid the fact that I caught you in a bullshit lie- that there is proof posted on this thread that shows that parenting by gays is harmful- and are doing anything and everything possible to deflect away from that.Fact: You avoided the part of the post that you could not, and still can not deal withFact One: I answered the part of your post I was interested in.
Fact: I ignored the part of the post that I didn't have the time to bother with. At some point, SOMEONE is going to have to get you leftist fucknuts to understand the concept of "real people have JOBS during the day".
Fact: I also STILL don't take orders from you, asswipe.
Holy shit! That is some batshit crazy blather!. You said that you did not know what I believe. I then told you exactly what I believe.,. You respond-not by addressing the points that I made- but rather by berating me about how uninterested you are. That is really fucking bizarre.!Really? OK, maybe I have not been explicit enough, or maybe you have a comprehension problemFrom where I sit, you're not even clear on what YOU think and why, let alone prepared to make assertions about anyone else.
1. I believe that gay and Lesbian people should be treated as equals IN ALL RESPECTS including marriage, the ability to adopt children, to be free of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation
2. I believe that while there of good and bad parents of all kinds, there is overwhelming evidence that the children of same sex couples do just as well as other kinds and sometimes better-as I have documented.
3. I think that the allegations that gay people sexually exploit, or abuse children, expose them to inappropriate sexual activity, or try to influence their sexual orientation or gender identity is despicable bigotry and /or willful stupidity.
4. I believe that people who oppose marriage equality - claiming that they do so for the sake of the children- are either just that stupid, or liars who do not really give a shit about the kids, because clearly children benefit from having two married parents who both their legal guardians with all of the financial benefits, legal protections, and social status that goes with that.
5. I believe that when a child is questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation, they should be respected and supported and taken seriously and not scorned, shamed or reject which only adds to the pain and confusion that they are already experiencing.
As to why, I have done extensive research on all aspects of the topic and worked with children and families most of my long adult life. I have posted some of the evidence that I see, and there is a lot more where that came from
I'm sorry, at what point did I indicate that I was the slightest bit interested in a monologue about the self-flattering bullshit in your head?
I stated an opinion; I didn't ask a question or issue an invitation. Yet another example of you needing to get the fuck over yourself, Ego Lad.
And once again we seek bigots emboldened by the hateful Trump ‘administration.’It abundantly apparent that you have nothing intelligent or relevant to contribute in response to the documentation that I posted.Now that you have finally made yourself coherent, let me point out that I don't expect to convince YOU of anything. In fact, I don't consider YOU to be important enough to care what you do and don't believe.
What's at issue here is simply that I have no intention of letting you and your ilk shout your insane, evil fuckery into the world without challenge.
So if you want to be "stunned" by the fact that people actually "have the temerity" to respond to and disagree with your bullshit . . . well, no one ever accused you of being overly bright.
Holy shit! Seriously? Mainly I cited the Columbia Law School Project and 71 peer reviewed studies ...but you gloss over that- do not even mention it- and seize on Wikipedia that was mentioned in passing.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!"
A scientifically well constructed, peer reviewed study by well credentialed professionals who do not have a political agenda. Oh what? You don't know what that looks like. Here, try this on for size:
In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.
The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.
Here is a link to all the studiesEven the notion that some try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized
LGBT parenting - Wikipedia
Consensus
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]
So you're setting lofty, picky standards of what YOU will accept . . . and then you cite Wikipedia at me?
There is not enough "fuck you, you mouthbreathing hypocritical twit" in the world for you.
And once again we seek bigots emboldened by the hateful Trump ‘administration.’
You can't ... Ro v Wade is an apt example... hens the legislative system, where you're lucky if you end up getting 1/2 of what you strive for... 1/2 of the time. Our Nation was founded upon a "standard" of Judaeo Christian values which at times is in juxtaposition to our Natural rights & all of the time is subject to legislators seeking to mold it to their their value system... Not the "standard" upon which it was all founded upon.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 mindProve it!! Put up or shut up.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.
How do you agree on a standard of morality with people who find the whole idea of a standard of morality offensive?
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.
WRONG. Sexual abuse, by definition, is when undesired sexual BEHAVIOR is forced on a person. Not the same thing. And if anything, the definition becomes broader when directed at a child, not narrower. Sexual abuse of children includes things which aren't "sexual activity" as you mean it, and sexualization of the child is one of them.
"Traumatic sexualization refers to a process in which a child’s sexuality (including both sexual feelings and sexual attitudes) is shaped in a developmentally inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion as a result of sexual abuse. This can happen in a variety of ways in the course of the abuse. Traumatic sexualization can occur when a child is repeatedly regarded by an offender for sexual behavior that is inappropriate to his or her level of development. It occurs through the exchange of affection, attention, privileges, and gifts for sexual behavior, so that a child learns to use sexual behavior as a strategy for manipulating others to satisfy a variety of developmentally appropriate needs. It occurs when certain parts of a child’s anatomy are fetishized and given distorted importance and meaning. It occurs through the misconceptions and confusions about sexual behavior and sexual morality that are transmitted to the child from the offender. And it occurs when very frightening memories and events become associated in the child’s mind with sexual activity."
http://csom.org/train/victim/resources/The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse.pdf
Looks like the "warped imagination" is on YOUR side, not ours.
It is stunning that to me that anyone who believes that removing one parent from the equation is a huge deal- when the VAST majority of families without either a father or mother are single parents- where the parents have divorced- and one parent is no longer involved.
When I see those who utter thoughts like yours spending 3/4 of your time starting threads about the evils of divorce and single parents- then I might start to believe this is something more than just your bigotry talking.
Bingo.It is stunning that to me that anyone who believes that removing one parent from the equation is a huge deal- when the VAST majority of families without either a father or mother are single parents- where the parents have divorced- and one parent is no longer involved.
…or where the parents never bothered to marry in the first place, often where the scumbag deadbeat dad never had any intention of supporting the children that he irresponsibly sired.
It has long been known that “coming from a broken home”[ very often has tragic effects on the life outcomes of children so affected. In any rational society, this is something to be avoided. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to prevent. Sometimes, solid digestive waste occurs—a parent dies, or the two parents find that they just cannot live together as a family. Of course, it is the children who suffer most,as a result.
What is different in the past few generations is that we, as a society, have come to consider it acceptable to intentionally create broken homes, and to introduce children thereinto.
When I see those who utter thoughts like yours spending 3/4 of your time starting threads about the evils of divorce and single parents- then I might start to believe this is something more than just your bigotry talking.
Your argument here is that one cannot credibly speak out against own evil, unless that person also equally speaks out against a different evil, of your choosing.
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.
Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.
And exploited by perverted adults.
I'm sure there are a lot of people that would like to take advantage of his talents ...
And, like anyone else, there are plenty of people he will encounter that don't necessarily have his best interests in mind.
He'll be able to take care of himself ...
Unless someone wants to make that difficult for him.
I mean watch the video ... He isn't unhappy.
He's also smart, can work a crowd, and will be able to go anywhere he wants to go.
You can either leave him to pursue his passions in life ...
Or try and convince him he is screwed up ... At which point you may not be doing him any favors.
.
The discussion here is good, but short on facts. Instead of judging happy from a short kiddie video --- how about this??
Transgender people face alarmingly high risk of suicide
Suicide rate of transgender suicide is nearly 10 times the general population. It's a FULL completed suicide rate of 41%.. Not clear if even USA Today makes the distinction between transvestites and transsexuals. They use the word transgender. Which probably SHOULD cover both cases. By any measure --- that's FULLY "unhappy".
You folks are throwing terms around without any consideration to rigid definition or substantial differences. Dressing up your 6 to 8 y.o. daughter in heavy make-up and feathers and having them perform a burlesque routine for a kiddie "beauty contest" is NOT pedophilia -- but it's creepy parenting. Especially when YOU are more into it than the child is. It MAY BE pedophile whacking material -- but it's NOT pedophilia. THAT's PART of what MAKES it "creepy parenting".
Now turning your 8 to 15 yr old boy into a transvestite performer for mutual enjoyment is also creepy. And I'll tell you who agrees. I WORKED on the campaign for a very famous San Fran transvestite. He was a fully functional adult Libertarian. Was fully qualified to be a State Representative. But HE also thought that early kiddie "fun" with tranny shows was parental abuse. Apparently, there's no "ticking clock" to become a REAL tranny. You can decide at age 30. When YOU decide --- the 41% suicide rate danger is a risk that YOU take. Not one that your parents decided for you..
Please don't LEAP to pedo accusations. Pedo in America is a VERY small predatory group. And there is plenty of child abuse that is NOT pedo.
The discussion here is good, but short on facts. Instead of judging happy from a short kiddie video --- how about this??
Transgender people face alarmingly high risk of suicide
Suicide rate of transgender suicide is nearly 10 times the general population. It's a FULL completed suicide rate of 41%.. Not clear if even USA Today makes the distinction between transvestites and transsexuals. They use the word transgender. Which probably SHOULD cover both cases. By any measure --- that's FULLY "unhappy".
You folks are throwing terms around without any consideration to rigid definition or substantial differences. Dressing up your 6 to 8 y.o. daughter in heavy make-up and feathers and having them perform a burlesque routine for a kiddie "beauty contest" is NOT pedophilia -- but it's creepy parenting. Especially when YOU are more into it than the child is. It MAY BE pedophile whacking material -- but it's NOT pedophilia. THAT's PART of what MAKES it "creepy parenting".
Now turning your 8 to 15 yr old boy into a transvestite performer for mutual enjoyment is also creepy. And I'll tell you who agrees. I WORKED on the campaign for a very famous San Fran transvestite. He was a fully functional adult Libertarian. Was fully qualified to be a State Representative. But HE also thought that early kiddie "fun" with tranny shows was parental abuse. Apparently, there's no "ticking clock" to become a REAL tranny. You can decide at age 30. When YOU decide --- the 41% suicide rate danger is a risk that YOU take. Not one that your parents decided for you..
Please don't LEAP to pedo accusations. Pedo in America is a VERY small predatory group. And there is plenty of child abuse that is NOT pedo.
