Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #281
Adoption of heteros doesn't interfere with that concept.
Sure it does if you actually believed the bullshit you're peddling. As there are zero parents with a blood connection to the child. And its the lack of the blood connection that you indicate harms children and denies them of their rights....
I made two points with respect to why it's better to have hetero marriage only. One because children do better with both blood parents in the home and 2. Two hetero adoptive parents don't interfere with that "man/woman" definition. Hetero adoptive parents not only don't interfere, they provide the vital role of "next best substitute" without defying the description of who qualifies. And they provide the CRUCIAL complimentary genders for any children growing in that home. A child growing in a home where his or her gender isn't represented will find a vacuum of their place or importance in the adult world. That's how a child's mind thinks: in simple logical deduction by the age of 6 or 7 at the end of their imprinting years.
As with Thomas Lobel, he suffers not from "gender identity disorder". Instead, he suffers from "my gender doesn't matter" disorder...
But back to the topic...
There is no intrinsic difference between Harvey Milk sodomizing a 16 year old minor in New York and then for two more years in California until he was of age to consent (but not mentally because he still was suicidal, also struggling with chronic drug use while his "dad"/Harvey Milk was sodomizing him), and Terry Bean sodomizing a 15 year old minor.
One gets a postage stamp and accolades from the LGBT cult for his sexuality. The other goes to court about it. Either way, either man's acts are a matter of public knowledge now. To choose them as "a sexual icon" means the conversation is no longer about those two men. It's about the people or subculture that chooses to iconize and defend their sexuality...