Buttigieg Says He and Same-Sex Husband Hope to Start a Family and May Have Children in White House

[HappyJoy]

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

God, where do you go with a post like that^? Do you ask something along the lines like 'what the hell are you talking about?" Do you just say, 'gee, no shit?" or do you point out that homosexuals and women are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Weird post, guy.

You did seem to be having trouble distinguishing a difference.

I'm confused because you think women can't be homosexuals? Not really sure where you're going with this.

Dang, you're getting more messed up with each post. So your suggesting Buttigieg is screwing a homosexual woman now?

Nope. And if he were what do I care? I'm not the one following Buttigieg's sex life.

 

[Leo123]

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

At least the "asshole who fucks a porn star" has a chance of procreating which is what Father Nature is all about.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Our President's sexual "orientation" is an oxymoron in the first place. It is meaningless word salad meant to obfuscate and confuse the real issue which is.....Homosexuality is NOT normal. It is an aberration.

 

[SweetSue92]

No, dumbfuck. I get that you need everything simplified to a grade-school level, but I actually just said that it would make diplomacy in the Middle East exponentially more difficult. As in, intelligent voters (read: not you) should weigh this into their decision-making.

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

I could give a damn if other countries like us; in fact, I'd prefer they don't like us too much, because that probably means we're benefiting them at our own expense. But I think there's a possibility that a lot of countries, most notably the Middle East, would be unwilling to meet with a gay President, and might even be offended and insulted by it. We're still the United States, so I don't know if any of them would reject the interaction outright, but I doubt that Pope Pete has the gravitas and foreign relations savvy to overcome that kind of obstacle in an already-touchy diplomatic situation.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Difference for me is: Donald Trump does not hold up his adultery and say, you must all accept this, and will be better people for it if you do. In fact, Christianity says you MUST accept this, like I do.

 

[Leo123]

Feel free to continue to wallow in denial and willful ignorance . I don't give a fuck

I went to those sites you posted, they were all leftist-progressive, radical sites. Many were just carbon copies of other sites. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

[strebe]

All sane Americans, vote Trump and make sure Butt-plug will never get the White House.

I don't like him or his husband.

 

[Lysistrata]

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

At least the "asshole who fucks a porn star" has a chance of procreating which is what Father Nature is all about.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Our President's sexual "orientation" is an oxymoron in the first place. It is meaningless word salad meant to obfuscate and confuse the real issue which is.....Homosexuality is NOT normal. It is an aberration.

The "rule" that all sex must involve the possibility of procreation is incredibly stupid and mostly honored in the breach. It means that two people who physically cannot procreate should not have sex. Try telling people that BJs are out. Try telling people who have had vasectomies or tubal legations that it means the end of their sex lives. It's not important to anyone else if a sex act doesn't result in a pregnancy. There is plenty that do.

There is simply no point in arguing about whether homosexuality is "normal" or not, since a conclusion one way or the other is meaningless. Also, arguing about anal or oral sex is meaningless, as people of all orientations indulge in these practices. It's the people who write explicit and obsessive descriptions of these acts who might have a problem with "normalcy."

I don't find what your president did to be acceptable in any way.

 

[Lysistrata]

I only rated your comment as a "winner" because there is no higher rating. If a heterosexual male is a "real man," he will be in the delivery room, then he will be diapering, bathing, feeding, and cuddling his infant, and caring for the woman who gave birth to his child while she recuperates. Nothing will separate him from his family.

Heterosexual men may become parents by chance, through their failure to use birth control, or the failure of the birth-control method used. Gay men become parents by choosing to take on the burdens of parenthood willingly.

Lets hear it for real fathers:

https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-person-cute-young-2133/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-man-carrying-baby-3536643/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/grayscale-photo-of-man-holding-baby-41188/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-touching-his-baby-while-lying-on-white-pad-3536632/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/monochrome-photo-of-family-picture-3330714/

That's real woke of you. Aren't you just too precious.

Does it feel good to mock the idea of family? Are you someone who has refused, or will refuse to care for your own children? Walk out on them to go out and play?

Pretty sure he's mocking the idea of YOU handing down sanctimonious judgements.

Look who the fuck is talking!

I know who's talking. Someone who has been married to my only husband for 25 years (as of tomorrow, in fact) and had 3 children and 4 going on 5 grandchildren with him, and does not need to hear pronouncements from a leftist, man-hating skank about her view of what men are and should be.

And you should revise your belief in how valued YOUR opinion is, as well.

Of course a "leftist, man-hating skank" would post photos that show the beauty of fatherhood. Why would I hate men? You are quite free with your judgments about women and LGBTs, as to their sexual morality, qualifications and performance as parents, etc., but you seem to panic and respond with hostility whenever the subject of heterosexual males being judged by the same criteria comes up. Is there some code-of-silence, cover-up scheme going on? Or do you just have a thing for bad boys and don't care about their kids?

 

[Seawytch]

Surrogates are well compensated. I should know. I was one, twice.

Highly unlikely.

What is unlikely? That surrogates are compensated? That i was one twice? Both statements are fact. I received over $45,000 plus medical expenses and salary loss compensation for the three children I bore for two gay men.

Why on Earth would you do that?

Consider the source.

I don't believe any of this --- what, THREE babies artificially inseminated as if she were a Holstein milk cow? And then the story is she gives them all to two MEN of a sexual perversion well known to contribute most of the pedophiles to the criminal population of the world. Men who want sex with children always hang around children: it's the scoutmasters, the priests, the schoolteachers, the Indian reservation doctors --- and they are nearly always homosexual and go after boys. It would be a terrible thing for a woman to do and I just don't believe it. This story is the same as the Buttgig announcement --- an attempt to normalize homosexuality. Buttgig's whole campaign is simply a way to promote homosexuality normalization, and this "kid in the White House" stuff is all part of that fake narrative.

Well, I hope it is just a promotion of homosexuality fake. Otherwise they would likely abuse the child or children. We had enough sex abuse with other presidents against interns and mistresses. We don't need pedophilia in the White House. Let them go do that somewhere else, if society is so degraded as to allow them access to small children now.

Well I hope you aren't as fucking retarded in real life as you come off on the internet, but I don't hold much hope of that. It was IVF not AI, retard. As I stated, they used donor eggs, I was simply the surrogate who carried their three children to term.

And if you knew anything about child abuse then you would know that gays are no more likely to engage in it than heterosexuals. In fact, most molestations are of girls by heterosexual men known to them.

In closing, fuck you.

 

[Flash]

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Difference for me is: Donald Trump does not hold up his adultery and say, you must all accept this, and will be better people for it if you do. In fact, Christianity says you MUST accept this, like I do.

Trump never claimed he was perfect, unlike Obama or Crooked Hillary.

All he says is that he understands the issues that we need to address to make this country great again. Issues like border security, lower taxation, fair trade deals, stronger military and economic incentives.

 

[Flash]

Homosexuality should not be illegal but it should be ridiculed like other disgusting abhorrent behaviors.

We sure as hell don't need a queer President. The United States of America would be the laughing stock of the world. It would be despicable.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Please post your degrees in child psychology . I'm sure that you have several advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of higher learning

I just heard, "I accept what my leaders tell me, because I'm too dumb to think for myself."

I don't have leaders. You do. I get my information from scientific sources and evaluate it carefully. You get lead by the nose by the bigots, fearmongers, and theocrats

Oh, you're "scientific" and "evaluate carefully", do you? Please cite me the studies you personally have read both supporting and opposing your viewpoint, and explain why the ones supporting are superior to the ones opposing.

I'll wait while you cobble together a completely inane and inadequate response.

You asked for it you got it. I don't have to hobble together anything. I have already done the research:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behavior and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"

It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

o 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

o 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

§ Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

§ Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

BS 'studies' paid for by radicals. Nice try though.

Oh really. So you think that you can just pull that shit out of your ass and make it stick? You have some documentation of the funding source? Who are the radicals?

As far as the studies themselves go, perhaps you would care to evaluate and critique the methodology used and discuss how they are flawed in your view. I realize that is a lot to ask of such a mental midget as you, but you really need to scratch your head real hard to make your brains work before spouting off on matters that you know little about.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuality should not be illegal

No, but it should be illegal to be as abysmally stupid as you are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Human beings would soon become extinct if only men poked each other in the butt. What more proof does anyone need to show homosexuality is NOT normal? Pete is a troubled man and should NEVER be allowed to raise children. His Presidential campaign is a joke.

Human being are in no way endangered by homosexuality. Homosexuals have ben a fixed percentage of the population all through history, and they do have children . They are not sterile. The threat to humanity is war and climate change perpetuated by conservatives.

How do you know that homos are "fixed percentage of the population"? Do you have proof for that assertion?

There are many cities and nations and institutions, where Homosexuality is running wild, and in recent decades, there is just a lot more sodomy going on.

Are you asserting that there is the same number of gay beaus in San Francisco in the 21st Century, or in Sodom in the 20th Century BC, as there are anywhere else?

The bottom line is that your fear that homosexuality will endanger the human species, is irrational, bizarre and beyond stupid> The fact is that while homosexuality is more visible and accepted, and that there are population centers where they are more numerous in no way means that there are more gay people than at other times. Furthermore, gay people do have children and are parents. They are not sterile! Do your really believe your own bovine excrement? Sadly, I think that you do

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Homosexuality should not be illegal but it should be ridiculed like other disgusting abhorrent behaviors.

We sure as hell don't need a queer President. The United States of America would be the laughing stock of the world. It would be despicable.

It is already the laughing stock with the moronic orange ogre in the white house

 

[Cecilie1200]

How could a kid not grow up screwed with same sex homosexual "parents"? Talk about being confused and out of touch with reality.

Not the only "non-traditional family" setup screwing up kids, but . . .

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

No, actually they don't. They need two parents that love and support them, yes, but the gender is immaterial...as every single study on the subject will tell you.

Since we all know that when people like you say, "Every single study on the subject", what you actually mean is "Every study I will accept as valid because it agrees with me", color me unimpressed.

No, its actually every single study.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study - ScienceDirect

Your insistence that "every single study" agrees with you just demonstrates my point that you only notice, listen to, and accept studies which agree with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How could a kid not grow up screwed with same sex homosexual "parents"? Talk about being confused and out of touch with reality.

Not the only "non-traditional family" setup screwing up kids, but . . .

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

No, actually they don't. They need two parents that love and support them, yes, but the gender is immaterial...as every single study on the subject will tell you.

Since we all know that when people like you say, "Every single study on the subject", what you actually mean is "Every study I will accept as valid because it agrees with me", color me unimpressed.

Interesting how you can't come up with a single piece of documentation to support your claim.

My claim? That you're biased? The "documentation" would be your posts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

Please post your degrees in child psychology . I'm sure that you have several advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of higher learning

I just heard, "I accept what my leaders tell me, because I'm too dumb to think for myself."

I don't have leaders. You do. I get my information from scientific sources and evaluate it carefully. You get lead by the nose by the bigots, fearmongers, and theocrats

Oh, you're "scientific" and "evaluate carefully", do you? Please cite me the studies you personally have read both supporting and opposing your viewpoint, and explain why the ones supporting are superior to the ones opposing.

I'll wait while you cobble together a completely inane and inadequate response.

You asked for it you got it. I don't have to hobble together anything. I have already done the research:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behavior and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"

It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

o 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

o 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

§ Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

§ Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

Interesting how the actual question was "cite me the studies you personally read for and against your supposition, and tell me why the ones which agree with you are superior", and all you did was link a bunch of studies agreeing with you, with no evidence that you read them.

Thank you for proving my point. You want to believe it, so that's all the "evidence" you need that you're right.

Dismissed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, dumbfuck. I get that you need everything simplified to a grade-school level, but I actually just said that it would make diplomacy in the Middle East exponentially more difficult. As in, intelligent voters (read: not you) should weigh this into their decision-making.

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

I could give a damn if other countries like us; in fact, I'd prefer they don't like us too much, because that probably means we're benefiting them at our own expense. But I think there's a possibility that a lot of countries, most notably the Middle East, would be unwilling to meet with a gay President, and might even be offended and insulted by it. We're still the United States, so I don't know if any of them would reject the interaction outright, but I doubt that Pope Pete has the gravitas and foreign relations savvy to overcome that kind of obstacle in an already-touchy diplomatic situation.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Please do not project your own mental issues on me and think that I assume everything is about me personally just because you do that.

My answer still stands.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Surrogates are well compensated. I should know. I was one, twice.

Highly unlikely.

What is unlikely? That surrogates are compensated? That i was one twice? Both statements are fact. I received over $45,000 plus medical expenses and salary loss compensation for the three children I bore for two gay men.

Why on Earth would you do that?

Consider the source.

I don't believe any of this --- what, THREE babies artificially inseminated as if she were a Holstein milk cow? And then the story is she gives them all to two MEN of a sexual perversion well known to contribute most of the pedophiles to the criminal population of the world. Men who want sex with children always hang around children: it's the scoutmasters, the priests, the schoolteachers, the Indian reservation doctors --- and they are nearly always homosexual and go after boys. It would be a terrible thing for a woman to do and I just don't believe it. This story is the same as the Buttgig announcement --- an attempt to normalize homosexuality. Buttgig's whole campaign is simply a way to promote homosexuality normalization, and this "kid in the White House" stuff is all part of that fake narrative.

Well, I hope it is just a promotion of homosexuality fake. Otherwise they would likely abuse the child or children. We had enough sex abuse with other presidents against interns and mistresses. We don't need pedophilia in the White House. Let them go do that somewhere else, if society is so degraded as to allow them access to small children now.

I seem to recall that Seawytch said she was pregnant twice, which would indicate that one of those times resulted in twins. No real idea, since I don't personally know Seawytch, nor do I particularly want to.

If you know anything about Seawytch, you know she's an extreme far-leftist nutball who would be quite likely to think that producing children for homosexuals is a dandy idea. Hence my instruction to "consider the source".

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

Please do not project your own mental issues on me and think that I assume everything is about me personally just because you do that.

My answer still stands.

Did the Mullahs approve of your post?