Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two Strokes

[Syriusly]

I would much rather these criminals were tied up in chains and dropped in the ocean, but I feel that way about all child molesters, I don't believe in second chances for people who abuse children, I believe they should die, hopefully slow painful deaths.

No, what should happen is the lesbians go into counseling and have the custody of the children either totally supervised or removed completely.

Healing can only begin when all involved face their demons. Those women weren't born hating men, they learned it. That boy now likely hates and fears women. Look for him to "be born gay" as he approaches adolescence...or hetero and abusive to his girlfriends...or afraid of them and continuing to be getting beaten or other type of abuse because "that's what people who love you do".. Any outcome of course depending on his personal bent of character.

The women belong in counseling, not killed. .

Why do you think that parents who physically abuse their children should not be criminally prosecuted?

Meanwhile- tell us what you think about incestuous marriage....

 

[Syriusly]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that there are LGBT children who need adopting yes?

Also, again, adoption agencies /already/ screen prospective parents for the best fit for the children. Adopted parents are better vetted than biological parents in /all/ cases.

This is on top of the fact that LGBT's are /already/ adopting children on a regular basis and there is no evidence of anything that you've claimed.

Read, comprehend, asshole!

Why would you ask someone else to do what you are unwilling to do?

Meanwhile I will point out that your issue is that you are upset that African Americans and gay Americans are having too easy of a time adopting children.

 

[Inevitable]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Says who?

Anyone normal would agree. Wise up!

you mean anybody that agrees is normal. If agreement with you is your threshold for normal than you need to say or properly.

 

[Skylar]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Says who?

Anyone normal would agree. Wise up!

you mean anybody that agrees is normal. If agreement with you is your threshold for normal than you need to say or properly.

You've got to give Spinster credit for one thing. I don't think anyone has managed to sum up the 'No True Scottsman Fallacy' in just four words. It takes as many words just to state that fallacy's name.

 

[elektra]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

And you go to PTA meetings, making accusations and attributing things to parents that they did not say?

Or are you only brave enough to speak your idiotic bigoted thoughts anonymously online?

 

[elektra]

So you go around wondering what the sexual proclivities of parents are?

You must be real fun at the PTA meetings.

Further, when you pronunce you are homosexual one does not have to question, you are announcing.

 

[elektra]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Says who?

The Daily Mail

 

[Skylar]

People who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.

Says who?

The Daily Mail

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

 

[elektra]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

 

[Skylar]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

 

[elektra]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

 

[Skylar]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

 

[elektra]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

I know, your agenda is to defend homosexuality, not an ill word can be posted. No matter how sick or twisted the crime they commit, it is all okay with you. But the fact is, according to your links in other threads, children are victims of crimes more often when the father is not present. This crime need not of happened.

 

[Inevitable]

And why would I give a shit what the Daily Mail says?

Because this OP used it as its source and you are posting in this thread?

The OP doesn't say what you do. Perhaps you can quote the 'Daily Mail' saying that 'eople who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give us a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. Being cited in an OP isn't a standard of credibility.

You think this homosexual couple acted rationally?

I paraphrased, so?

I think you didn't show us anywhere in the Daily mail that they said this: "people who are abnormal with their sexual proclivities certainly can not be expected to act rationally with children.'

And then give me a rational reason to give a shit what the Daily Mail says. As being cited in an OP still isn't a standard of credibility.

Try again.

I know, your agenda is to defend homosexuality, not an ill word can be posted. No matter how sick or twisted the crime they commit, it is all okay with you. But the fact is, according to your links in other threads, children are victims of crimes more often when the father is not present. This crime need not of happened.

It just doesn't follow. They beat their kid up because they are gay? how is that a reasonable conclusion?

 

[elektra]

It just doesn't follow. They beat their kid up because they are gay? how is that a reasonable conclusion?

You are looking for a reasonable conclusion in a horrific crime, they did not simply "beat up their kid". You start a debate by first redefining what took place?

Fine, you have your agenda to protect homosexuals even when they are guilty of:

beat one woman's 5-year-old son with a HAMMER, duct-taped his eyes and kicked him in the groin until he bled and suffered two strokes'

What does not follow is how you want to dismiss this as simply "They beat up their kid", there is no debate or discussion with you if you can not even admit to what occurred, which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

 

[Inevitable]

You are looking for a reasonable conclusion in a horrific crime,

No, I'm asking for your reasoning when you conclude homosexuality plays a role in child abuse.

they did not simply "beat up their kid".

Well, what did they do more than that?

You start a debate by first redefining what took place?

So they didn't beat up their child?

Fine, you have your agenda to protect homosexuals even when they are guilty of:

beat one woman's 5-year-old son with a HAMMER, duct-taped his eyes and kicked him in the groin until he bled and suffered two strokes'

What does not follow is how you want to dismiss this as simply "They beat up their kid", there is no debate or discussion with you if you can not even admit to what occurred, which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

So they didn't beat up a child? What did they do then?

Did the child need to be kicked in the groin until he bled? I disagree.

 

[elektra]

You are looking for a reasonable conclusion in a horrific crime,

No, I'm asking for your reasoning when you conclude homosexuality plays a role in child abuse.

they did not simply "beat up their kid".

Well, what did they do more than that?

You start a debate by first redefining what took place?

So they didn't beat up their child?

Fine, you have your agenda to protect homosexuals even when they are guilty of:

beat one woman's 5-year-old son with a HAMMER, duct-taped his eyes and kicked him in the groin until he bled and suffered two strokes'

What does not follow is how you want to dismiss this as simply "They beat up their kid", there is no debate or discussion with you if you can not even admit to what occurred, which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

So they didn't beat up a child? What did they do then?

Did the child need to be kicked in the groin until he bled? I disagree.

Like I said, to state that they beat up their kid, to put it another way, is understatement showing that you could care less what they did.

Homosexuals have no business raising children, this is an extreme case that proves the point.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

When heterosexual parents beat their children Silhouette doesn't bat an eye.

Im pretty sure if that heterosexual couple beat their kids with a hammer, something might be mentioned somewhere.
but, you are comparing beating a kid with a belt to beating a kid with a hammer.
Do you have any clue how ignorant you look for that comment.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

You are looking for a reasonable conclusion in a horrific crime,

No, I'm asking for your reasoning when you conclude homosexuality plays a role in child abuse.

they did not simply "beat up their kid".

Well, what did they do more than that?

You start a debate by first redefining what took place?

So they didn't beat up their child?

Fine, you have your agenda to protect homosexuals even when they are guilty of:

beat one woman's 5-year-old son with a HAMMER, duct-taped his eyes and kicked him in the groin until he bled and suffered two strokes'

What does not follow is how you want to dismiss this as simply "They beat up their kid", there is no debate or discussion with you if you can not even admit to what occurred, which is a very sadistic horrific crime against a very defenseless child.

So they didn't beat up a child? What did they do then?

Did the child need to be kicked in the groin until he bled? I disagree.

Like I said, to state that they beat up their kid, to put it another way, is understatement showing that you could care less what they did.

Homosexuals have no business raising children, this is an extreme case that proves the point.

I dont know, I have a lesbian friend, a very close lesbian friend that I would trust kids with before I would trust them with allot of straight people I know. I cant wait to see her get married and have kids of her own to raise.