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

[bucs90]

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.

How is that an understatement?

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

How exactly does it prove that? Doesn't this sort of thing occurring among heterosexuals prove they have no business raising children?

Your position is poorly reasoned. Proving homosexuals harm their children more often than heterosexuals do is the only thing that could prove your point.

Sorry, if you care to deny, that is not my problem, but the fact that you cry, "but heterosexuals abuse children", shows that you are unwilling to accept the facts of abuse in homosexual families and somehow believe it is okay because it happens in heterosexual families.

You should start a thread on heterosexuals, this is a thread of homosexuals abusing children, abuse that can be prevented.

Are you saying that homosexuals should not raise children?

Some shouldn't. Like all people.

Homosexuality is simply a malfunctioning human brain. The rest may be just fine. Just like a car really. If there is a shorted out wire or something affecting the radio or AC it's still driveable. Same with a homo brain. Just a malfunction but doesn't mean the rest isn't useable.

 

[bodecea]

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.

How is that an understatement?

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

How exactly does it prove that? Doesn't this sort of thing occurring among heterosexuals prove they have no business raising children?

Your position is poorly reasoned. Proving homosexuals harm their children more often than heterosexuals do is the only thing that could prove your point.

Sorry, if you care to deny, that is not my problem, but the fact that you cry, "but heterosexuals abuse children", shows that you are unwilling to accept the facts of abuse in homosexual families and somehow believe it is okay because it happens in heterosexual families.

You should start a thread on heterosexuals, this is a thread of homosexuals abusing children, abuse that can be prevented.

Are you saying that homosexuals should not raise children?

Some shouldn't. Like all people.

Homosexuality is simply a malfunctioning human brain. The rest may be just fine. Just like a car really. If there is a shorted out wire or something affecting the radio or AC it's still driveable. Same with a homo brain. Just a malfunction but doesn't mean the rest isn't useable.

Yes, there are bad eggs all over. But....when one cannot have an "oopsie" child, the percentage goes way down.

 

[elektra]

Are you saying that homosexuals should not raise children?

Yes, they should not, just the same I do not think parents should get divorced. Children naturally and instinctively need a mother and father.

 

[elektra]

It is clear that you suffer from a very limited intellectual capacity.

(wait for it, claims of an IQ over 150 on the way)

Says the guy who sees nothing wrong in this sad tragic story.

 

[elektra]

So you are canine but not female?

Is that why you are sniffing around?

 

[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.

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.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

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

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

 

[elektra]

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.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

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

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. Children of course are never asked what they would prefer, they are forced into an abnormal homosexual lifestyle, that is not acting rational in regards to the Child.

I have seen all your links and the ones that actually lead to a study, those studies have confirmed my statement. Post a link that claims it is rational and if that link leads to actual studies the studies will all confirm what I state. Go ahead link again, and we can play the game all over, where your links prove you wrong and me right, again.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

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

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. Children of course are never asked what they would prefer, they are forced into an abnormal homosexual lifestyle, that is not acting rational in regards to the Child.

Says who? You've already offered up the whopper that your source was the Daily Mail. Which was obvious horseshit.

So who? So far its you, citing yourself. And you still haven't provided any reason why anyone would give a shit about what you believe.

I have seen all your links and the ones that actually lead to a study, those studies have confirmed my statement. Post a link that claims it is rational and if that link leads to actual studies the studies will all confirm what I state. Go ahead link again, and we can play the game all over, where your links prove you wrong and me right, again.

Show us, don't tell us. If the evidence in favor of your argument was as good as you say....you'd be presenting it. Rather than giving us excuses why you can't.

Again , the OP already lied her ass off. And you gave us a fake source on your claims. So you're already starting with substantial credibility deficit.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, there are bad eggs all over. But....when one cannot have an "oopsie" child, the percentage goes way down.

Unless the purpose of the person seeking to provide a child in a home behind closed doors has an ulterior purpose people should be on the lookout for...like oh...say...a demographic known for flaunting deviant sexuality regularly in a public venue as a matter of sober "pride"...

We all agree that pedophilia is a deviant sexuality. And we would, if given the chance, want to have any number of tools at our disposal to identify those people most aggressively apt to discard self-control to the wind and remove limits on what types of sex are "OK" ...especially around children..

If only there was a way we could, as a society, identify people who might have a propensity for inappropriate sexuality around children they hold as a cherished part of their identity? Can anyone help here? Let me know if any of you can think of ways we could easily act to protect children from people who might have those behaviors? Even just subtle cues would be helpful...

 

[Skylar]

Yes, there are bad eggs all over. But....when one cannot have an "oopsie" child, the percentage goes way down.

Unless the purpose of the person seeking to provide a child in a home behind closed doors has an ulterior purpose people should be on the lookout for...like oh...say...a demographic known for flaunting deviant sexuality regularly in a public venue as a matter of sober "pride"...

Laughing.....or straights at Mardi Gras. Guess straights can't be trusted with kids either.

We all agree that pedophilia is a deviant sexuality. And we would, if given the chance, want to have any number of tools at our disposal to identify those people most aggressively apt to discard self-control to the wind and remove limits on what types of sex are "OK" ...especially around children..

So if you dance in a parade......you're gonna molest children?

First, that doesn't make the slightest sense. Nor can you show us any evidence of any such connection. You're literally making this shit up as you go along.

Second, straights dance in parades all the time. During Spring Break or Mardi Gras, half naked. Yet you never apply your imaginary, horseshit standard to straight people.

As usual, its only gays you hold your made up pseudo-psychological babble to. If not for double standards, you've have none at all.

 

[elektra]

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.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

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

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. Children of course are never asked what they would prefer, they are forced into an abnormal homosexual lifestyle, that is not acting rational in regards to the Child.

Says who? You've already offered up the whopper that your source was the Daily Mail. Which was obvious horseshit.

So who? So far its you, citing yourself. And you still haven't provided any reason why anyone would give a shit about what you believe.

I have seen all your links and the ones that actually lead to a study, those studies have confirmed my statement. Post a link that claims it is rational and if that link leads to actual studies the studies will all confirm what I state. Go ahead link again, and we can play the game all over, where your links prove you wrong and me right, again.

Show us, don't tell us. If the evidence in favor of your argument was as good as you say....you'd be presenting it. Rather than giving us excuses why you can't.

Again , the OP already lied her ass off. And you gave us a fake source on your claims. So you're already starting with substantial credibility deficit.

People can decide for themselves, they can read what I say and make the determination for themselves, the more we talk about it the more people can see your position is vapid.

Most people have not realized how homosexual community has taken hold of our children, as the word gets out it will reverse itself, that is why the country is supporting Trump, we are tired of your failed policies, your failed ideology, and most importantly we will take control to save the children.

So, if you think you have a link that proves your point, we can do it all again, you link and if it links to the study I will show you where your source does not agree with you pretend it says, we have done this a couple times and each time you have failed.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The only thing you 'know' is that you can't quote anyone but yourself making this claim:

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

Whenever I ask you to show me any credible source backing this claim......you give me excuses why you can't. And the reason why is simple: you're making this shit up as you go along.

The Opening Poster had to lie repeatedly to try and support her argument. You've just made shit up. If your arguments had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do either.

I make this up? Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up? That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family. Children of course are never asked what they would prefer, they are forced into an abnormal homosexual lifestyle, that is not acting rational in regards to the Child.

Says who? You've already offered up the whopper that your source was the Daily Mail. Which was obvious horseshit.

So who? So far its you, citing yourself. And you still haven't provided any reason why anyone would give a shit about what you believe.

I have seen all your links and the ones that actually lead to a study, those studies have confirmed my statement. Post a link that claims it is rational and if that link leads to actual studies the studies will all confirm what I state. Go ahead link again, and we can play the game all over, where your links prove you wrong and me right, again.

Show us, don't tell us. If the evidence in favor of your argument was as good as you say....you'd be presenting it. Rather than giving us excuses why you can't.

Again , the OP already lied her ass off. And you gave us a fake source on your claims. So you're already starting with substantial credibility deficit.

People can decide for themselves, they can read what I say and make the determination for themselves, the more we talk about it the more people can see your position is vapid.

With the overwhelming majority of folks supporting gay adoption, people have decided for themselves.

And claims like your imaginary, made up horseshit apparently haven't been terribly compelling.

 

[Inevitable]

So you are canine but not female?

Is that why you are sniffing around?

Your objection to being called a birch was that you aren't female

 

[Inevitable]

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.

How is that an understatement?

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

How exactly does it prove that? Doesn't this sort of thing occurring among heterosexuals prove they have no business raising children?

Your position is poorly reasoned. Proving homosexuals harm their children more often than heterosexuals do is the only thing that could prove your point.

Sorry, if you care to deny, that is not my problem, but the fact that you cry, "but heterosexuals abuse children", shows that you are unwilling to accept the facts of abuse in homosexual families and somehow believe it is okay because it happens in heterosexual families.

You should start a thread on heterosexuals, this is a thread of homosexuals abusing children, abuse that can be prevented.

Are you saying that homosexuals should not raise children?

Yes because this child was abused by lesbians. That's the only reason.

 

[Inevitable]

Says the guy who sees nothing wrong in this sad tragic story.

That is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Inevitable]

Unless the purpose of the person seeking to provide a child in a home behind closed doors has an ulterior purpose people should be on the lookout for...like oh...say...a demographic known for flaunting deviant sexuality regularly in a public venue as a matter of sober "pride"...

They don't. Your opinion on what is deviant is irrelevant

We all agree that pedophilia is a deviant sexuality.

Absolutely.

And we would, if given the chance, want to have any number of tools at our disposal to identify those people most aggressively apt to discard self-control to the wind and remove limits on what types of sex are "OK" ...especially around children..

Of course.

If only there was a way we could, as a society, identify people who might have a propensity for inappropriate sexuality around children they hold as a cherished part of their identity? Can anyone help here? Let me know if any of you can think of ways we could easily act to protect children from people who might have those behaviors? Even just subtle cues would be helpful...

Usually they are heterosexual, often they are close to the child even related. They take advantage of children who are poorly supervised or emotionally disturbed. If you look in the right place it's obvious.

If you want to use these victims to make a pathetic attempt to disparage homosexuals, you aren't really the least bit interested in helping. You are only interested in your political agenda.

They all look like adults.

there is nothing sexual here. Unless you believe the summer Olympics and Conan the barbarian are pornography.

 

[Inevitable]

I make this up?

Yes.

Homosexuals are abnormal, that is made up?

That's an opinion so yes.

That homosexuals will adopt and or have children made for them is certainly an abnormal family.

That's yet another opinion so yes it's made up as well. It's a rather dumb statement because children aren't made they're born.

Children of course are never asked what they would prefer, they are forced into an abnormal homosexual lifestyle, that is not acting rational in regards to the Child.

You and all the other people that feel the way you do could adopt them, but you don't. You'd rather them rot in foster care over politics. You don't care in the least

 

[Silhouette]

So to be clear, "inevitable" believes that anyone who wants children to have a more careful eye cast over their foster care "really don't care in the least" about them..

 

[Skylar]

So to be clear, "inevitable" believes that anyone who wants children to have a more careful eye cast over their foster care "really don't care in the least" about them..

If by ''have a more careful eye' you mean make up nonsensical pseudo-psyche gibberish pulled sideways out of your ass and then bizarrely applying your made up nonsense to gays exclusively.......then no, you don't care the least about children.

The only child you are concerned with is one you can exploit to attack gay people. If a child can't be used by you to that end....they're beneath your contempt.

For example: girls. They're by far the greatest target of molestation. But you ignore them completely. Why? They don't fit your 'gay men are pedophiles' narrative or your 'lesbians hate male genitals' horseshit. So the single largest group of victims of molestation.....are utterly beneath your contempt.

 

[Inevitable]

So to be clear, "inevitable" believes that anyone who wants children to have a more careful eye cast over their foster care "really don't care in the least" about them..

That's a straw man fallacy.

You argument depends upon these.