Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nice colored picture, can we see the questions, who was asked, where, when, how the question was phrased exactly. Colored pictures are not science.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.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 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.
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.
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.
You said bitch, I have no objection to you calling me any name, how come you still sniffing, you smelt something you like, huh. We can trade insults all day long, when trying to discuss anything with a lousy liberal, it is INEVITABLE that the liberal must resort to insults, they simply do not have the truth on their side.Your objection to being called a birch was that you aren't femaleIs that why you are sniffing around?So you are canine but not female?
I would not adopt them? I did tell my spouse we should adopt a daughter, repeatedly, it is not simply up to me. I have two children now, another from another, and I did support and be the father to a step-daughter. 4 kids and the offer for a 5th is a lot more than most people support. I did more than my share, my step-daughter was fatherless, never knew him and deeply missed him, nobody could replace him and it damaged her psychologically. Kids are very damaged when they do not have a father and mother who live as husband and wife raise them.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
I didn't.You said bitch, I have no objection to you calling me any name,
Sniffing? What?how come you still sniffing
Wasn't trying to insult you, I just thought it was funny that you were insulted by somebody calling you a female canine because you weren't female.We can trade insults all day long,
So you're a lousy liberal? Because I didn't really say anything to insult you. I just argued your point with your exact argument. Somebody else called you names.when trying to discuss anything with a lousy liberal, it is INEVITABLE that the liberal must resort to insults, they simply do not have the truth on their side.
On the nonsense tilt-a-whirl? No, it just goes around in circles it's rather pointless.Care to go again, sweetheart?
What lie?I would not adopt them? I did tell my spouse we should adopt a daughter, repeatedly, it is not simply up to me. I have two children now, another from another, and I did support and be the father to a step-daughter. 4 kids and the offer for a 5th is a lot more than most people support. I did more than my share, my step-daughter was fatherless, never knew him and deeply missed him, nobody could replace him and it damaged her psychologically. Kids are very damaged when they do not have a father and mother who live as husband and wife raise them.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
Rot in Foster care? Now you made that up. As far as your other opinions, so demonstrably false. But lets tackle things one at time, would that not be best. First and foremost, adoptions also come from Orphanages, or directly from a birth, they are not all coming from Foster Care, so it is important to note, that you begin that topic by lying. Why would you lie and at that, be a bigot and stereotype all children in foster care as rotting? Two very distinct lies.
Could you explain why you must lie about the truth to defend Homosexual Men adopting 4 year old boys?
What do dogs sniff? You know, why do you want me to spell it out, we see you are a sicko, and now you pretend you are on the high road after I call you out?I didn't.You said bitch, I have no objection to you calling me any name,
Sniffing? What?how come you still sniffing
Wasn't trying to insult you, I just thought it was funny that you were insulted by somebody calling you a female canine because you weren't female.We can trade insults all day long,
You started carrying on about wanting to be sniffed or...whatever.
So you're a lousy liberal? Because I didn't really say anything to insult you. I just argued your point with your exact argument. Somebody else called you names.when trying to discuss anything with a lousy liberal, it is INEVITABLE that the liberal must resort to insults, they simply do not have the truth on their side.
You decided to talk about this instead of making a logical argument.
On the nonsense tilt-a-whirl? No, it just goes around in circles it's rather pointless.Care to go again, sweetheart?
I suppose it was slightly amusing.
Says you, with zero proof, I see you did not offer any proof of your assertions.What lie?I would not adopt them? I did tell my spouse we should adopt a daughter, repeatedly, it is not simply up to me. I have two children now, another from another, and I did support and be the father to a step-daughter. 4 kids and the offer for a 5th is a lot more than most people support. I did more than my share, my step-daughter was fatherless, never knew him and deeply missed him, nobody could replace him and it damaged her psychologically. Kids are very damaged when they do not have a father and mother who live as husband and wife raise them.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
Rot in Foster care? Now you made that up. As far as your other opinions, so demonstrably false. But lets tackle things one at time, would that not be best. First and foremost, adoptions also come from Orphanages, or directly from a birth, they are not all coming from Foster Care, so it is important to note, that you begin that topic by lying. Why would you lie and at that, be a bigot and stereotype all children in foster care as rotting? Two very distinct lies.
Could you explain why you must lie about the truth to defend Homosexual Men adopting 4 year old boys?
The future for orphans is bleak regardless of where they live. Their future becomes much brighter if they are adopted by a capable loving adult. Marital status, sexual orientation and so forth doesn't really play a role.
It's your fetish you tell me.What do dogs sniff?
you didn't call me out, you're mistaken me for somebody else.You know, why do you want me to spell it out, we see you are a sicko, and now you pretend you are on the high road after I call you out?
That isn't how it works. My assertion is simply that your claims are not true. You have to prove them.Says you, with zero proof, I see you did not offer any proof of your assertions.What lie?I would not adopt them? I did tell my spouse we should adopt a daughter, repeatedly, it is not simply up to me. I have two children now, another from another, and I did support and be the father to a step-daughter. 4 kids and the offer for a 5th is a lot more than most people support. I did more than my share, my step-daughter was fatherless, never knew him and deeply missed him, nobody could replace him and it damaged her psychologically. Kids are very damaged when they do not have a father and mother who live as husband and wife raise them.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
Rot in Foster care? Now you made that up. As far as your other opinions, so demonstrably false. But lets tackle things one at time, would that not be best. First and foremost, adoptions also come from Orphanages, or directly from a birth, they are not all coming from Foster Care, so it is important to note, that you begin that topic by lying. Why would you lie and at that, be a bigot and stereotype all children in foster care as rotting? Two very distinct lies.
Could you explain why you must lie about the truth to defend Homosexual Men adopting 4 year old boys?
The future for orphans is bleak regardless of where they live. Their future becomes much brighter if they are adopted by a capable loving adult. Marital status, sexual orientation and so forth doesn't really play a role.
Nope, I do not think so, I have quoted you every bit of the way. You are making a claim that according to the "rule" you just stated, "You have to prove them".The future for orphans is bleak regardless of where they live. Their future becomes much brighter if they are adopted by a capable loving adult. Marital status, sexual orientation and so forth doesn't really play a role.
That isn't how it works. My assertion is simply that your claims are not true. You have to prove them.
So far all you've done is make a false cause and mistake me for another poster.
You don't like getting your nose smacked, huh.It's your fetish you tell me.What do dogs sniff?
You think incorrectly.Nope, I do not think so
No, you haven't. I didn't call you any names, that garbage is beneath me.I have quoted you every bit of the way.
No sir, you made the claim that because this lesbian couple abused their children that many homosexual parents do. You said it's because the sex they have is icky or some malarkey like that.You are making a claim that according to the "rule" you just stated, "You have to prove them".
I don't make claims that I can't support.Let us see if you are willing to, do what you demand of others, or are you a hypocrite.
No false cause here,[/QUOTR]Yes there is.
Yes you are.I am not mistaking you for another,No I didn't.you have made a claim,My argument is that there is no proof for your claim. I don't have to prove non-existents of evidence. The burden is on you.and as you state, "you have to prove them".
Huh?You don't like getting your nose smacked, huh.It's your fetish you tell me.What do dogs sniff?
Nice colored picture, can we see the questions, who was asked, where, when, how the question was phrased exactly. Colored pictures are not science.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.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.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.
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.
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.
Is it, is the question is the graph? You say it is, they say it is, but without seeing the questionnaire was that how the question was worded? In 1992-98 according to the note, the question was different, and then the question was again different in 2007. So, as we can see, the question was manipulated until the homosexual advocates got the result they wanted. Hardly a valid poll.Nice colored picture, can we see the questions, who was asked, where, when, how the question was phrased exactly. Colored pictures are not science.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.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.
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.
The question is right there in Gallup's graphic. They even have the nuances of the questions in previous polls. All of which you already know.
You're stuck. Your horseshit argument is just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless gibberish, as you have no idea what you're talking about.
And even worse for your 'argument', people haven't been persuaded by the kind of nonsense you're offering. With support for gay adoption outstripping opposition by nearly 2 to 1.
Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance doesn't matter.
Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?Is it, is the question is the graph? You say it is, they say it is, but without seeing the questionnaire was that how the question was worded? In 1992-98 according to the note, the question was different, and then the question was again different in 2007. So, as we can see, the question was manipulated until the homosexual advocates got the result they wanted. Hardly a valid poll.Nice colored picture, can we see the questions, who was asked, where, when, how the question was phrased exactly. Colored pictures are not science.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.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.
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.
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.
The question is right there in Gallup's graphic. They even have the nuances of the questions in previous polls. All of which you already know.
You're stuck. Your horseshit argument is just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless gibberish, as you have no idea what you're talking about.
And even worse for your 'argument', people haven't been persuaded by the kind of nonsense you're offering. With support for gay adoption outstripping opposition by nearly 2 to 1.
Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance doesn't matter.
Parents (or adults) abusing children enrage me. I hope these parents get what is coming to them!Well you have to understand, the reason they're lesbians in the first place is rooted in such a deep disdain for the male gender that ...well...the obvious. Also, one of them still dresses and acts like a man usually, so the desire for normalcy persists while the simmering hatred bubbles up from below...
January 14, 2016
Lesbian couple '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' Lesbian couple 'beat one woman's son, 5, until he suffered 2 strokes'
And don't forget about this one:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl
And this one:
A lesbian couple is facing 21 counts of child abuse after being accused of abusing their three children....Eraca Dwan Craig, 31, and Christian Jessica DeAnda, 44, of Salinas, California...The Monterey Herald reports that the girl was covered in bruises when a welfare worker went to the visit the couple's home on March 14, and then revealed that she was chained to the floor 'all day, every day.'..In addition to their 8-year-old daughter, the couple have two sons, ages 5 and 3-years-old Lesbians who chained daughter to wall so she couldn't eat stand trial
^^ All three kids were on the verge of starvation. Only the daughter was chained up every day though.
I think that when people give themselves a proud identity derived from a type of wrong sex (in this case, lesbian) they practice (sex is for procreation), then the barn door sort of gets kicked open for any other wrong sex being embraced.
And just in general, identifying yourself as a lesbian, say, is really a way of saying "I subconsciously or consciously loathe males so much that I would rather have sex with a female dressed up as a man than an actual man". Or "I can and should justify drugging my son to be a girl". Or "I can justify kicking my little boy in the balls and beating him with a hammer because men suck"...
Of the two identical twin girls I know that I've been discussing on another thread, one turned out gay and the other straight. So there's that. But there's a further story too. One of the lesbian moms of these twins, the lipstick one a friend of mine got to know to where she divulged her sordid past. Turns out she was molested by a man when she was little and grew up simultaneously fearing men but also lusting after them because of the imprinted sexualizing as a child. So her way of resolving this was to be with a butch lesbian... They still had epic fights so there was no resolution. The eventually split up and the women went back and forth between men and butch lesbians in her relationships to this day.
..I could go on and on with this woman's checkered and waffling sexual manifestations of earlier abuse, except it would divert from the point I'm trying to make, which is this:
ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
Now the LGBT professional blogger crew will show up spamming this thread in no time, claiming that "most molestation and abuse occurs from heteros". Except that it doesn't, not really. The propensity (likelihood of the tendency to abuse sexually) occurs more frequently (and probably as you might suspect) in people who embrace wrong sex as an identity (homosexuals, as an example):
Here's what the Mayo Clinic says about the demographics who sexually abuse children:
Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia). The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
So, in short, homosexuals molest children up to 40% of all childhood molestation reports (those that are reported, boys tend to under report when they are molested because of stigma and shame being buggered by a man). So the LGBT payroll bloggers will say that "see! 40% is less than 60%!" But what you need to understand is that homosexuals only make up (for now, numbers growing) around 2-5% of the entire population. So we have 2-5% of the entire population accounting for approaching half of all child molestation. That's what you call "a propensity to molest".
I think red flags should appear when adults are creating identities from their sexual kinks, parading them down streets in "pride" and then wanting to involve children in their lives. Their obvious and screaming mental wounds are poised to infect the children who are sucked into their midst by natural birth or by adoption. At the very least, anyone identifying themselves and parading any type but especially unusual sexual behavior in public as a constant part of their persona should be watched closely if they are entrusted with the unsupervised care of children..
Gallup is hardly a valid poll? So you think they are in league in a conspiracy to subvert the truth?
