Understanding the Roots of the LGBT Movement...You've Been Gaslighted, Chump!

[Silhouette]

There are off the charts Boy Scouts and Knights of Columbus, for Christsakes. Every group has it's extremists. No one bothers me personally. If someone ever got in my face with their message, that might get a little uncomfortable, for everyone concerned. I like to safely watch idiots dressed like jackasses supporting a cause on television if I choose, and then shut it off and take the dog out for a walk when I've had enough. That's about the extent at which I get exposed to these people.Same with politicians that I disagree with - game show hosts, guests on talk shows, etc. Shut them off and be done with them.

Well, this isn't just about you. It's about a radical fundimental change to the nuclear family and that society should have a chance to weigh in on depriving CHILDREN (what this is about) of either a mother or father for life, as a brand new institution of law.

Before it was merely a problem, a stastistical bane to society that a child would be motherless or fatherless. Now it is a physical binding law that children be so disenfranchised for life, without the possibility of parole..

The 'statistical bane' you're speaking of is the product of your own lies. Not any study.

And you know -Know- that your proposals to deny marriage to same sex parents will hurt tens of thousands of children and help none. Yet you're more than willing to hurt any number of children if it lets you hurt gay people too.

No thank you. Your illness does not translate into our crisis.

Again, wanting children to have both a mother and father is not "an illness". If it was, the vast majority of the country, including many gays, would be mentally ill by your definition. I hardly think that's the case. Again, why are you afraid of a referendum on the question?

The question isn't whether or not society should legitimize inferior situations for children simply because they exist. Untold hundreds of millions of children into the unforeseen future would be vastly more harmed by taking the bane of a motherless or fatherless child and making it a matter of law that cannot be undone! That's their sentence for life; with no possibility for parole.

Your "logic" is like saying "well, it's better to have a child adopted by wolves than to have no family at all.". No, we don't make laws that bind around situations even a submoron could predict will be harmful to that child. Shall we ask Dolce and Gabbana what they think? Or are they beaten back sufficiently as to retract their original statement that children deserve both a mother and father...like they had...and Elton John had...and David Furnish had...?

 

[JoeB131]

Wanting children to have both a mother and father is not an "illness". Your group's gaslighting hasn't gone that far yet...

Again, your argument is that if they can't have your ideal, they should have nothing.

That's retarded.

 

[Silhouette]

Wanting children to have both a mother and father is not an "illness". Your group's gaslighting hasn't gone that far yet...

Again, your argument is that if they can't have your ideal, they should have nothing.

That's retarded.

It isn't just "MY ideal" (more of your gaslighting...make the target's unwanted opinion seem singular, petty, small, dumb, wrong..etc.) .... Have a referendum on it nationwide to find out how many's "ideal" it is...

Meanwhile, let's define some things here. A single person of unknown sexual orientation is less than ideal, but agencies have adopted out to them in cases of severe or unplaceable children, such as "retards" as you say. Nowhere on their application did it say "check this box if you're gay". If it had, or the person was openly flaunting what orientation they were (how could the agent know, because as we all know, if you're applying as a single person for adoption, you most definitely are not in their office with a live-in partner?), the agency would know the child would never have either (check box) *a mother or *a father. So, agencies placed when they had to in the inferior situation: to a single person. And that was always with the hopes that single person would find the opposite gender to eventually settle down with and provide that child with both a mother and father. Never was it in hopes that person would find someone of the same gender to deprive that child of either a mother or father for life.

"Gay marriage" is that deprivation. It is that institutional annihilation of there ever being the paragon for that child: a mom and dad.

Like I said, Dolce, Gabbana, Elton John and David Furnish (all gay, one at least "gay-come-lately") all had a mom and dad. Though their position on the next generation is vastly different from each other. The first two seek to preserve that hope for children. The second put their wants before a child's needs. It's been a long time since I've heard talk about or glanced at an adoption application. But I believe each of them hold the timeless and universal question "would you be willing to put your wants aside to see to the needs of this child?". If the answer is "yes", you've agreed to not be a gay married household, because a child needs a mother and father.

This boy needs a father as he is brainwashed by two lesbians to hate/reject his own gender by their daily example to him:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

Sil clearly has no idea about what the vetting process entails concerning adoptions. Gays have been adopting children for a long time and not just kids with disabilities. Either way, gays will continue to raise/adopt children and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil clearly has no idea about what the vetting process entails concerning adoptions. Gays have been adopting children for a long time and not just kids with disabilities. Either way, gays will continue to raise/adopt children and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine.

Not "as gay" they haven't. There is no adoption application that has "check this box if you do gay things" or words to that effect. If it's to a single person, it's to a single person. They don't ask what they do in their bedroom. And if they do and gay's lied, that doesn't mean "adoption agencies willingly adopted out to gay singles".

 

[mdk]

Sil clearly has no idea about what the vetting process entails concerning adoptions. Gays have been adopting children for a long time and not just kids with disabilities. Either way, gays will continue to raise/adopt children and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine.

Not "as gay" they haven't. There is no adoption application that has "check this box if you do gay things" or words to that effect. If it's to a single person, it's to a single person. They don't ask what they do in their bedroom. And if they do and gay's lied, that doesn't mean "adoption agencies willingly adopted out to gay singles".

No, agencies have willingly adopted to gays long before they can marry. Learn what the vetting process entails instead of pretending you do. Stomp your feet all you wish but you are powerless to stop gays from having and rasing families. Poor little irrelevant Sil. lol

 

[JoeB131]

It isn't just "MY ideal" (more of your gaslighting...make the target's unwanted opinion seem singular, petty, small, dumb, wrong..etc.) .... Have a referendum on it nationwide to find out how many's "ideal" it is...

Hey, guy, the problem is you want Ozzie and Harriet, but Ozzie's children have said he was an awful father. Most people don't have picture perfect parents. Not just divorce and single motherhood, but a lot of people have parents who probably had no business having kids to start with.

Meanwhile, let's define some things here. A single person of unknown sexual orientation is less than ideal, but agencies have adopted out to them in cases of severe or unplaceable children, such as "retards" as you say. Nowhere on their application did it say "check this box if you're gay". If it had, or the person was openly flaunting what orientation they were (how could the agent know, because as we all know, if you're applying as a single person for adoption, you most definitely are not in their office with a live-in partner?), the agency would know the child would never have either (check box) *a mother or *a father. So, agencies placed when they had to in the inferior situation: to a single person. And that was always with the hopes that single person would find the opposite gender to eventually settle down with and provide that child with both a mother and father. Never was it in hopes that person would find someone of the same gender to deprive that child of either a mother or father for life.

Agencies would happily place some of these troubled kids in gay homes if they could. I recently visited a place where they put troubled teens that were products of the straight relationships you think are so ideal. I suspect a lot of these kids would have been better off with a gay couple.

"Gay marriage" is that deprivation. It is that institutional annihilation of there ever being the paragon for that child: a mom and dad.

Nobody over 12 thinks their parents are "Paragons".

Like I said, Dolce, Gabbana, Elton John and David Furnish (all gay, one at least "gay-come-lately") all had a mom and dad. Though their position on the next generation is vastly different from each other. The first two seek to preserve that hope for children. The second put their wants before a child's needs. It's been a long time since I've heard talk about or glanced at an adoption application. But I believe each of them hold the timeless and universal question "would you be willing to put your wants aside to see to the needs of this child?". If the answer is "yes", you've agreed to not be a gay married household, because a child needs a mother and father.

Well, no, they just need parents who are involved, regardless of where they are sticking their genitals. Just because you have weird sexual hangups, most of the rest of us don't. HOw much sex do you think gays are having, anyway?

 

[Silhouette]

It isn't just "MY ideal" (more of your gaslighting...make the target's unwanted opinion seem singular, petty, small, dumb, wrong..etc.) .... Have a referendum on it nationwide to find out how many's "ideal" it is...

Hey, guy, the problem is you want Ozzie and Harriet, but Ozzie's children have said he was an awful father. Most people don't have picture perfect parents. Not just divorce and single motherhood, but a lot of people have parents who probably had no business having kids to start with..

Just because you have weird sexual hangups, most of the rest of us don't. HOw much sex do you think gays are having, anyway?

1. It's not just me that want children to have both a mother and father: Dolce & Gabbana agree. They're both prominent gay men. And, we could do a national referendum to fact-check the LGBT gaslighting assertion that "Sil is in a woeful minority" in this matter.

2. Ozzie and Harriet? Well before my time. But then if you make "a mother and father" seem "like an outdated stupid idea" then I guess it serves to make your audience feel like fools for even entertaining the "outdated notion" that a child should have a mother and father.

Gaslighting...see kids...isn't it fun? Joe B's subtle verbal abuse makes you feel like an idiot for even THINKING it would be best for a boy to have a father or a girl to have a mother...how "STUPID" can you be??... (Are you folks figuring out what gaslighting is yet?)

 

[JoeB131]

1. It's not just me that want children to have both a mother and father: Dolce & Gabbana agree. They're both prominent gay men. And, we could do a national referendum to fact-check the LGBT gaslighting assertion that "Sil is in a woeful minority" in this matter.

I think the problem is, you phrase a false premise in your question, therefore you would get false result.

2. Ozzie and Harriet? Well before my time. But then if you make "a mother and father" seem "like an outdated stupid idea" then I guess it serves to make your audience feel like fools for even entertaining the "outdated notion" that a child should have a mother and father.

Gaslighting...see kids...isn't it fun? Joe B's subtle verbal abuse makes you feel like an idiot for even THINKING it would be best for a boy to have a father or a girl to have a mother...how "STUPID" can you be??... (Are you folks figuring out what gaslighting is yet?)

A stupid idea? No. But not the only idea or always the best idea.

Again- I know straight couple who have the parenting skills of feral wolves. I know gay couples who are awesome parents and their kids turned out fine.

I promise you, you'd find more products of straight couple than gay couples in the prisons.

 

[Silhouette]

Your promise isn't worth much. I'll pay attention to statistics.

 

[Silhouette]

A stupid idea? No. But not the only idea or always the best idea.

Again- I know straight couple who have the parenting skills of feral wolves. I know gay couples who are awesome parents and their kids turned out fine.

I promise you, you'd find more products of straight couple than gay couples in the prisons.

Then again I know straight couples who raised kids just fine and gay couples who are torturing their child(ren) psychologically and even physically, borne from their addiction to "being gay". Case in point, the two lesbians who are drugging their minor son to eventually have his dick amputated to complete their/his utter rejection of the male gender.
Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And I know of cases where wolves successfully fed and adapted a human child to survive in the wild where they otherwise would've died on their own.

Back to logic now...

All things being equal, we then turn to the STRUCTURE of straight vs gay parenting to see what isn't equal. And we find in the gay home a case of where each child in it, of whichever gender, will be deprived of either a father or mother for life. And the Prince's Trust has found that lack of a regular female or male role model pertaining to the child's own gender, in their daily lives means they will grow up depressed, on drugs and indigent; even suicidal: stemming specifically from a feeling of not belonging. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Take a look at that little boy in the picture above. That face has "I don't belong" written all over it. So his lesbian moms who made him feel that way are now drugging him for eventual unnecessary and illegal surgery (the culmination of years of evident child coercion) "so he can finally feel like he belongs...er...um...I mean "so he can finally be the girl "he's" always "wanted" to be.."

A straight couple would leave a child alone. Their daily message to BOTH genders of children that present in homes would be "each of you matter in a functioning adult world". The message in the gay home (doesn't have to be spoken even...almost more powerful if it isn't) to the opposite gender of the "parents" in it? "Your gender does not matter in an adult world. Moreover, we actively reject your gender even when it comes to the sex act, which, as you know from your health class, is the purpose of coming together to beget children...a thing only heteros can do...that's how much we reject your gender. That's the extreme we've taken our rejection to."

All unspoken. All implied by the physical structure of the arrangement; even if by the "nicest gay people in the world". The child gets the same message. I'm sure the two dykes in the photo are successful and everyone who knows them thinks they're the bees-knees. But being a child in that structure does damage. And we see it plain and clear on the boy's face and in the thread's OP on what they're doing to him.

Applying gaslighting to Joe's approach. Joe is asking readers to use false logic. He leads the reader to think that if two gay people are really nice, a child belongs in their home, regardless of its physical structure. When "niceness" or "not-niceness" isn't the problem or question. The question is, "how does the physical structure of gay homes not measure up to straight ones...all other things being equal". And that flaw in structure turns out to be everything in the world to children: no hope for either "mom" or "dad", for life. And for half those children also: a sense of not belonging to a functional adult world.

 

[JoeB131]

Your promise isn't worth much. I'll pay attention to statistics.

statiistically you've lost. Your angry little screams of homophobia are something you need to keep to yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

Your promise isn't worth much. I'll pay attention to statistics.

statiistically you've lost. Your angry little screams of homophobia are something you need to keep to yourself.

Sorry Adolph, I'm not in your internment camp awaiting a shower and being turned into a lampshade yet..

"angry" ..."little"...."screams"...all carefully meant to demean anyone who might associate. Textbook gaslighting.

If we had a national referendum today, gay marriage and gay adoption would lose handily. So, statistically, our collective voices have not been silenced by your cult and its gaslighting.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry Adolph, I'm not in your internment camp awaiting a shower and being turned into a lampshade yet..

"angry" ..."little"...."screams"...all carefully meant to demean anyone who might associate. Textbook gaslighting.

If we had a national referendum today, gay marriage and gay adoption would lose handily. So, statistically, our collective voices have not been silenced by your cult and its gaslighting.

Guy, you are a little confused. The Nazis agreed with you on gays. They put Pink Triangles on them and murdered them by the thousands.

I'm just suggesting you don't sound like an asshole if you want to stay gainfully employed.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry Adolph, I'm not in your internment camp awaiting a shower and being turned into a lampshade yet..

"angry" ..."little"...."screams"...all carefully meant to demean anyone who might associate. Textbook gaslighting.

If we had a national referendum today, gay marriage and gay adoption would lose handily. So, statistically, our collective voices have not been silenced by your cult and its gaslighting.

Guy, you are a little confused. The Nazis agreed with you on gays. They put Pink Triangles on them and murdered them by the thousands.

I'm just suggesting you don't sound like an asshole if you want to stay gainfully employed.

Again, you're focusing in myopically in order to lose the point I'm making. The point being that the Nazis first gig was to shut down free speech.

You're a natural at this gaslighting thing, this verbal sleight of hand...

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you're focusing in myopically in order to lose the point I'm making. The point being that the Nazis first gig was to shut down free speech.

You're a natural at this gaslighting thing, this verbal sleight of hand...

Actually, the Nazis first gig was to distract the German masses away from the people who really fucked things up - the Industrialists and the Militarists - and towards minorities who it was easy to hate- Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc.

Kind of like the Right Wing does to you. Because you are so scared of the butt sex you can't see what they are doing right in front of you.

And frankly, I'm not interested in engaging the hard-core hateful homophobes who brought us a second helping of George W. Bush and all the disasters that followed.

Because at the end of the day, all your anti-gay arguments boil down to "I think it's Icky" and "God thinks it's bad". Those are pretty stupid reasons.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you're focusing in myopically in order to lose the point I'm making. The point being that the Nazis first gig was to shut down free speech.

You're a natural at this gaslighting thing, this verbal sleight of hand...

..you are so scared of the butt sex you can't see what they are doing right in front of you.

And frankly, I'm not interested in engaging the hard-core hateful homophobes who brought us a second helping of George W. Bush and all the disasters that followed. Because at the end of the day, all your anti-gay arguments boil down to "I think it's Icky" and "God thinks it's bad". Those are pretty stupid reasons.

Voted for Clinton twice and Obama twice, so I don't fit your "cookie-cutter homophobe".. I'm pretty sure if you deleted all religious objections to butt sex, there's a singular and excellent secular argument against it (see photo below).

I can't imagine why anyone, particularly a nation like ours with an overtaxed healthcare system already, would fear butt sex so much. Each HIV/AIDS patient becomes quickly indigent and costs the state they're in in excess of $500,000 before the heroics end and he ultimately dies a horrible death. Any country actively condoning anal sex in this day and age should have an excellent source of revenue on hand for the billions of dollars this epidemic will cost when your cult is done indoctrinating/grooming the grade-schoolers into "the joys of anal sex".

The colon is part of the digestive tract. It evolved to resorb large particles and fluids back into the bloodstream through a nice permeable layer. Sticking HIV infected semen into that digestive organ is almost the same as sharing a needle with an HIV positive person.

Why would our nation fear "butt sex"? I can't imagine why... Joe's new gaslighting angle "butt sex is perfectly fine and anyone who objects is a religious nutter or a homophobe". (There can't be any other reason to object...you're eyes are getting heavy...you will agree to teaching anal sex to kids in school...)

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

 

[JoeB131]

Voted for Clinton twice and Obama twice, so I don't fit your "cookie-cutter homophobe".. I'm pretty sure if you deleted all religious objections to butt sex, there's a singular and excellent secular argument against it (see photo below).

Most cases of HIV in the world are heterosexual transmissions. Largely because the Church told poor people in Africa that Baby Jesus Cries when they use a rubber.

Why would our nation fear "butt sex"? I can't imagine why... Joe's new gaslighting angle "butt sex is perfectly fine and anyone who objects is a religious nutter or a homophobe". (There can't be any other reason to object...you're eyes are getting heavy...you will agree to teaching anal sex to kids in school...)

again, 37% of straight people do anal sex. 99% do fellatio and cunnilingus. The nasty gays aren't doing anything the straights aren't doing.

Yes, you find the butt sex so icky you just can't stop talking about it.

It's kind of like a vegetarian who just can't stop talking about steak, describing it in details about the fluids dripping from it.

 

[Silhouette]

Voted for Clinton twice and Obama twice, so I don't fit your "cookie-cutter homophobe".. I'm pretty sure if you deleted all religious objections to butt sex, there's a singular and excellent secular argument against it (see photo below).

Most cases of HIV in the world are heterosexual transmissions. Largely because the Church told poor people in Africa that Baby Jesus Cries when they use a rubber.

Gaslighting angle #772218: "When the subject of HIV/AIDS comes up, ONLY talk about worldwide HIV/AIDS statistics and NEVER discuss America's unique problem with the epidemic. Because if you discuss that unique problem, the world will find out that HIV is being spread through anal sex between men the predominance of the time.

How Is HIV Spread? In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by

• Having sex with someone who has HIV. In general:
  • Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior.
    Receptive anal sex (bottoming) is riskier than insertive anal sex (topping).

HIV/AIDS | Gay and Bisexual Men's Health | CDC

 

[JoeB131]

Gaslighting angle #772218: "When the subject of HIV/AIDS comes up, ONLY talk about worldwide HIV/AIDS statistics and NEVER discuss America's unique problem with the epidemic. Because if you discuss that unique problem, the world will find out that HIV is being spread through anal sex between men the predominance of the time.

Except there's nothing unique about our problem. IN fact, in the US, the number of new cases and the number of deaths has actually declined.

so now we see the homophobe has squirmed away from his concern for the Children to AIDS. Because he thinks the Butt Sex is Icky.