One of the gay couple had a son by artificial insemination, the couple adopted the child, became poster boys for Gay Marriage “Two Dads are Better Than Oneâ€, and proceeded to use him sexually, and rent him out to their friends.
Now someone will say “Not All Gays are Like Thatâ€, but all the gays I know are like that, and when the progressive media go looking for a couple of poster boys, that is what they come up with. If not all of them are like that, nonetheless, that is the way to bet. The media has spent and continues to spend a lot of effort looking for a gay couple that fits the narrative, and it is evidently difficult, quite likely impossible, to find a gay couple that fits the narrative.
Lesbian couples are not nearly as bad as gay couples, but they are still horrifyingly bad to their own children. I suppose the media might have managed to find a lesbian couple that fits the narrative, but if they have, they probably spent quite some time looking.
“Lesbian couples are not nearly as bad as gay couples…”
Are you sure? Maybe it’s just that dykes seem more normal because they have no problem acting like dull proles in public.
In most homosexual couples I know, at least one of them is a really, really angry person, and oftentimes one of the pair is obviously very dominant and controlling. This is even more true for lesbians. How anyone can deny that there is something wrong with these people, I have no idea.
Pretty sure.
They have no problem acting like dull proles in public because they are dull proles.
I’ve been so brainwashed, I don’t even need examples. I just believe whatever the Catherdral/social Marxists tell me. No questions asked. I just go and do their bidding. I’m a good citizen.
Dykes have a surprisingly high rate of domestic violence in their relationships. On one hand, you have the twisted female imperative to provoke their partner to the edge of violence. On the other hand, you have women with relatively high levels of testosterone and no cultural training or shaming that it is wrong to hit a woman.
This post seems to contradict your previous one which contains the maxim that females are the uncontrollably lustful sex.
I don’t see the contradiction. Homosexuals don’t get into trouble by wanting other homosexuals sexually. They get into trouble by wanting horrible things.
“They get into trouble by wanting horrible things.”
What blows me away is that most of our fellow citizens are so far gone they only become outraged by deviations from leftism. They will learn no lesson from this. What’s your secret, Jim? What do you care that an infant human was turned into a sex toy?
I don’t mean to be snarky–I recognize & respect the fact you are horrified at this on a fundamental level. But I don’t think your horror arises simply from a selfish desire that your own not be treated this way.
Why shouldn’t some humans be specially bred for the purpose of serving the depraved lusts of some?
It would not have worried me if they had purchased an eleven year old from a slave trader. The disturbing thing was that the child was the son of one of them, that they raised it from a newborn baby, that they had sex with it as a baby. If they had eaten each other’s shit, which they probably did, it would have disturbed me also.
The phrase “without natural affection” comes to mind. However, you avoided my question.
I am not aware that I avoided your question. I thought I answered it plainly enough. If you think I have avoided your question, you need to clarify your question.
You are disturbed that they had sex with a baby. Why shouldn’t some humans be specially bred for the purpose of being baby sex toys?
See my post Monsters among us, and heartiste’s post on manboobs, which he nearly titled “Monsters in our midst.”
Every group has saints and devils, the question which dominates?
It is pretty complicated. There’s good cancer and bad cancer, good AIDS and bad AIDS, good Ebola and bad Ebola. After all, if a tumor’s benign, the best thing is to just leave it there and not cut it out.
Something else that consistently surprises me are these statistics that get brought up, showing that “only such-and-such (a tiny fraction) a percentage of gays are getting married”. I would say that *most* of the homosexuals I know are “married”. But again, I don’t know that many.
You may be mistaking long term wingmen for long term boyfriends.
One of the gay couple had a son by artificial insemination, the couple adopted the child, became poster boys for Gay Marriage “Two Dads are Better Than Oneâ€, and proceeded to use him sexually, and rent him out to their friends.
Now someone will say “Not All Gays are Like Thatâ€, but all the gays I know are like that,
So what you’re saying is that you know several gay couples who are engaged in sexual abuse of children, and you are an accessory after the fact for not reporting them to teh police?
Yeah, right.
I don’t know any gay couples, because gays do not form couples in the sense that males form couples with females, but yes, I know some gays who abused children, and would never report them, because they were friends or relatives, and the children were not.
o___O
Sir, if you won’t stop pedophiles in your midst for God’s sake, stop griping about the decline.
Pedophiles are the job of parents and kin, and no one else’s job. If parents are AWOL, no one else is going to do it.
Helping strangers is what progressives claim to do. They are not doing a very good job, and I don’t think anyone else is likely to do a better one.
If your circle includes multiple pedophiles, a third world slum would be an improvement on your station in life. So I fail to see why you gripe about the decline.
I assume that you are fibbing or the events in question occurred so long ago that bringing it up now would serve no purpose.
Firstly: A fairly substantial proportion of affluent upper class class girls have sex pre teen, often, perhaps usually, with considerably older men, usually affluent upper class men, so, logically, every one’s circle must contain a lot of “pedophiles”. And if we define sixteen and under as “pedophilia” then most teen girls have sex sixteen and under, usually with considerably older guys, so there is a lot of “pedophilia” going around.
Of course, I find sex with young boys a lot more disturbing than sex with young girls. I don’t know that many male homosexuals well, but the number of homosexuals I know tolerably well is precisely equal to the number of people I know have had sex with young boys, so I am pretty sure that the number of male homosexuals that you know is also equal to the number of homosexual pedophiles that you know. You just close your eyes, or your friends do not trust you.
By and large homosexuals don’t prey on members of their own class, but on the fatherless, who tend to be underclass and often of a different race, and usually far from where they normally live, whereas with young girl/older male scenario, it is more the girls seducing targets of opportunity, who tend to be close to home and similar in class.
Pedophilia is like illegal drugs. No one is very surprised to find that every president in recent times has used illegal drugs. Similarly, there is nothing remarkable about sex with sixteen year olds, and no one is genuinely upset about it, except perhaps the fathers, and even them not so much these days. Sex with eleven year olds, well that is a bit disturbing, but it only gets really disturbing if ten or under, which is mostly an activity of male homosexuals having sex with fatherless boys of a lower class than their own.
Under tens are not typical of homosexuals, who mostly prefer twelve year olds and manly men. However, homosexuals are typical of those who prefer under tens, because extreme perversions and deviations, for example scat and cannibalism, are predominantly homosexual.
[…] Why gay marriage is not « Jim’s Blog […]
Steve Sailer has talked about how after the whole “gay marriage” cries, support and semi-hysteria, that it would be time for the T freakshow from the LGBTQPI. Like, the “trans” literally the next wave. Watch out for T propaganda.
>>Firstly: A fairly substantial proportion of affluent upper class class girls have sex pre teen, often, perhaps usually, with considerably older men, usually affluent upper class men, so, logically, every one’s circle must contain a lot of “pedophilesâ€. <<
Extraordinary claims…
It is an extraordinary claim that people’s actual behavior is less chaste and less politically correct than it appears?
When a young girl’s pubic hair first appears, well before their breasts become noticeable, then, as every parent discovers, she starts to display disturbing sexual interest in males, often, perhaps usually, considerably older males. Do you suppose that in our society every such girl, or even most such girls, limit their interest to watching Burt Reynolds reruns?
Women, more so than men, follow their momentary impulses, and those impulses set in quite early in the process of maturation.
While the number of preteen boys displaying sexual interest in males is unobservably small, not observably different from none of them, the number of twelve year old girls displaying sexual interest in males is not observably different from all of them.
The number of homosexual adult males displaying sexual interest in preteen boys is not observably different from all them. Indeed, homosexual adult males are sexually attracted to everything male, but least to other homosexual adult males. Usually male homosexuals like manly men and twelve year old boys, and perceive other homosexual males as unmanly.
Predictable consequences follow. All homosexual males have politically incorrect sexual desires, as near all of them as makes no difference, and all preteen girls with pubic hair have politically incorrect desires – all of them.
And it is an extraordinary claim that these desires are frequently acted upon?
Yes it is. I don’t recall a substantial portion of my preteen classmates fucking older men. And I have a good eye.
Do you perhaps recall a substantial majority of your female preteen classmates being, like their mothers, fans of Magnum P.I.? (Or similar show, depending on the year?)
There’s a difference between having slutty fantasies, and often, perhaps usually, having sex with adult men at age 12. Quite difficult, if only logistically.
Sometimes you sound like the psychohistory guy.
Among females, the gap between desire and deed is slight. The claim that it is large is the extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary proof.
Yes, it is logistically difficult for a twelve year old girl to have regular sex with an adult male, to have an adult male boyfriend, and the kind of adult males they are attracted to are not interested in having a regular sex with a twelve year old girlfriend anyway, but it is not logistically difficult for a twelve year old to have the occasional quickie.
While it is logistically difficult, almost impossible, for a twelve year old girl to have an adult boyfriend among the type of males she would like to be her boyfriend, a quickie is logistically much easier.
Indeed, it seems that twelve year old pre-requisite is that any male they are attracted to already have an adequate supply of adult girlfriends, (to him that hath will be given) which makes the addition of a twelve year old to his stable of regular rides unlikely, but does not make occasional and infrequent quickies less likely.
At age ten, little girls develop tits, but not yet breasts, and the tits become somewhat sensitive.
At age eleven, teensy weensy breasts, not noticeable, the little girl is interested, but males are not
At age twelve, real, no kidding breasts. Suddenly, she finds guys pay her attention. A proportion of girls will take advantage of that attention.
To say that twelve year old girls frequently do it, is to say that people with motive and opportunity will frequently do unapproved things – scarcely an extraordinary claim.
[…] society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children as sex slaves, so we should not get agitated about eighteenth century guardians, who had to marry their wards for […]
As an adoptee, I await the eventual revelation that state-licensed adoption agencies, now prevented from “discriminating” against legally married gays, placed some innocent kid into the embrace of vicious lunatics.
All this hinges on a question: Are gays (or lesbians) more likely to be maladjusted people, and thus demonstrate a higher probability of abusing children in their care? To me the answer is obvious; homosexuality is abnormal and every honest measure of social pathology is higher among homo people vs hetero.
If there’s any justice in this world (I don’t hold out hope), the victims of such adoption agency abusive placements will hunt down and cut the livers out of every individual whose hand touched the process, from the abusing adoptive parents, to the adoption agency social worker(s), supervisors, etc. FTR, I’m being quite literal here. Were I on a jury for a trial of a mass-murderer, if this was his tale, I’d vote to acquit, then shake his hand.