Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on July 30, 2018, 08:02:10 AM
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_lefts_war_on_christian_adoption_agencies.html
Oh, look. The ACLU wants to shut down all faith based adoption agencies. (In Michigan right now, but after prior success in Massachusetts and Illinois, they'll be going after others.)
Gee, who could have ever foreseen that the gay "marriage" decision was about forcing those "haters" to bend the knee and not about "love"?
-
My late wife and I adopted her natural granddaughter in 2010. We worked with a nearby branch of Catholic Charities, although I am not Roman Catholic (my late wife was). It was an international adoption, from a country that didn't recognize any American agencies, but which didn't have any adoption agencies that were recognized by the U.S. under the Hague Convention on International Adoptions. Which meant that the process took several years, and that we had to do a lot of legal stuff that normally would have been handled by the agency.
We became friendly with the adoption social worker at Catholic Charities who handled our case. The process took so long that our original Home Study expired and had to be renewed. By that time, the office we were working with had stopped handling adoptions, and they had to send us to a branch of Catholic Charities in another part of the state that was under a different diocese. Not long after, our adoption social worker was laid off (and probably her entire department, but I'm not sure about that).
Yes, Christianity is in the cross hairs.
-
You are right.
Look for Christian universities to be under fire to lose their accreditation for having sexual morality codes (Baylor already folded).
-
You are right.
Look for Christian universities to be under fire to lose their accreditation for having sexual morality codes (Baylor already folded).
OTOH, Marquette just lost a huge lawsuit over firing a professor for speaking up for a student who was told in another class that he wasn't able to speak up against gay marriage. Though its not going to change much at Marquette- its gone from being the premier University of our state to the laughingstock.
-
You are right.
Look for Christian universities to be under fire to lose their accreditation for having sexual morality codes (Baylor already folded).
Baylor has problems beyond sexual morality codes.
-
Baylor has problems beyond sexual morality codes.
Si, Baylor tiene muchos problemas.
-
OTOH, Marquette just lost a huge lawsuit over firing a professor for speaking up for a student who was told in another class that he wasn't able to speak up against gay marriage. Though its not going to change much at Marquette- its gone from being the premier University of our state to the laughingstock.
Marquette really stepped on its own crank in this one.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/31/10-crazy-things-inside-professors-lawsuit-marquette-university-firing-defending-free-speech/
And Marquette is supposed to be a Catholic university. I guess that doesn't man much of anything these days.
-
Is that really a "consequence" of gay marriage? Or just another battle in the long war against Christianity?
-
Is that really a "consequence" of gay marriage? Or just another battle in the long war against Christianity?
I see the two issues as being more or less joined at the hip.
-
Is that really a "consequence" of gay marriage? Or just another battle in the long war against Christianity?
In the greater Seattle area, there are considerable numbers of Christians and clergy of all faiths who are in support of gay marriage, and therefore reject the original premise of this thread. Your locale may vary.
-
In the greater Seattle area, there are considerable numbers of Christians and clergy of all faiths who are in support of gay marriage, and therefore reject the original premise of this thread. Your locale may vary.
Around these h'yar parts, it seems that Unitarian-Universalists, United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church USA are on board with same sex marriage. Roman Catholic; Greek, Russian, and other Orthodox; Anglican; Baptist; Morman; and Evangelical churches are against it. I'm not sure where the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans fall.
-
It appears that none other than the U.S. Attorney General agrees that the deck is being stacked against people of faith:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sessions-us-culture-less-hospitable-people-faith-222143545--politics.html
"Let's be frank: A dangerous movement, undetected by many but real, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom. There can be no doubt. It's no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated," Sessions said. "This election, this past election, and much that has flowed from it, gives us a rare opportunity to arrest these trends and to confront them.
-
Is that really a "consequence" of gay marriage? Or just another battle in the long war against Christianity?
In the greater Seattle area, there are considerable numbers of Christians and clergy of all faiths who are in support of gay marriage, and therefore reject the original premise of this thread. Your locale may vary.
The Christian scriptures, Old and New Testament, warn of false teachings, false prophets, and falling away from the faith. Being a member, or even a leader, of a church or religious group doesn't mean that one is not attacking the faith. Or if you don't want to go that far, it's entirely possible that the Christians you speak of just can't (or won't) see that the faith is under attack.
-
In the greater Seattle area, there are considerable numbers of Christians and clergy of all faiths who are in support of gay marriage, and therefore reject the original premise of this thread. Your locale may vary.
And they're also probably preaching plenty of other heresies too. I quickly learned to be careful about which church to attempt attending. Much false doctrine in open display.
Note: being homosexual is a sin. But not more damnable than many others. Gays are is the same need of Christ's love as the rest of us. But that doesn't mean we need to participate in their sinful choices.
-
And they're also probably preaching plenty of other heresies too. I quickly learned to be careful about which church to attempt attending. Much false doctrine in open display.
Several years ago I stumbled across a website that was an official outlet for the Episcopal Church USA. I don't recall if it was a site run by the central hierarchy or if it was a site hosted by a single church/parish, but my recollection is that it was higher up than a single church. The article I read was on the subject of homosexuality, and I was astonished by the level of intellectual contortions the author went through to try to justify his claims that the Bible doesn't say what the Bible says about it's being sinful for man to lie with man as with woman. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).
Yes, I'd say the author was pretty much preaching a heresy. Except that for the Episcopal Church USA the heresy has become the orthodoxy, and orthodoxy has become a heresy.
-
In the greater Seattle area, there are considerable numbers of Christians and clergy of all faiths who are in support of gay marriage, and therefore reject the original premise of this thread. Your locale may vary.
The Christian scriptures, Old and New Testament, warn of false teachings, false prophets, and falling away from the faith. Being a member, or even a leader, of a church or religious group doesn't mean that one is not attacking the faith. Or if you don't want to go that far, it's entirely possible that the Christians you speak of just can't (or won't) see that the faith is under attack.
This is true. Ye shall know them by their support for low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to welfare for the poor. Anything else is just window dressing. A real Christian respects the importance of markets, interest on capital, and the right of the poor to choose to die starving and without healthcare.
Not sure why we bother asking about gay marriage when there are so many more obvious tests. =(
-
This is true. Ye shall know them by their support for low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to welfare for the poor. Anything else is just window dressing. A real Christian respects the importance of markets, interest on capital, and the right of the poor to choose to die starving and without healthcare.
Not sure why we bother asking about gay marriage when there are so many more obvious tests. =(
SO you're saying that supporting lower taxation is Christian heresy? That would mean that your view must be that the orthodox interpretation of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's" must be that, since all money is printed or minted by the government (Caesar), Jesus was really telling us to give it all back the the government (Caesar).
-
Around these h'yar parts, it seems that Unitarian-Universalists, United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church USA are on board with same sex marriage. Roman Catholic; Greek, Russian, and other Orthodox; Anglican; Baptist; Morman; and Evangelical churches are against it. I'm not sure where the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans fall.
Same here, except Methodists, presbyterians and ELCA tend to support it.
-
Same here, except Methodists, presbyterians and ELCA tend to support it.
Most of the 'larger' Protestant churches here do on an individual basis, even if the denomination has a policy statement against it.
-
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/706/294/296.jpg
-
:laugh:
-
Most of the 'larger' Protestant churches here do on an individual basis, even if the denomination has a policy statement against it.
Err... larger?
The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches assembles various data on churches and denominations across North America. I recently gleaned the top 15 denominations by membership in the United States from their reports:
1. Southern Baptist Convention: 16.2 million members
2. The United Methodist Church: 7.8 million members
3. The Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million members
4. National Baptist Convention: 5.0 million members
5. Evangelical Lutheran Church, U.S.A.: 4.5 million members
6. National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million members
7. Assemblies of God: 2.9 million members
8. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): 2.8 million members
9. African Methodist Episcopal Church: 2.5 million members
10. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America: 2.5 million members
11. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS): 2.3 million members
12. The Episcopal Church: 2.0 million members
13. Churches of Christ: 1.6 million members
14. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World: 1.5 million members
15. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church: 1.4 million members
Of the top 15, it looks like 4 are that way.
-
This is true. Ye shall know them by their support for low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to welfare for the poor. Anything else is just window dressing. A real Christian respects the importance of markets, interest on capital, and the right of the poor to choose to die starving and without healthcare.
Not sure why we bother asking about gay marriage when there are so many more obvious tests. =(
Does it also bother you that not enough churches pay attention to the heterosexist parts of the bible, or is it just the feeding-the-poor stuff you like to harp on?
-
This is true. Ye shall know them by their support for low taxes, gun rights, and opposition to welfare for the poor. Anything else is just window dressing. A real Christian respects the importance of markets, interest on capital, and the right of the poor to choose to die starving and without healthcare.
Not sure why we bother asking about gay marriage when there are so many more obvious tests. =(
While I'm particularly annoyed by "Christians" who preach cheap compassion that doesn't cost the "compassionate" anything, but makes someone else bear the costs of the "compassion," Christians can generally disagree on those items, as the scriptures are silent on all those items.
The gay marriage issue is one that is a pretty clear signal of the ones opinion of scripture, though. One has to ignore a lot of scripture to support it.
-
While I'm particularly annoyed by "Christians" who preach cheap compassion that doesn't cost the "compassionate" anything, but makes someone else bear the costs of the "compassion," Christians can generally disagree on those items, as the scriptures are silent on all those items.
The gay marriage issue is one that is a pretty clear signal of the ones opinion of scripture, though. One has to ignore a lot of scripture to support it.
I just want to know which Christian ideas Lefties want me to impose on others, and which I'm supposed to keep to myself.
Oh, and which ones am I supposed to utterly contradict?
-
Err... larger?
Of the top 15, it looks like 4 are that way.
I was referring to individual churches in this area, some of whom go their own way on various issues, regardless of what their denomination may hold on that issue. In my experience, the larger (number of members at that church) churches seem to have more latitude in this regard.
-
The gay marriage issue is one that is a pretty clear signal of the ones opinion of scripture, though. One has to ignore a lot of scripture to support it.
The Episcopalians don't ignore Scripture on this issue -- they bend, fold, spindle and mutilate it beyond recognition. They have lengthy treatises examining in exquisite detail why [they say] the Bible says exactly the opposite of what [I believe] the Bible actually says. This is one issue where it appears that it doesn't even matter which translation you read; they are all pretty much in agreement.
-
The Episcopalians don't ignore Scripture on this issue -- they bend, fold, spindle and mutilate it beyond recognition. They have lengthy treatises examining in exquisite detail why [they say] the Bible says exactly the opposite of what [I believe] the Bible actually says. This is one issue where it appears that it doesn't even matter which translation you read; they are all pretty much in agreement.
There seem to be a few mainstream churches that exist only to give the left a voice in concern trolling churches that have a principled approach to following the Bible.
A similar analogy is where 'legal scholars' interpret the 2nd amendment to mean only professional standing or state run volunteer armies have the 'right' to access a carefully controlled assortment of weapons.
-
From reading the article though, it looks like they're suing to stop Michigan from contracting with any adoption agencies that hold a faith-based test.
Isn't that reasonable? I'd be pretty pissed if Texas had a state contract with an adoption agency that only placed kids into families that passed a good behavior audit done by...I dunno, Scientologists or something.
The line seems pretty clear to me. If the state is doing it (or contracting for it) then it has to be agnostic in so far as requirements for services.
This was inevitable as soon as gay marriage was legalized.
-
Note: being homosexual is a sin.
I'd tend to follow the approach that being homosexual isn't a sin, but homosexual acts are. AFAIK, all but the most hellfire-and-brimstone of the churches that still have the guts to denounce homosexuality are of a similar opinion. After all, the Scriptural references to sexual behavior all prohibit acts, rather than thoughts; only adultery was called out as happening when one lusts with or without acting.
-
Around these h'yar parts, it seems that Unitarian-Universalists, United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church USA are on board with same sex marriage
None of these surprise me. I don't even think the UUs regard themselves as Christian any more.
Roman Catholic; Greek, Russian, and other Orthodox; Anglican; Baptist; Morman; and Evangelical churches are against it.
None of these is monolithic.
I'm not sure where the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans fall.
"Depends". Each of these has an old branch, long gone liberal, and independent denominations that are much more conservative.
The presbyterians I am most familiar with. The old mainline PCUSA has long been liberal. And, every few years a group splits off that can't abide the latest outrage. Pretty soon, I figure, they'll be down to the lefty pagan core.
-
That is a ......dizzying array of denominations.
From the outside, it seems like the mentioned "War on Christianity" is mostly waged by Christians.
My Father-in-Law is a Presbyterian Minister, from what I believe lee n. field described as the "old, mainline PCUSA" ( I could be wrong on that) and he would say many of the same comments in this thread, pointed the other way and run through a "Midwest Nice" filter.
-
The presbyterians I am most familiar with. The old mainline PCUSA has long been liberal. And, every few years a group splits off that can't abide the latest outrage. Pretty soon, I figure, they'll be down to the lefty pagan core.
What about the Orthodox Presbyterians? Are they still around?
-
None of these surprise me. I don't even think the UUs regard themselves as Christian any more.
You're right, they don't. My bad.
When I was a "yout," there was an actual Unitarian (not UU) church in the town where my grandparents lived in the summer. I tent to forget that they may not exist any more.
-
What about the Orthodox Presbyterians? Are they still around?
OPC (http://opc.org)? small as ever, but still around.
-
The PCA still exists, and I think is growing overall. I won't darken the door of a PCUSA church again (grew up in that denomination).
-
From reading the article though, it looks like they're suing to stop Michigan from contracting with any adoption agencies that hold a faith-based test.
Isn't that reasonable? I'd be pretty pissed if Texas had a state contract with an adoption agency that only placed kids into families that passed a good behavior audit done by...I dunno, Scientologists or something.
The line seems pretty clear to me. If the state is doing it (or contracting for it) then it has to be agnostic in so far as requirements for services.
This was inevitable as soon as gay marriage was legalized.
I don't know Michigan law, but in Massachusetts and Illinois, the agencies are required to contract with the state in order to carry out their mission of "caring for widows and orphans". It's not a "oh, you just don't get the government's approval, but you can do what you'd like" (as gay "marriage" was before the Supreme Court decided to ignore the constitution) but a "you can't do it without the government's approval." (as the supporters of gay "marriage" liked to pretend it was.)
-
I don't know Michigan law, but in Massachusetts and Illinois, the agencies are required to contract with the state in order to carry out their mission of "caring for widows and orphans". It's not a "oh, you just don't get the government's approval, but you can do what you'd like" (as gay "marriage" was before the Supreme Court decided to ignore the constitution) but a "you can't do it without the government's approval." (as the supporters of gay "marriage" liked to pretend it was.)
I guess I'd need to know more about how exactly the adoption process works.
My understanding is that the children are in the legal custody of the State, (and State managed Foster Care), and a couple going to an adoption agency is essentially hiring a lobbyist to help them navigate the State's adoption procedures. Perhaps the agencies also promise to the State that the couples meet certain minimum standards, relieving the State from having to do independent research on each person seeking adoption. If that's the case, I don't have a problem with some agencies choosing to add extra requirements to the folks they choose to work with, as the agencies morals dictate. Potential parents are free to seek help from an agency that's goals more closely align with their own in that case.
If, however, the process is different, for example the state tells potential parents to go to specific agencies to get it done, I would have more of a problem with religious tests at those agencies.
Does anyone know if you HAVE to go through an agency? Or is it just a lot easier so most people do? Can a potential parent just go to the State, and wade through the paperwork and requirements themselves?
Also, Private (or church) run orphanages would be a separate issue, but I'm not sure how many of them exist anymore.
-
I guess I'd need to know more about how exactly the adoption process works.
My understanding is that the children are in the legal custody of the State, (and State managed Foster Care), and a couple going to an adoption agency is essentially hiring a lobbyist to help them navigate the State's adoption procedures.
Not at all. I have no idea what percentage of children up for adoption are actually wards of the state, but I know it's not all. And many children who are up for adoption are not in foster care.
When my late wife and I adopted, it was international. The adoption agency (Catholic Charities, a.k.a. Catholic Family Services) didn't do any lobbying or negotiating of red tape whatsoever. We had to do all that on our own. All Catholic Charities did was to provide a licensed adoption social worker to perform the legally-mandated home study that certified that we were suitable people to be candidates to adopt a child. It's probably different if adopting a child within the U.S., but an awful lot of adoptions are from other countries for the reason that the rules for U.S. adoptions are so strict and onerous that many families who want to adopt are turned down.
-
I guess I'd need to know more about how exactly the adoption process works.
My understanding is that the children are in the legal custody of the State, (and State managed Foster Care), and a couple going to an adoption agency is essentially hiring a lobbyist to help them navigate the State's adoption procedures. Perhaps the agencies also promise to the State that the couples meet certain minimum standards, relieving the State from having to do independent research on each person seeking adoption. If that's the case, I don't have a problem with some agencies choosing to add extra requirements to the folks they choose to work with, as the agencies morals dictate. Potential parents are free to seek help from an agency that's goals more closely align with their own in that case.
If, however, the process is different, for example the state tells potential parents to go to specific agencies to get it done, I would have more of a problem with religious tests at those agencies.
Does anyone know if you HAVE to go through an agency? Or is it just a lot easier so most people do? Can a potential parent just go to the State, and wade through the paperwork and requirements themselves?
Also, Private (or church) run orphanages would be a separate issue, but I'm not sure how many of them exist anymore.
I would also add that if the agency is receiving public funds, I can much more easily see this being an issue.
-
Former Foster Parent here.
When I went through the process I was looking to adopt. The Agency is contracted by the state. They have to follow the state's rules, regs, and procedures. I dealt with two different agencies, one Lutheran and one non-religious. The only thing that let me know they were religious was their name "Lutherbrook". That and the Lutheran Church next door to "training" building and "residence" building. (Training was for Foster and Adoptive parent to take a variety of classes, and the residence was what I would guess was a battered women's shelter, as I never saw any men there, just women as some children.)
The only discussion we ever had in our training was about respecting the religious rights of the child and the parents, if their parental rights had not been terminated. So for example, Little Timmy's parents are Baptist and you are Catholic. You should make every effort to see that Little Timmy gets to Baptist services. It doesn't mean you can't take him to Catholic services, but he should be going to just as many Baptist services as Catholic, so that generally means you do one one Sunday and the other the next. However, if they are say Muslim and you as a infidel are not allowed in the Mosque, then you are not required to leave Little Timmy alone with strangers, in fact you are prohibited from doing that.
And of course, parents come up with goofy religions and "requirements" that you don't have abide by. There was nothing about "Only Jewish kids can be placed with Jewish Families", however they often did try to "match up" as best they could. The only group with an actual legal requirement was Hispanic kids, I can't remember if they had to placed with Hispanic parents, or just "should" be if ones are available.
I got out of because:
1. They would call you and say they have a placement. Which means they either got a new case and needed a home for this/these kids, or their previous placement had gone pear shaped and they were sent to a mental hospital, and were now "better" (Narrator: They weren't "better") and ready to go into a new home. The two I had came from the later and in both cases things went pear shaped, police were called and kids taken out of my home at my request. And they give you no information about the kid other then name and age. They usually are sitting there by the desk of the case/social worker, so they just want to get this kid into a foster home, so they can go home. So unless you know to ask lots and lots of question, all you get is happy talk about what a great kid they and they like sports and school and will be a really good fit in your home. Bull.
2. Unlike other states, Illinois doesn't terminate parental rights (For 230RN; aka TPR. ) unless and until a "Stable" placement is made. That is generally a couple years of no incidents, like mentioned above. Then they begin the legal process to TPR, once that's done, then you can begin adoption proceedings. The average from Placement to Adoption is about 5-7 years. One family managed to do it two years, because the newborn they initially fostered had been dropped off at a fire station. So, no parents to TPR.
3. Since Mom and/or Dad are still in the picture you have to do supervised visits, and in the day and age of electronic and social media are in fairly constant contact with their kids. And Mom and/or Dad generally enjoy nothing more then undercutting the Foster parents. Ask me how I know.
4. Yes, you can do private adoptions, but that is generally for newborns, where the parents contracts with the birth mother. All other kids are by law "Children in Care" (They changed the law, so they are no longer "Wards of the State".) And yes, there are "Orphanages", but they are not called that. They are called "Residential Care Centers".
Now, the reason I heard that Lutherbrook was getting out of the Foster care business was that the State of Illinois was more than 2 years behind on their bills. That's a lot of salaries and electricity to front the state, so they called it quits. I had not heard that the state fired all of them. The reason they had non-DCFS (230RN; Dept. of Children and Family Services) agencies was there simply wasn't enough state employees/social and case workers to managed the number of kids in care. I know Children's Home and Aid (a secular agency) had over 300 kids in just one of their residence facilities on the north side of Chicago. But I gave up my license about a year ago, so I'm not in that loop any more.
-
All children in the USA are or soon will be required to be instructed on the moral superiority of homosexuality.
All stops must be pulled out to counteract the natural revulsion and disgust most humans feel towards homosexual behavior.
The conditioning (grooming) has to start at a young age so as to confuse the natural process of sexual maturation.
In less than one generation the news/media/education establishment has inverted our cultures morality where the immoral person is now the one who judges homosexual behavior as sin and destructive to society.
So bend over and learn to like it.
-
Ron, you seem to be an excellent role model for the moral superiority of heterosexuality.
-
All children in the USA are or soon will be required to be instructed on the moral superiority of homosexuality.
All stops must be pulled out to counteract the natural revulsion and disgust most humans feel towards homosexual behavior.
The conditioning (grooming) has to start at a young age so as to confuse the natural process of sexual maturation.
In less than one generation the news/media/education establishment has inverted our cultures morality where the immoral person is now the one who judges homosexual behavior as sin and destructive to society.
So bend over and learn to like it.
Paranoid much?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
@Amy--yea, people who do foster care for a long time (for the right reasons) are as close to saints as you're going to find. The amount of trauma they have to deal with is just insane. Especially short term care. If you're "lucky" the worst thing you have to deal with is some normal kids who just had their parents die in a car crash or something. It's downhill from there.
-
Paranoid much?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Is it really paranoid? I think that is where the media/leftists would like to go (and add in any other out-of-the-norm behavior/lifestyle) with it. I don't know if the rest of the country will go with them, but we will see.
-
Is it really paranoid? I think that is where the media/leftists would like to go (and add in any other out-of-the-norm behavior/lifestyle) with it. I don't know if the rest of the country will go with them, but we will see.
The latest push from the left is to normalize pedophilia.
They even have cute titles and slogans like 'Minor attracted persons' and 'Love is love.'
-
Ron, you seem to be an excellent role model for the moral superiority of heterosexuality.
With heterosexuality being how our species reproduces why would it be unusual to view healthy male/female relations along with healthy family dynamics to further our species as something sacred?
This has nothing to do with me personally other than my posting my observations.
If you missed it, in a different thread, Ive already copped to not being a role model regarding Christian sexual mores. My past failure to live up to a moral code doesn’t invalidate the moral code.
One could argue that there is a reason nearly every dominate culture and religion throughout all of human history looked unfavorably upon widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is bad for families and destabilizes society in general.
Western Civ is already facing a demographic crises from crashing birth rates. Grooming young children in government schools to accept homosexual behavior as an expression of normal sexuality is frankly, insane.
-
If you missed it, in a different thread, Ive already copped to not being a role model regarding Christian sexual mores. My past failure to live up to a moral code doesn’t invalidate the moral code.
This.
Its the rare person who hasn't strayed from the straight and narrow, but that fact doesn't justify concern trolling in favor of pursuit of immorality.
-
The latest push from the left is to normalize pedophilia.
They even have cute titles and slogans like 'Minor attracted persons' and 'Love is love.'
Correct. They seem to have pretty much won the battle on normalizing homosexuality, so now it's on to a new front. One might suspect that, once they succeed in normalizing pedophilia, they'll move on to normalizing bestiality.
-
Correct. They seem to have pretty much won the battle on normalizing homosexuality, so now it's on to a new front. One might suspect that, once they succeed in normalizing pedophilia, they'll move on to normalizing bestiality.
...or if normalization is pushed hard enough, it might not work in their favor and result in death camps.
-
The latest push from the left is to normalize pedophilia.
They even have cute titles and slogans like 'Minor attracted persons' and 'Love is love.'
It isn't.
That whole thing is a creation of trolls form 4chan.
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?
-
Correct. They seem to have pretty much won the battle on normalizing homosexuality, so now it's on to a new front. One might suspect that, once they succeed in normalizing pedophilia, they'll move on to normalizing bestiality.
That just isn't true. Some Reddit and 4Chan trolls started that to mess with people. This is definitely NOT a real thing. Please don't give them their jollies by believing it.
-
Haha, jinx.
-
That just isn't true. Some Reddit and 4Chan trolls started that to mess with people. This is definitely NOT a real thing. Please don't give them their jollies by believing it.
Its a real thing, whether you want to bury your head in the sand over it or not.
Not 4chan: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4AUzsGbfE
-
One of those leftist magazines runs articles about pedophilia occasionally. I don't think very many people agree with it at present, but it does concern me. When a group of people seem to revel in tearing down every moral virtue in society, you have to wonder how far they will go.
-
When a group of people seem to revel in tearing down every moral virtue in society, you have to wonder how far they will go.
Until the thoughts of every man are continually evil.
-
All children in the USA are or soon will be required to be instructed on the moral superiority of homosexuality.
All stops must be pulled out to counteract the natural revulsion and disgust most humans feel towards homosexual behavior.
The conditioning (grooming) has to start at a young age so as to confuse the natural process of sexual maturation.
In less than one generation the news/media/education establishment has inverted our cultures morality where the immoral person is now the one who judges homosexual behavior as sin and destructive to society.
So bend over and learn to like it.
It's a Brave New World.
That whole thing is a creation of trolls form 4chan.
No, it's not. That's been the defensive argument from the very people trying to push it to distract people from it happening. It's been a thing being pushed by the left for quite some time. If you paid any attention to the kind of things they've been pushing you would have seen it.
-
Until the thoughts of every man are continually evil.
as in the days of Noah.
-
as in the days of Noah.
Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?
-
That just isn't true. Some Reddit and 4Chan trolls started that to mess with people. This is definitely NOT a real thing. Please don't give them their jollies by believing it.
Are you saying that it's NOT true that they have largely succeeded in normalizing homosexuality? They certainly have.
-
It isn't.
That whole thing is a creation of trolls form 4chan.
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?
please look up Harry Hay
He invented nambla before Al Gore invented the internet.
Despite 4 chan , normalizing pedophillia was a thing the left wanted for some time.
they led the SF gay pride parade in the 90's - did 4chan invent that too?
-
Google “Lactacia” if you want to see what the new normal is going to be.
-
Google “Lactacia” if you want to see what the new normal is going to be.
and "Desmond is amazing"
-
You do realize that the left and gay/alternative community looks at the pedo normalizers the same way the right looks at Westboro and such right? Its called fringe loonies, all sides of the spectrum have them.
I mean seriously. If you honestly think "the left" is trying to normalize *expletive deleted*ing little kids I've got a bridge to sell you.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
You do realize that the left and gay/alternative community looks at the pedo normalizers the same way the right looks at Westboro and such right? Its called fringe loonies, all sides of the spectrum have them.
I mean seriously. If you honestly think "the left" is trying to normalize *expletive deleted*ing little kids I've got a bridge to sell you.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
You do realize that these child drag queens are featured on mainstream shows available to folks with cable?
They get featured in magazines and videos get shared/spread virally.
How is that not normalization?
-
You do realize that the left and gay/alternative community looks at the pedo normalizers the same way the right looks at Westboro and such right? Its called fringe loonies, all sides of the spectrum have them.
I mean seriously. If you honestly think "the left" is trying to normalize *expletive deleted*ing little kids I've got a bridge to sell you.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Wrong. Pedophilia is being painted as a sexual orientation, not even as a mental disorder, let alone child rape anymore- at least by people who wouldn’t violently oppose it.
-
You do realize that the left and gay/alternative community looks at the pedo normalizers the same way the right looks at Westboro and such right? Its called fringe loonies, all sides of the spectrum have them.
I mean seriously. If you honestly think "the left" is trying to normalize *expletive deleted*ing little kids I've got a bridge to sell you.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I would agree a little bit in that only a small portion of them seeming to be trying to normalize the pedo stuff. What bothers me is that 1) they are using some of the same arguments used to normalize other behaviors, and 2) at least some of them seem to be in a position to influence at least some media sources.
-
2) at least some of them seem to be in a position to influence at least some media sources.
Influence? Who is Jeffrey Epstein.
See also NXIVM
-
Wrong. Pedophilia is being painted as a sexual orientation, not even as a mental disorder, let alone child rape anymore- at least by people who wouldn’t violently oppose it.
Sure, by a few fringe weirdos that are outcast by pretty much everyone. It's nothing to do with zomg the gays! Because you've had sick *expletive deleted*s try and normalize it since long before that.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I would agree a little bit in that only a small portion of them seeming to be trying to normalize the pedo stuff. What bothers me is that 1) they are using some of the same arguments used to normalize other behaviors, and 2) at least some of them seem to be in a position to influence at least some media sources.
While that may be true, you can twist arguments to means just bout anything you want.
The fact still remains that the gay community wants nothing more to do with child predators than your average person does.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
While that may be true, you can twist arguments to means just bout anything you want.
The fact still remains that the gay community wants nothing more to do with child predators than your average person does.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Yes, there is that.
I've heard many gays state on this subject "eff that, I'll be right beside you feeding the woodchipper"
-
The "left and gay/alternative community" are not decidedly not homogenous blocks.
Like any other group there are factions and individuals who reject elements of the more widely accepted dogma and believe things not shared by the larger group. I know a few homosexuals who are staunch Republicans, although those are obviously not the norm. Certainly, plenty of the gay community absolutely does reject pedophilia in the same way gun owners reject gang violence. But there are others who are more devoted to the accepted principles of their movement. According to those principles, judging someone for who they are sexually attracted to is inherently wrong, and not celebrating a given sexual orientation or sexual expression - even for pre-pubescents - is tantamount to denying someone's humanity. To apply those principles in a way that does not legitimize pedophiles requires a countervailing principle that I don't think "the left" holds as a group, but rather exists (in pockets) only as a residue of growing up in a culture that by and large does maintain a desire to protect children.
The relentless slide of the Overton Window has continually made positions held by only the most extreme of the "fringe loonies" on the left to very rapidly become not merely generally acceptable but actually required as litmus tests for leftist purity. This is especially clear when Democratic politicians have to defend the fact that they held "progressive" positions just a few years ago which would be considered outright hate speech today.
No one can predict with certainty whether that trend will continue long enough for pedophiles to achieve the same approval and acceptance of things such as encouraging children into transgenderism. Regardless, we're currently at the point (unthinkable just a handful of years ago) where a comedian speaking out against parents chemically preventing puberty in their young children hormone blockers immediately loses their agent and has venues canceling their shows for that specific statement. Avowed Socialists are the new Democrat superstars, despite Socialist being a downright dirty word in elections prior to 2016.
I don't know about you, but I don't think we're done with the descent into crazy, and I don't think it's so ridiculous to see defense of pedophilia or whatever other bizarre behavior on the horizon for the left.
So, are "teh gaze" driving the pro-pedo bus? No, but the portion of homosexuals who support hard left ideology are on it, or at least buying it fuel. And in fairness to those on the other side who are confused, it is, after all, the exact same bus that the "alternative lifestyle community" rode in on to achieve their own goals.
-
No-one is denying pedophilia exists. No-one is denying some homosexuals are pedophiles. I don't think I've ever seen anything rational that tied pedophilia to anything other than a random distribution of the population, other than being mostly a defect of men.
What it does NOT do is have any ties to left-leaning anything. Pedophilia is not a political orientation.
If you think pedophilia is related to political orientation or an attempt to 'normalize' it I don't have anything constructive to say because that's...probably the most hyperbolic opinion I've ever heard in my life. That's sillier than calling Republicans actual Nazis.
That's a scary world to live in, where someone's political counterparts want to molest little kids. It's a level of demonetization I didn't think existed. TIL.
-
The "left and gay/alternative community" are not decidedly not homogenous blocks.
Like any other group there are factions and individuals who reject elements of the more widely accepted dogma and believe things not shared by the larger group. I know a few homosexuals who are staunch Republicans, although those are obviously not the norm. Certainly, plenty of the gay community absolutely does reject pedophilia in the same way gun owners reject gang violence. But there are others who are more devoted to the accepted principles of their movement. According to those principles, judging someone for who they are sexually attracted to is inherently wrong, and not celebrating a given sexual orientation or sexual expression - even for pre-pubescents - is tantamount to denying someone's humanity. To apply those principles in a way that does not legitimize pedophiles requires a countervailing principle that I don't think "the left" holds as a group, but rather exists (in pockets) only as a residue of growing up in a culture that by and large does maintain a desire to protect children.
The relentless slide of the Overton Window has continually made positions held by only the most extreme of the "fringe loonies" on the left to very rapidly become not merely generally acceptable but actually required as litmus tests for leftist purity. This is especially clear when Democratic politicians have to defend the fact that they held "progressive" positions just a few years ago which would be considered outright hate speech today.
No one can predict with certainty whether that trend will continue long enough for pedophiles to achieve the same approval and acceptance of things such as encouraging children into transgenderism. Regardless, we're currently at the point (unthinkable just a handful of years ago) where a comedian speaking out against parents chemically preventing puberty in their young children hormone blockers immediately loses their agent and has venues canceling their shows for that specific statement. Avowed Socialists are the new Democrat superstars, despite Socialist being a downright dirty word in elections prior to 2016.
I don't know about you, but I don't think we're done with the descent into crazy, and I don't think it's so ridiculous to see defense of pedophilia or whatever other bizarre behavior on the horizon for the left.
So, are "teh gaze" driving the pro-pedo bus? No, but the portion of homosexuals who support hard left ideology are on it, or at least buying it fuel. And in fairness to those on the other side who are confused, it is, after all, the exact same bus that the "alternative lifestyle community" rode in on to achieve their own goals.
You've got it rather backwards in terms of percentages. Republican gay folks may be the exception. Whereas those that are cool with pedophilia are very much the exception.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Who celebrates these bold child drag queens elevating them to national attention?
The LGBT community and its supporters primarily.
Folks who are running interference for this type of child abuse should be ashamed of themselves.
This is tribalism. They will not police or condemn anyone in their tribe.
-
Who celebrates these bold child drag queens elevating them to national attention?
The LGBT community and its supporters primarily.
Folks who are running interference for this type of child abuse should be ashamed of themselves.
This is tribalism. They will not police or condemn anyone in their tribe.
And the members of the gay community that don't support that stuff are just the "flyover country" of the gay community.
-
Enjoy having a boogyman and wondering why you're increasingly disregarded as out of step and out of touch with reality.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Enjoy having a boogyman and wondering why you're increasingly disregarded as out of step and out of touch with reality.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I hope you don’t enjoy your life of enabling child abuse by refusing to see reality.
-
I hope you don’t enjoy your life of enabling child abuse by refusing to see reality.
Actually yes, I do very much enjoy my life.
Part of my life is not, however, falling into traps of demonizing entire groups of people who I largely know nothing about so I have a boogyman to point my finger at. Enjoy doing the equivalent of considering those you don't like a racist bigot if it makes you feel fulfilled. Better yet, I hope coming off as a model example of such gives you righteous warm fuzzies feelings on the inside.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Actually yes, I do very much enjoy my life.
Part of my life is not, however, falling into traps of demonizing entire groups of people who I largely know nothing about so I have a boogyman to point my finger at. Enjoy doing the equivalent of considering those you don't like a racist bigot if it makes you feel fulfilled. Better yet, I hope coming off as a model example of such gives you righteous warm fuzzies feelings on the inside.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
The main problem isn’t really the LGBT community but the nice non judgmental folks who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by pointing out the obvious.
Like, celebrating 9 year old drag queens is evil.
Using public education institutions to groom children for homosexuality and transgenderism is evil.
The LGBT community better reign in their self appointed leaders from their overreach. People are waking up and a lot of them aren’t nice people like we are here at APS.
-
No-one is denying pedophilia exists. No-one is denying some homosexuals are pedophiles. I don't think I've ever seen anything rational that tied pedophilia to anything other than a random distribution of the population, other than being mostly a defect of men.
Ok, read the study here.
A larger proportion of homosexuals are pedophiles, compared to heterosexuals:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
-
You've got it rather backwards in terms of percentages. Republican gay folks may be the exception. Whereas those that are cool with pedophilia are very much the exception.
I don't disagree.
What it does NOT do is have any ties to left-leaning anything. Pedophilia is not a political orientation.
Is homosexuality a political orientation?
If you think pedophilia is related to political orientation or an attempt to 'normalize' it I don't have anything constructive to say because that's...probably the most hyperbolic opinion I've ever heard in my life. That's sillier than calling Republicans actual Nazis.
You may be misreading me. I'm not saying that Democrats like pedophiles. Most Democrats (like most Republicans) are pretty centrist, just voting for their tribe despite the crap their leadership pulls. I'm saying that the principles espoused by leftists (postmodernists, intersectionalists, etc.) do not lend themselves to attacking pedophilia, and indeed do lend themselves to defending it.
What worries me most is that the left - a necessary component to reign in the excesses of the right - has more or less run out of excesses to reign in, but has not slowed its demand for change.
That's a scary world to live in, where someone's political counterparts want to molest little kids. It's a level of demonetization I didn't think existed. TIL.
Nope, not what I'm saying.
-
We interrupt this program to bring you a word from the language Nazi:
What worries me most is that the left - a necessary component to reign in the excesses of the right - has more or less run out of excesses to reign in, but has not slowed its demand for change.
Definition of reign
1 a : royal authority : sovereignty
under the reign of the Stuart kings
b : the dominion, sway, or influence of one resembling a monarch
the reign of the Puritan ministers
2 : the time during which someone (such as a sovereign) reigns
Definition of rein
1 : a strap fastened to a bit by which a rider or driver controls an animal —usually used in plural
2 a : a restraining influence : check
kept a tight rein on the proceedings
b : controlling or guiding power —usually used in plural
the reins of government
3 : opportunity for unhampered activity or use
gave full rein to her imagination
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
Ok, read the study here.
A larger proportion of homosexuals are pedophiles, compared to heterosexuals:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Ok, read this study here.
In 82% of cases the abuser was a heterosexual male partner of an adult relative. With the likelihood of the pedophile being homosexual in line with the rate of homosexuals in general.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8008535/
In short, ones orientation towards adult partners, if their is any, has little to do with their victims. It generally has much more to do with availability. IE, Clergy didn't largely molest boys because they were gay, they largely molested boys because they were the children they were most likely to have opportunity to molest, with other reasons such as deniability and the like. The attraction for a pedo is almost exclusively to a pre pubescent child with no ties to that child's gender.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
The fact still remains that the gay community wants nothing more to do with child predators than your average person does.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
But the SJW community does.
\What it does NOT do is have any ties to left-leaning anything. Pedophilia is not a political orientation.
If you think pedophilia is related to political orientation or an attempt to 'normalize' it I don't have anything constructive to say because that's...probably the most hyperbolic opinion I've ever heard in my life. That's sillier than calling Republicans actual Nazis.
That's a scary world to live in, where someone's political counterparts want to molest little kids. It's a level of demonetization I didn't think existed. TIL.
Except guess which side is the ones ok with it. Guess which side is pushing things like "gender fluid". Guess which side has the ever expanding acronym of acceptance.
Here's a fun time for kids, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOFkVZQ8etE
Meet Desmond, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5X4aD6mo8
Meet Lactatia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCXxUxI-WE
-
Meet Lactatia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCXxUxI-WE
One look at "Lactatia's" mother pretty much explains it all.
-
Well, well, well ...
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/warren-county/parents-of-three-transgender-teens-sue-warren-county-judge-to-allow-name-change
Look what we have here. A judge declined to allow a minor female to legally adopt a male name because he (the judge) wasn't convinced the minor was mature enough to make that decision (yet) -- so the kid's parents are suing the judge. Along with the parents of two other alleged "transgender" minors who haven't even had their hearings yet.
The pressure is building. Conform or be destroyed.
-
The pressure is building. Conform or be destroyed.
If a lawsuit, in a country where crazy lawsuits without realistic basis are a common thing, is enough to constitute "pressure" in your world, then I feel sad for you.
You might as well be complaining about air pressure in this case. Call me back when the parents actually win their cases. Call me back when legislation is being passed, not just put forward by that one crazy senator. Etc...
Treating "the left" like some monolithic evil force is incorrect. It consists of people, just like on the right, just with different views. Often views that aren't all that different either. They start with different base assumptions in many cases.
As has been pointed out, they have their fringe, the right has theirs, etc... The fringe being fringe is a thing.
Select people have been "trying" to "legitimize" pedophilia for centuries. The acceptance of gays has risen and fallen several times during that. Acceptance of pedophilia is a far different matter than acceptance of gays.
It's just that as Gays won their acceptance, their cries for acceptance have died down, and now only more fringe are heard.
-
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/08/04/david-hoggs-vision-each-member-of-congress-will-have-a-young-person/
:lol:
-
If a lawsuit, in a country where crazy lawsuits without realistic basis are a common thing, is enough to constitute "pressure" in your world, then I feel sad for you.
You might as well be complaining about air pressure in this case. Call me back when the parents actually win their cases. Call me back when legislation is being passed, not just put forward by that one crazy senator. Etc...
Treating "the left" like some monolithic evil force is incorrect. It consists of people, just like on the right, just with different views. Often views that aren't all that different either. They start with different base assumptions in many cases.
As has been pointed out, they have their fringe, the right has theirs, etc... The fringe being fringe is a thing.
Select people have been "trying" to "legitimize" pedophilia for centuries. The acceptance of gays has risen and fallen several times during that. Acceptance of pedophilia is a far different matter than acceptance of gays.
It's just that as Gays won their acceptance, their cries for acceptance have died down, and now only more fringe are heard.
The ratchet only seems to click to the left or if you like, Cthulhu may swim slowly, but he only swims to the left.
While I appreciate your position and the tone of your post I disagree with you. It will not stop, to the left they must push.
It’s not monolithic evil but the ordinary every day banal evil that compromises or doesn’t speak up due to a whole host of reasons.
-
"If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world",
Harry Hay prominent socialist in 1982.
he practically invented the gay rights movement, as well as the "left wing" as we know it today.
-
In my experience, the gender of the victim in a child sexual abuse case has more to do with boys being less likely to say anything than girls, more than the perp being attracted to males.
-
In my experience, the gender of the victim in a child sexual abuse case has more to do with boys being less likely to say anything than girls, more than the perp being attracted to males.
So the girls are more likely to be aggressive in saying no?
-
All of you are completely ignoring the pony in the room:
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/animals/oklahoma-pony-case-629403
-
All of you are completely ignoring the pony in the room:
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/animals/oklahoma-pony-case-629403
It's not in the room, it's out in the field.
[/Monty Python accent]
-
So the girls are more likely to be aggressive in saying no?
No, but they are more likely to speak up. It's changing, but it used to be that boys who were molested were afraid that they had been "turned gay
-
No, but they are more likely to speak up. It's changing, but it used to be that boys who were molested were afraid that they had been "turned gay
There's also, likewise fading, the better cover-up because why on Earth would a heterosexual male adult molest a boy.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
In my experience, the gender of the victim in a child sexual abuse case has more to do with boys being less likely to say anything than girls, more than the perp being attracted to males.
Wouldn’t that contribute to underreporting of male victim stats?
-
They weren’t being victimized.
They showed curiosity and were being mentored, repeatedly.
-
Wouldn’t that contribute to underreporting of male victim stats?
Last time I checked, there were fewer molested boys than girls (believe it was 1 in 5 and 1 in 3, respectively)
Would also be a good idea to break down "actual pedophilia" (meaning "attracted to prepubescent children"). Believe there's a different term for those attracted to pubescent, but don't remember it off the top of my head. But calling anyone who is interested in sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is fairly imprecise...
Basically, the creep who gets off on young children is a different animal from the ones that target teens
-
Last time I checked, there were fewer molested boys than girls (believe it was 1 in 5 and 1 in 3, respectively)
Would also be a good idea to break down "actual pedophilia" (meaning "attracted to prepubescent children"). Believe there's a different term for those attracted to pubescent, but don't remember it off the top of my head. But calling anyone who is interested in sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is fairly imprecise...
Basically, the creep who gets off on young children is a different animal from the ones that target teens
Iirc pedophilia is technically between the ages of about five and puberty. Infantophilia is for younger than five, hebephilia is attraction to those in the process of puberty, and ephebophilia adolescents that are post puberty. I agree it's fairly imprecise to just use a general term to cover anyone interested in minors considerably younger than themselves.
Generally speaking the younger the adolescent the less gender matters as the attraction is to the fact they're a child, not a gender, even if it's the exact opposite of adults they may be attracted to (if attracted to adults at all). And the older/more developed a child gets the more correlation there is to the abusers preferred gender.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Last time I checked, there were fewer molested boys than girls (believe it was 1 in 5 and 1 in 3, respectively)
Would also be a good idea to break down "actual pedophilia" (meaning "attracted to prepubescent children"). Believe there's a different term for those attracted to pubescent, but don't remember it off the top of my head. But calling anyone who is interested in sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is fairly imprecise...
Basically, the creep who gets off on young children is a different animal from the ones that target teens
Pervert or degenerate should cover them all.