There are gay people in this community too. People that do NOT fuck around and get aids but who happen to like it up their asses.
Not me, but just saying. A vote from a gay Trumper is a vote and he doesn't hunt in the hetero dating pool but instead takes another, likely attractive, guy with him! What's not to like?
Exactly. I don't get these assholes justifying their "uh gay marriage is heineous and gross and shouldn't exist. For one, gay people shouldn't have children. Marriage is about children and is sacred. Don't you know it might make kids confused?"
Come on are you forgetting all of the leftists that get married and have abortions and call it "a clump of cells" because they want to live child free? Or the ones that divorce and fight over custody of children and screw them up mentally? The people who beat their children and rape them in straight marriages is very high too, and you're telling me gay people shouldn't get married because some gay people suck? On that logic, no one should fucking get married.
Marriage is already a travesty in many cases, it was never objectively sacred. Hell, legal divorce started back in 1527. The main point of legally registering marriage is legal protections. It's a contract and should be considered a commitment. If you want to ascribe whatever other meanings to marriage, you can, in your own private marriage.
I'm going to repost this since I didn't get an answer yet. The safest place for any child to be is living with two married biological parents.
It is probably illegal to study the connection between homosexuals and child abuse, or at least it will certainly get you fired and end your career.
But consider these facts: the vast majority of child sexual predators are males. And almost a third of child sexual abuse victims are boys. Less than 1% of men are homosexuals.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077559509342125
This study in the Netherlands shows that adoptive parents are less likely to abuse children than step parents. In fact the risk of abuse is elevated for stepparents but not for adoptive families. I think that gay people would be more likely to be adoptive parents than step parents.
Thanks for posting your info though. I would like to see more studies just like you.
So now we went from sexual abuse to "maltreatment"?
This study in the Netherlands shows that adoptive parents are less likely to abuse children than step parents.
Also, I can only read the abstract and not the study itself. But that is NOT what th abstract says.
It says adoptive parents were less likely to committ "maltreatment" (however that might be defined) compared to what the researchers "expected".
Now we do not know what the researchers expected. We do not know if "maltreatment" was higher in the adoptive group than in biological parent group.
We do not know if they controlled for family wealth. We know very little.
And there is no good reason for this vagueness in the abstract other than to confuse.
This sounds like politically correct distortion of data if anything
The vast majority of child sexual predators are not males, just as the vast majority of rapists are not males. The numbers are about even, but the data is suppressed by both feminists and chest beating traditionalists. Survey data of male sex offenders shows that almost all of them were abused by someone of the opposite sex.
The vast majority of child sexual predators are not males, just as the vast majority of rapists are not males. The numbers are about even, but the data is suppressed by both feminists and chest beating traditionalists
This is a lie.
There is no evidence to support your conspiracy theories.
Vast majority of rapists are men without a doubt. Even if we were to believe female rape is underreported, it is still proven beyond a doubt that men are vastly overrepresented.
This is by the way what victims of child sexual abuse report too. Their abusers were overwhelmingly male.
I think it has to do with the obvious observation (basic subconscious pattern-matching) that gay men tend to be way more deviant and degenerate.
And this would make sense -- humanity has spent literally hundreds of thousands of years trying to regulate sexuality in a productive way in order to optimize for offspring survival. And even though we are 'liberated' by contraceptives, nothing about how our psyche revolves around sex has changed all that much. Just look at the preoccupation people have with sexual assault, even though most of it is objectively a complete nothing burger compared to being physically hurt.
Because even though sex is like our biggest drive, it is completely taboo outside a very, very small circle of situations that we have deemed permissible. And this is ingrained into our bones from birth.
But a lot of these taboos (most?) revolve 100% around hetero sex and go right out the window when talking about homosexual men sex, which makes people wary about being tolerant to male homosexuality in general, especially when they see the sort of stuff on display at a typical pride parade.
The conclusion here is, I believe, that the proper course of action involves actually encouraging gay marriage (with all the super strict laws about divorce and stuff to go along with it) so as to encourage homosexual monogamy and rather ban stuff like pride parades or whatever else promotes the sort of deviant behavior that goes against our collective taboos around sex. Make gay people follow the same taboos as everyone else and I think you'd see a lot less homophobia
How else would I sell gayness to a nongay person? I think I did pretty well. But don't drive the gays away. We need every vote. If you want to hate on something, hate on trans-people. In 98 % of cases, those are just insane. So you have my blessing. But your average gay person just likes to... well do gay stuff.
There are gay people in this community too. People that do NOT fuck around and get aids but who happen to like it up their asses.
Not me, but just saying. A vote from a gay Trumper is a vote and he doesn't hunt in the hetero dating pool but instead takes another, likely attractive, guy with him! What's not to like?
Exactly. I don't get these assholes justifying their "uh gay marriage is heineous and gross and shouldn't exist. For one, gay people shouldn't have children. Marriage is about children and is sacred. Don't you know it might make kids confused?"
Come on are you forgetting all of the leftists that get married and have abortions and call it "a clump of cells" because they want to live child free? Or the ones that divorce and fight over custody of children and screw them up mentally? The people who beat their children and rape them in straight marriages is very high too, and you're telling me gay people shouldn't get married because some gay people suck? On that logic, no one should fucking get married.
Marriage is already a travesty in many cases, it was never objectively sacred. Hell, legal divorce started back in 1527. The main point of legally registering marriage is legal protections. It's a contract and should be considered a commitment. If you want to ascribe whatever other meanings to marriage, you can, in your own private marriage.
I'm going to repost this since I didn't get an answer yet. The safest place for any child to be is living with two married biological parents.
It is probably illegal to study the connection between homosexuals and child abuse, or at least it will certainly get you fired and end your career.
But consider these facts: the vast majority of child sexual predators are males. And almost a third of child sexual abuse victims are boys. Less than 1% of men are homosexuals.
So you do the math yourself
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077559509342125 This study in the Netherlands shows that adoptive parents are less likely to abuse children than step parents. In fact the risk of abuse is elevated for stepparents but not for adoptive families. I think that gay people would be more likely to be adoptive parents than step parents.
Thanks for posting your info though. I would like to see more studies just like you.
So now we went from sexual abuse to "maltreatment"?
Also, I can only read the abstract and not the study itself. But that is NOT what th abstract says. It says adoptive parents were less likely to committ "maltreatment" (however that might be defined) compared to what the researchers "expected". Now we do not know what the researchers expected. We do not know if "maltreatment" was higher in the adoptive group than in biological parent group. We do not know if they controlled for family wealth. We know very little. And there is no good reason for this vagueness in the abstract other than to confuse. This sounds like politically correct distortion of data if anything
The vast majority of child sexual predators are not males, just as the vast majority of rapists are not males. The numbers are about even, but the data is suppressed by both feminists and chest beating traditionalists. Survey data of male sex offenders shows that almost all of them were abused by someone of the opposite sex.
This is a lie.
There is no evidence to support your conspiracy theories.
Vast majority of rapists are men without a doubt. Even if we were to believe female rape is underreported, it is still proven beyond a doubt that men are vastly overrepresented.
This is by the way what victims of child sexual abuse report too. Their abusers were overwhelmingly male.
I think it has to do with the obvious observation (basic subconscious pattern-matching) that gay men tend to be way more deviant and degenerate.
And this would make sense -- humanity has spent literally hundreds of thousands of years trying to regulate sexuality in a productive way in order to optimize for offspring survival. And even though we are 'liberated' by contraceptives, nothing about how our psyche revolves around sex has changed all that much. Just look at the preoccupation people have with sexual assault, even though most of it is objectively a complete nothing burger compared to being physically hurt.
Because even though sex is like our biggest drive, it is completely taboo outside a very, very small circle of situations that we have deemed permissible. And this is ingrained into our bones from birth.
But a lot of these taboos (most?) revolve 100% around hetero sex and go right out the window when talking about homosexual men sex, which makes people wary about being tolerant to male homosexuality in general, especially when they see the sort of stuff on display at a typical pride parade.
The conclusion here is, I believe, that the proper course of action involves actually encouraging gay marriage (with all the super strict laws about divorce and stuff to go along with it) so as to encourage homosexual monogamy and rather ban stuff like pride parades or whatever else promotes the sort of deviant behavior that goes against our collective taboos around sex. Make gay people follow the same taboos as everyone else and I think you'd see a lot less homophobia
Did you think that would sell me?
How else would I sell gayness to a nongay person? I think I did pretty well. But don't drive the gays away. We need every vote. If you want to hate on something, hate on trans-people. In 98 % of cases, those are just insane. So you have my blessing. But your average gay person just likes to... well do gay stuff.
Don't drive away the gay ones we have!
You think telling women women that gay men take attractive men out of the dating pool is going to garner support?