I'd disagree, since it's inception it was defining itself as sexual identity first before everything else. If it was just 'we are people too, do you mind just applying the same rules to us as everyone else' not only would the movement have stopped more than a decade ago when civil partnerships became a thing but they wouldn't identify as LGBT, they'd be a group more focused on human rights than having sexualized parades every year.
Like all cults, when they start off they don't try to play their hand early and present themselves more as part of the community and only want to be accepted
We are now in the later stages where the mask has slipped and we are near the stage where someone's bringing the kool-aid...
That's right. We TOLERATE homosexuality because we don't want to police what should be people's PRIVATE behavior.
Now that neo-Marxists insist on shoving fags and trannies in front of the parade of the "oppressed" they expect both acceptance and respect.
Who or what you like to screw has no bearing on whether you deserve either. Acceptance and respect are individual human affairs, not collective or political.
"groomer" is a term that has been abused to the point of meaninglessness.
An actual groomer is:
a pedophile who targets a child under the age of 14, isolates the child, then conditions the child in various ways, including sexual desensitization, in order to facilitate sexual abuse
Nobody want to discuss sex with children. Saying that LGBT+ people exist isn’t talking about sex,
Except these people define themselves by who they want to have sex with. Literally every letter in there is a sexual preference, other than "T" which is its own special kind of mental illness. I have no idea what the "+" is even supposed to mean.
"I'm a lesbian" is code for "I'm a women who has sex with other women". It's impossible to explain what that means to a child without delving into the topic of sex.
It's being "made up" in university lecture halls and faculty offices.
Once the queers got folded into the "critical social justice" political movement there was no more reason to stand down, even though all their goals for social acceptance had been achieved. They are another cadre of "minority identities" in the intersectional hierarchy of the oppressed in need of "liberating," which is to say given a public position of respect, not just normal but beyond reproach or even question.
I'd like to "liberate" them and their "allies" by tearing off their numerous scabs and tossing them into shark-infested waters (geez I get tired of using quotation marks).
We want children to be taught that all families are equally valid. A mom and a dad, only a mom or a dad, two dads, two moms, a granny or auntie or uncle, or anything else as long as the child has a loving and caring home
Fun fact. Not every family is equally valid, no matter how much you might want it to be.
I can respect that a single mom is doing the best she can, and she might end up raising a great kid, but patterns don’t lie. Single parent homes result in disproportionately high numbers of dysfunctional kids. Higher rates of crime, lower educational achievement, lower rates of relationship and financial success later in life, etc.
A new generation of “queer” homes is going to bring a whole new set of dysfunctions to the table. And trying to normalize that dysfunction does a disservice to the kids that have to live through it.
Not all lifestyle choices are equally valid. Claiming they are is dishonest, and ultimately harmful to the people that buy into the lie.
A groomer is an adult that wants to indoctrinate young kids into thinking degenerate lifestyles are normal. Usually so they can draw them into that deviant lifestyle and take advantage of their innocence, all while making excuses claiming that’s not actually what they’re doing.
You know, kinda like what it seems you’re doing now.
I have never understood why 2 gay men would want to raise children. It seems totally opposite to what gay men apparently want: unlimited, uninhibited sex with as many partners as possible.
Lesbians are still women, after all, so I understand if the desire to care for and nurture an infant breaks through their insanity, a sort of maternal instinct that only leaves when the ovaries dry up or are removed.
I suppose gay men might want a hobby once their sex drives begin to wane . . .
The very definition of the alphabet group is that you are defined by your sexuality. Its like saying kids should be allowed in a BDSM group events.
I'd disagree, since it's inception it was defining itself as sexual identity first before everything else. If it was just 'we are people too, do you mind just applying the same rules to us as everyone else' not only would the movement have stopped more than a decade ago when civil partnerships became a thing but they wouldn't identify as LGBT, they'd be a group more focused on human rights than having sexualized parades every year.
Like all cults, when they start off they don't try to play their hand early and present themselves more as part of the community and only want to be accepted
We are now in the later stages where the mask has slipped and we are near the stage where someone's bringing the kool-aid...
They're not, though, & children should be taught that being normal is superior to being a deviant.
That's right. We TOLERATE homosexuality because we don't want to police what should be people's PRIVATE behavior.
Now that neo-Marxists insist on shoving fags and trannies in front of the parade of the "oppressed" they expect both acceptance and respect.
Who or what you like to screw has no bearing on whether you deserve either. Acceptance and respect are individual human affairs, not collective or political.
"groomer" is a term that has been abused to the point of meaninglessness.
An actual groomer is:
Except these people define themselves by who they want to have sex with. Literally every letter in there is a sexual preference, other than "T" which is its own special kind of mental illness. I have no idea what the "+" is even supposed to mean.
"I'm a lesbian" is code for "I'm a women who has sex with other women". It's impossible to explain what that means to a child without delving into the topic of sex.
The plus sign is a stand in for the kind of repulsive perversions and obvious lies that even these freaks don't think they can defend.
Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, you name it.
It's being "made up" in university lecture halls and faculty offices.
Once the queers got folded into the "critical social justice" political movement there was no more reason to stand down, even though all their goals for social acceptance had been achieved. They are another cadre of "minority identities" in the intersectional hierarchy of the oppressed in need of "liberating," which is to say given a public position of respect, not just normal but beyond reproach or even question.
I'd like to "liberate" them and their "allies" by tearing off their numerous scabs and tossing them into shark-infested waters (geez I get tired of using quotation marks).
What's this groomer doing on a supposedly conservative platform? Shouldn't he be hanging out with the other pedos on mainstream social media?
Fun fact. Not every family is equally valid, no matter how much you might want it to be.
I can respect that a single mom is doing the best she can, and she might end up raising a great kid, but patterns don’t lie. Single parent homes result in disproportionately high numbers of dysfunctional kids. Higher rates of crime, lower educational achievement, lower rates of relationship and financial success later in life, etc.
A new generation of “queer” homes is going to bring a whole new set of dysfunctions to the table. And trying to normalize that dysfunction does a disservice to the kids that have to live through it.
Not all lifestyle choices are equally valid. Claiming they are is dishonest, and ultimately harmful to the people that buy into the lie.
Yes, I do have a personal agenda. It’s to keep kids away from groomers.
A groomer is an adult that wants to indoctrinate young kids into thinking degenerate lifestyles are normal. Usually so they can draw them into that deviant lifestyle and take advantage of their innocence, all while making excuses claiming that’s not actually what they’re doing.
You know, kinda like what it seems you’re doing now.
Being gay is plainly wrong because humans are a sexually dimorphic species.
I have never understood why 2 gay men would want to raise children. It seems totally opposite to what gay men apparently want: unlimited, uninhibited sex with as many partners as possible.
Lesbians are still women, after all, so I understand if the desire to care for and nurture an infant breaks through their insanity, a sort of maternal instinct that only leaves when the ovaries dry up or are removed.
I suppose gay men might want a hobby once their sex drives begin to wane . . .