No, I don’t, but not all homosexuals are cut from the same cloth, just like all heterosexuals don’t make good parents.
FYI: Scott Bessent's family includes his husband, John Freeman, and their two children, Cole and Caroline.
From a civil and legal standpoint — what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Has MAGA suddenly become the theological gestapo? I seem to recall that in the early days of MAGA, we had no problem with the likes of Scott Bessent and Scott Pressler and Ric Grenell. Now all of the sudden, we’re pushing a religious ideology on people.
It is a rejection of nature, and therefore against natural law. Two men can't create life together, thus they shouldn't be able to buy it. You are supporting the denial of a child of their natural right to a mother.
I get it, you aren't a Christian and don't care for my dogma. But you are denying the rights of a child by allowing homosexual men to buy a child.
I agree legally (as the current laws are written) two adults can do what they want. I appreciate what Rick, and the two Scott's have done for MAGA. I do NOT think any children should be raised in that environment. There's simply too much risk.
When you look at the bigger picture; SOOO much information and history has been purposely obscured & kept from us for centuries. Do you think the LGBTQPEDO+ communities REALLY want to continue that lifestyle if they were informed that a healthier alternative which was more comfortable and longer lasting life was within reach? Once the group-think mentality fractures, would they maybe turn away from that lifestyle and help others to seek treatment?
The truth would put 99% of people in the hospital.
Is 99% of the population intentionally infected with some type of bug? Why was Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and HCQ aggressively rejected by the media and the "medical industry"?
What does the Bible tell us about serpents & worms?
We don’t need to consider them all pedophiles (because that consideration simply is neither true nor fair) to assert that their having children is unnatural (which is true) and then move to a discussion of whether what is unnatural should be legal. Two men raising a baby is two men pretending to be a natural family, which is not true. It may be that there are acceptable exceptions, but generally speaking, to legalize/normalize untruth is to empower a lie. Whose kingdom does that support?
Even on exceptions, “abortion” (or “infanticide”) was supposed to be an “exception”, and 65,000,000 dead babies later… it turned out the “slippery slope” is a real thing. So…. where any lines should be is probably farther than we are ready, socially, to have an earnest and open discussion at present (nor do I claim to have an answer or even strong opinion, presently). I recently posted that “homosexuality” is not an innate characteristic, and even that got some pushback, here.
This issue does still regard fellow humanity and fellow Americans, who will be respected if they are respectable, AND genuine respect involves reciprocation or it’s simply dominance. Christianity has been run roughshod on this issue since 2010. 1627 may not be an acceptable option, but neither is the current status quo. To get to a mutually acceptable position from the current hellish one is probably going to require some uncomfortable discussions, for all interested parties.
I don’t like any of this, and would prefer to still have opinions similar to yours.
I can’t because nude men with artificial breasts are dressing children up in BDSM costumes for public parades while reading to them in demonic attire at public libraries and filling the childrens’ section with books like “heather has two mommies”.
It’s not religious zealotry. Red lines have been crossed.
I agree with the idea of this being a social contagion, it most definitely is. I do think we should call out the awfulness and abuse of children by those seeking attention and garnering it through the use of children. I’m just not willing to vilify a subset of the population based on the horrible actions of some.
Note that while I’m against the behavior, and don’t accept it as a natural identity, I do try very hard not to vilify them as a whole. From what I’m aware of, many of them have had very hard lives.
However, just because we shouldn’t crap on them, it doesn’t mean them crapping in the opposite direction needs to be acceptable.
That's like taking any case of pedophilia, child sex abuse, incest, whatever you can find in a "normal" family and using that to say that all "normal" families do the same.
You think this newborn boy was happy and healthy as well? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/queensland-paedophile-peter-truong-sentenced-for-30-years-jail
No, I don’t, but not all homosexuals are cut from the same cloth, just like all heterosexuals don’t make good parents. FYI: Scott Bessent's family includes his husband, John Freeman, and their two children, Cole and Caroline.
How do homosexuals reproduce?
See page 53 below: 👇
Parasite Pill 2.0
From a civil and legal standpoint — what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Has MAGA suddenly become the theological gestapo? I seem to recall that in the early days of MAGA, we had no problem with the likes of Scott Bessent and Scott Pressler and Ric Grenell. Now all of the sudden, we’re pushing a religious ideology on people.
It is a rejection of nature, and therefore against natural law. Two men can't create life together, thus they shouldn't be able to buy it. You are supporting the denial of a child of their natural right to a mother.
I get it, you aren't a Christian and don't care for my dogma. But you are denying the rights of a child by allowing homosexual men to buy a child.
I agree legally (as the current laws are written) two adults can do what they want. I appreciate what Rick, and the two Scott's have done for MAGA. I do NOT think any children should be raised in that environment. There's simply too much risk.
When you look at the bigger picture; SOOO much information and history has been purposely obscured & kept from us for centuries. Do you think the LGBTQPEDO+ communities REALLY want to continue that lifestyle if they were informed that a healthier alternative which was more comfortable and longer lasting life was within reach? Once the group-think mentality fractures, would they maybe turn away from that lifestyle and help others to seek treatment?
As Q said in Post 142:
Is 99% of the population intentionally infected with some type of bug? Why was Ivermectin, Fenbendazole and HCQ aggressively rejected by the media and the "medical industry"?
What does the Bible tell us about serpents & worms?
EXACTLY THIS.
And it's equally as reprehensible, I don't care how they vote.
We don’t need to consider them all pedophiles (because that consideration simply is neither true nor fair) to assert that their having children is unnatural (which is true) and then move to a discussion of whether what is unnatural should be legal. Two men raising a baby is two men pretending to be a natural family, which is not true. It may be that there are acceptable exceptions, but generally speaking, to legalize/normalize untruth is to empower a lie. Whose kingdom does that support?
Even on exceptions, “abortion” (or “infanticide”) was supposed to be an “exception”, and 65,000,000 dead babies later… it turned out the “slippery slope” is a real thing. So…. where any lines should be is probably farther than we are ready, socially, to have an earnest and open discussion at present (nor do I claim to have an answer or even strong opinion, presently). I recently posted that “homosexuality” is not an innate characteristic, and even that got some pushback, here.
This issue does still regard fellow humanity and fellow Americans, who will be respected if they are respectable, AND genuine respect involves reciprocation or it’s simply dominance. Christianity has been run roughshod on this issue since 2010. 1627 may not be an acceptable option, but neither is the current status quo. To get to a mutually acceptable position from the current hellish one is probably going to require some uncomfortable discussions, for all interested parties.
You should consider revisiting Parasite Pill. The population didn’t go from <1%-2% to 9.3% in 15 years naturally. The terms “social contagion” and this article (https://greatawakening.win/p/17txodTNLv/the-nature-of-exponents-in-a-lim/ ) are worth being aware of.
I don’t like any of this, and would prefer to still have opinions similar to yours.
I can’t because nude men with artificial breasts are dressing children up in BDSM costumes for public parades while reading to them in demonic attire at public libraries and filling the childrens’ section with books like “heather has two mommies”.
It’s not religious zealotry. Red lines have been crossed.
I agree with the idea of this being a social contagion, it most definitely is. I do think we should call out the awfulness and abuse of children by those seeking attention and garnering it through the use of children. I’m just not willing to vilify a subset of the population based on the horrible actions of some.
Note that while I’m against the behavior, and don’t accept it as a natural identity, I do try very hard not to vilify them as a whole. From what I’m aware of, many of them have had very hard lives.
However, just because we shouldn’t crap on them, it doesn’t mean them crapping in the opposite direction needs to be acceptable.
That's like taking any case of pedophilia, child sex abuse, incest, whatever you can find in a "normal" family and using that to say that all "normal" families do the same.