all 70 comments

[–]Gaslov 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I'm sure the adopted children were just born that way.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Critical Childhood Theorists might agree with you unironically

[–]RedEyedWarrior 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They would have been better off if they stayed with their birth mother, or if their birth father took them in. Or if their birth parents shared custody, which would have been the best possible outcome for them.

[–]ActuallyNot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I stopped reading at


because it's a cult LOL

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Catholic Church was subverted long, long ago. They're not as Christian as they used to be.

Christian Orthodoxy is the most Christian out of all Christian denominations.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Catholic orthodoxy says men are equal to God, so no.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hint: this story is fresh news, that's why it's posted to s/news

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good doggy. Now, sit.

[–]Evola 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

I'll say it then. The fact that same sex couples even have children is inherently damaging to children's development, they deprive the children growing up with and around the other sex.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree but you have to consider the alternative as well. It would be best if there was a rating system that took all the variables into consideration and adopted to the best fit, but I doubt any such system would have the integrity to score gay couples lower.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. The more complicated you make a system the harder it is to enforce justly. That is why unflinching cruelty has to be dealt out at times because violence is the most simple order one can make to establish order to put it simply.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)


[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All regulations are at some point are enforced by violence. How new to this are you?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How exactly do you need violence to enforce a rating system? If they don't comply they don't get the kid. If they try to kidnap a kid that is an entirely different problem.

And enforcement does not require cruelty.

You are all over the board and not making any sense.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah alright, that new to the job then. It's good that you're asking questions.

I'm mostly just agreeing with how libraratarians frame police officers and taxation to eventually be controlled by the violence of others to be enforced and applying it to any social constraint, it's a very drawn out and autistic argument if you want me to go through it but it's basically a way to balance out social good and inconvenience of others.

The state has to be more violent than criminals to maintain order, it's just common sense so to use a subjective word like cruelty is inappropriate to the argument I'm making (yes I know I used it).

While we're onto the idea of social inconvenience given the relative rarity of gay adoption I think an outright ban is better for the whole social system. The social welfare network is strained already and to create your system would take social workers that could be finding children homes instead running and maintaining a niche network of potential potent parents with a known risk level, to begin with.

At this point, you're on the level of trans activists arguing for a minuscule percentage of a percentage. Sometimes it's okay for people to be left by the wayside to protect the integrity of the majority and in that the future.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

This "fact" is in fact a "wrong opinion".

There's a stack of papers on this, and the evidence shows that there's no damage and a possible small benefit to the development of children brought up by same sex couples.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Modern science is fake and gay.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Science is how we come by facts.

So every claim of "fact" that also claims "Modern Science is fake" is fake.

Normal people don't see "gay" as some kind of negative thing. Only "love thy neighbour" people find it in themselves to hate someone for something that's not hurting anyone. Christianity and Islam are evils the world would do better without.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I said modern science as the new religious culture sponsored by the state to doctor results.

Facts are not compatible with the process of science because that is admitting that there is nothing new to research about the subject.

The scientific process demands that all previous thoughts be rejected and all previous bias be rejected in favour of new data and thoughts. It's not a way of thinking that's compatible with the way most people think as they usually just accept the first thing they've been told and can't just drop all there previous notions like a true scientist operates.

You are commenting the sin of pride to assume that a scientifically proven fact is the truth because the process of science demands constant retesting and a constant pessimism that's incompatible with the culture you want.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You can have your flat earth, with CO2 not being a greenhouse gas, or not emitted by industrial processes that emit CO2. Whatever you reckon you're claiming.

Go nuts. (Charitably assuming that's not what you did first to get those opinions).

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Now you're just strawmaning. Any idiot with a lazer pen can prove the earth is round. Just because it was proven hundreds of years ago doesn't mean you can't prove it today.

I'm talking about social stuff with regards to the effects that the government sponsored institutions for the guidence for say charitably 75% of people. The easier and more consistent you make guidence the better it is followed that being the reason why religious institutions are important.

Science by design always is in some sort of flux so to get the people to live in accordance with science it also requires them to keep changing the way they live.

This is in theory a good idea but every change undermines the institutions that run them in the eyes of the common people. A change in policy is almost an admission of being wrong and that's seen as a weakness.

So the state doesn't want social research like phenomenology dealing with facial features coming back because it will make the people more aware of multiculturalism and to potentially root out the sociopaths in charge. Not throwing stuff that's called fake science is the key to understanding. In the process of science the claim should be judged with the technology of today not 100 years ago.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Now you're just strawmaning. Any idiot with a lazer pen can prove the earth is round.

Plenty of idiots don't even believe that. And they use the argument you just invoked. "Modern science is fake and gay."

Out of curiosity, how do you prove it with a laser pen?

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Two hills and some cardboard. There's a bit of faff work but even from a mile away the light is off by a few mil at the same altitude pointing in a straight line.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How do you set up the pen so that it is exactly level to a few mill over a mile?

[–]RedEyedWarrior 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Those two men should get the death penalty. They should be hung in public to serve an example.

What really bothers me is that adoption is a tedious, bureaucratic and prohibitively expensive procedure in the US. So how were these two creeps able to adopt those two boys? Then again, I've heard about America's family court system, so it wouldn't surprise me if the nonces got an easy ride.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The sad thing is, this happened in a pretty orderly, rural part of Georgia. The rot isn't isolated to NY and CA anymore.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That’s sad. But there are two possibilities that don’t incriminate the country in which those children lived with those demons:

  1. The adoption procedure is decided by the state of Georgia, with no say given to the counties on this matter. And with Atlanta being the capital and largest city in the state, Atlanta probably sets the rules on adoption. And Atlanta is the San Francisco of the southeast after all.

  2. The demons adopted the children from another jurisdiction. They probably went to an agency in a shitlib part of a shitlib state, like Portland, OR. They got approved just because they’re a gay couple, so they were placed with those two boys. And then they took the boys to Georgia where those boys were defiled and permanently corrupted.

The second scenario sounds incredibly likely.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, two is more likely. Conservatives in Georgia have pretty effectively kept control of government at the state level. And the State Constitution gives state government a high level of control over counties and cities.

There was a pretty dramatic example of it recently. A school board in one of the Atlanta Metro counties tried to get stingy with a proportionally whiter, more conservative high school. They got swatted down by the state Superintendent of Education, an official elected by the entire state.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point. I’d put away €100 that those two children were adopted out of state. Yes, the state of Georgia allows gay couples to adopt children, but I’m almost certain that they have more robust background checks in place. Meanwhile, you have states like New York and California, where a good proportion of their orphans actually had homes but the governments took them away because the parents did something the state governments didn’t like.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They probably got special treatment. No red tape for these brave lads.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No surprises there.

[–]gomjabbar 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

For the sake of argument, pretend the New York Post is not one of the greasiest yellow tabloids that has ever been published in the US, everything it says about this story has been proven, and nothing it says has been exaggerated in any way.

Do you sincerely think this doesn't happen with straight couples?

[–]RedEyedWarrior 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most gay people aren't paedophiles. And this is a freak case that thankfully doesn't happen often. But it happened. Also, nobody here is pretending that heterosexual paedophiles don't exist.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let's not pretend kids getting molested is a freak case. In some places it's 15% of kids who suffer sexual abuse. And, yes, being adopted and having male gay parents are both factors which increase your risk of being abused. Adopted kids actually have the worst outcomes of any group, far worse than children brought up by single mothers.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Adopted kids actually have the worst outcomes of any group, far worse than children brought up by single mothers.

Can't say I disagree with that. Sure, there are adoptees who have done well for themselves because of their adoptive families. But a lot of adoptive children were kidnapped by the government because their birth parents weren't perfect or because their birth parents fell ill temporarily. In fact, I argue that adoption should be a last resort. If the birth parents die or cannot raise the child, the child should be raised by his grandparents, his uncle, his aunt or someone else in the family who is fit to raise a child. Which is not adoption, but guardianship.

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the New York Post is not one of the greasiest yellow tabloids that has ever been published in the US

This is all over the news where I live. I read about it in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The facts are not under dispute.

Do you sincerely think this doesn't happen with straight couples?

Anyone who does this is by definition not "straight."

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Whataboutism won't get these children un-molested. Do better.

[–]gomjabbar 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you think the cause of children being molested doesn't matter?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whataboutism won't get these children un-molested. Do better.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not saying all baptists abuse children, but here's 30 from North Carolina alone that the church has admitted have cases against them:

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your whataboutism won't un-molest these two children.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Focusing on homosexy couples, already locked away, who abused 2 children only deflects from the churches currently abusing thousands.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry, was this your post? I could have sworn it was mine. Maybe if you cared you'd make posts about this topic you obviously are trying to dunk on me over, without having to wait until your g-string was in a knot because I hit too close to home?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you don't want comments, you should scrawl it on your toilet door in sharpie: This is a public forum.

If you're getting your g-string in a knot because your hate group is more evil than they people they let you hate, you need to think about your life choices, not lashing out at the facts.

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Shhh..don't say anything but..."Well Aktually" doesn't know that the >majority< of male perps in the Baptist sex abuse link are gay. They are grown men molesting little boys, there's almost nothing more gay than that.

So cool it with your hateful Christianophobia.

If you molest children or engage in sodomy, by the Book, you are not Christian. Just a make believe one. Faggotry on the other hand does not have a rule of ethics nor therefore is there a limit to it's degeneracy.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Shhh ... don't say anything but vrepit makes stuff up. That's why she doesn't link to a source.

Christians say that christ died so that their sins including, and especially, child rape can be forgiven. All the most evil people are Christian, it doesn't matter to them what they engage in. Which is usually child abuse.

That and the average Christian's hatred of decent people, is why the average atheist is a much better person than the average Christian.

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What a rather amusing low iq reaction from you. Please cite your sources that actual Christians are engaged in "child rape/abuse" more than other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or Atheism. Shalom ✡✡✡

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What a rather amusing low iq reaction from you. Please cite your sources that actual Christians are engaged in "child rape/abuse" more than other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or Atheism. Shalom ✡✡✡

Religious people in general are greatly overrepresented in child sexual abuse statistics in comparison to atheists

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The khazar claimed that Christians love to molest children..along with some other pilpul gibberish

I asked whether per capita, if Christians were represented more than other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or Atheism.

I appreciate your links, however, I'm getting conflicting information on whether this type of child abuse is more prevalent among religio types. Though I would have to proffer to start that child molestation/abuse is strictly forbidden in Christianity (as opposed to Islam and Judaism), so by engaging in this type of unambiguously forbidden behavior disqualifies that person as being a Christian and would be nothing more than a claim to be a member of that religious group. What I see more prevalent is that a stronger data-set narrative is that people who are likely to follow this type of molestation lifestyle will often put themselves into positions of power over children in order to live out their degenerate desires, and if being involved with youth via church is the easiest outlet, then that will be pursued. I've also noted that around 70% of countries with the highest rate of child abuse are a majority non-Christian as a follow up on my original question.

Most child abusers have one thing in common, and it's not piety—it's preexisting relationships with their victims. That includes priests and ministers and rabbis, of course, but also family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, youth-group volunteers, and doctors. According to federal studies, three quarters of abuse occurs at the hands of family members or others in the victim's "circle of trust." "The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children," he said. "These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders."<

and a handful more studies if it matters.

[–]HongKongPhooey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you are correct that the abuse of an authority position with access to children might be the real the issue here, and that is often religious affiliated groups, or teachers. The data does seem to bear that conclusion

I'm gonna have to take issue with your definition here though

Though I would have to proffer to start that child molestation/abuse is strictly forbidden in Christianity (as opposed to Islam and Judaism), so by engaging in this type of unambiguously forbidden behavior disqualifies that person as being a Christian and would be nothing more than a claim to be a member of that religious group.

  1. A christian can't commit 'x' because if they did they wouldn't be a christian - this is pure fallacy, that isnt the definition of a christian.

  2. A transgression can always be forgiven in christianity, I don't recall Jesus saying you are all forgiven for your sins except the pedos

[–]Capt-Bligh 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Disgusting perversion that will surely come as no surprise to the non-Woke, non-PC patriot cohort that is fed up with all the LGBTQ++++ BS the elite-owned pro-New World Order (NWO) media and all the traitor lackey scum working within those entities along with the lackey filth politicians and bureaucrats doing all they can to serve their elite-class and corporate masters while doing their damnedest to destroy the USA and Western civilization to allow the NWO to be forced upon the masses of common folks.

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)


Fall down some stairs.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Learn what a vag is for

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Learn that it's not were you are supposed to store sand you faggot.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)



[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, typo attack, that will help clean out the sand from your faggot trans vagina.