General Politics It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. [Archive]

View Full Version : General Politics It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands.

bigfoot

07-11-2009, 10:26 AM

Sunday, June 28, 2009
Little Boy Blue Devil
by Mike Adams

It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. This one may hurt the university nearly as much as the one that rocked its campus back in 2006. Unlike the previous case, this one appears to involve a credible confession of sexual abuse. Like the previous case, crucial facts are already being filtered through the prism of identity politics.
Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he’s declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a “perv dad for fun.” The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

If Lombard is convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. His arrest comes about a year after the Court decided that child rapists cannot be executed because “society” has “evolved” to the point where such executions would be “indecent.”

If this case goes to trial, it could be an interesting one to watch. But it will be just as interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to these allegations. It didn’t take them long to respond when several white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper. A whopping 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape. Such was their regard for the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps even more stunning was the response of some professors after it became apparent that the white lacrosse players were innocent. After that became so obvious the school had to readmit the students, Professor Kate Holloway resigned her committee assignments in protest. By the way, the most common form of faculty protest these days is to refuse to work. Most people think this kind of protest is caused by arrogance. But the actual cause is a thing called “tenure.”

So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?

Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the affidavit in support of his arrest warrant shows that this second Duke rape case will also have a strong racial component. According to a confidential source (CS) a man using the user name “cooper2” or “cooperse” logged onto an internet-based video chat room. CS saw him perform oral sex on an African-American child under the age of ten. He also performed other acts on the child, which are too obscene to be described in this column.

The user name “cooper2” has now been linked to Frank Lombard, the associate director Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. A second source has now alleged that “cooper2” has confessed to being “into incest” and that he has adopted two African American children.

The only good news coming out of this story is about Frank Lombard’s live-in homosexual partner. The affidavit in support of Lombard’s arrest warrant shows that he made special arrangements when molesting the child – sometimes even by drugging the child – to make sure his partner did not find out.

Records also indicate that Frank Lombard made a contribution to the Genesis Home in 2003. The Genesis Home is an organization that assists needy families in making a transition out of homelessness, in part by maintaining a child care center. The organization’s website features numerous photographs of African-American children under the age of ten.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

bigfoot

07-11-2009, 10:31 AM

Duke and the media very quiet on this one. I just wonder if Palin, or a republican, or a white lacrosse player had been caught doing this.....how all hell would have rained down on them.

It's about to go national...O'Reilly and other outlets about to tackle the story.

"I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin" Mike Adams

KILLER_CLOWN

07-11-2009, 10:32 AM

I posted this up about 2-3 weeks ago in the main forum, and as i suspected the MSM wouldn't touch it.

bigfoot

07-11-2009, 10:56 AM

I posted this up about 2-3 weeks ago in the main forum, and as i suspected the MSM wouldn't touch it.

Sorry I missed that. Figured it would be a DC/Holy Land topic.

Saul Good

07-11-2009, 11:23 AM

The five year old kid is probably a slut looking for a payday just like the stripper.

wild1

07-11-2009, 11:23 AM

SHTSPRAYER

07-11-2009, 11:26 AM

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/090626_frank_lombard_420x294.jpg

I wonder if he voted for Obama?

:rolleyes:

Saul Good

07-11-2009, 11:30 AM

well, come on. the other story was privileged white kids raping a minority woman. the media loves a sensational story like that.

on the other hand, i think there is something below the surface in the media, that says it's un-PC to give a lot of media attention to sex crimes by homosexuals, because they don't want to be accused of promoting negative stereotypes of them.

You don't want to create the wrong impression that all gay men living in communes with adopted little black children are sexual deviants. That would unfairly take the focus off of priests where it belongs.

Chief Henry

07-11-2009, 12:25 PM

You don't want to create the wrong impression that all gay men living in communes with adopted little black children are sexual deviants. That would unfairly take the focus off of priests where it belongs.

Are you talking about Michael Jackson ?

orange

07-11-2009, 12:29 PM

07-11-2009, 01:27 PM

It's true. Liberals are in favor of child molestation. They don't come right out and say it, but you can read between the lines.

googlegoogle

07-11-2009, 02:04 PM

what a fucked up world this is becoming.

don't cross those political coalition lines or your dead.

blaise

07-11-2009, 02:55 PM

orange

07-11-2009, 03:11 PM

Nobody was campaigning for the Duke lacrosse players at the beginning of that case either. Are you saying the Duke lacrosse case garnered so much attention initially because people were protesting in their defense?

I think it was because they weren't arrested immediately, wasn't it?

Whatever - this case has proceeded on a completely different course, so the coverage is different.

wild1

07-11-2009, 03:14 PM

It's true. Liberals are in favor of child molestation. They don't come right out and say it, but you can read between the lines.

They aren't in favor of it, but they are hand in hand with the gay lobby, who do not want stuff like this reported.

And I can probably guess which side of the political spectrum would produce a judge who gave a child molester a stricter sentence.

KILLER_CLOWN

07-11-2009, 04:00 PM

Saul Good

07-11-2009, 04:31 PM

Maybe you haven't heard any more about this case because nobody is out there campaigning for his release.

Can you find any news of protesters rallying for Frank Lombard?

Just Googled "frank lombard duke" and got 617,000 hits. Maybe you're just not trying hard enough.

I just googled "frank lombard fart" and got 577,000 hits. (Really. Try it.)

Maybe that's not the best indicator of how much coverage something is getting. Incidentally, I had to type in his entire name because Google didn't bring him up as a suggestion which is interesting because a search for just his name brought up 1,710,000 results. It did, however bring up Frank Lomonte who only has 32,500 results.

Now why would Google have an auto suggestion feature that suggests someone with 32,500 results but not someone with 1,710,000? They couldn't be trying to filter the news to fit their agenda could they?

Halfcan

07-11-2009, 04:35 PM

what a sick fugger

orange

07-11-2009, 04:43 PM

I just googled "frank lombard fart" and got 577,000 hits. (Really. Try it.)

Maybe that's not the best indicator of how much coverage something is getting. Incidentally, I had to type in his entire name because Google didn't bring him up as a suggestion which is interesting because a search for just his name brought up 1,710,000 results. It did, however bring up Frank Lomonte who only has 32,500 results.

Now why would Google have an auto suggestion feature that suggests someone with 32,500 results but not someone with 1,710,000? They couldn't be trying to filter the news to fit their agenda could they?

You could try "frank lombard" with nothing else...

Well, what do you know. The VERY FIRST entry - the one that's been clicked the most - is the HUFFINGTONPOST report about his arrest. It's almost as if the liberals are trying to cover it up - if you call HEADLINING something "covering it up."

As for Google's autosuggestion feature, that's automated based on how many times something's been typed in. "frank lombard" hasn't been searched enough yet to register. I doubt there's anything nefarious going on. Why would they bother with this trivial thing? It's not going to "shake" anything "to its foundation."

Saul Good

07-11-2009, 04:53 PM

You could try "frank lombard" with nothing else...

Well, what do you know. The VERY FIRST entry - the one that's been clicked the most - is the HUFFINGTONPOST report about his arrest. It's almost as if the liberals are trying to cover it up - if you call HEADLINING something "covering it up."

As for Google's autosuggestion feature, that's automated based on how many times something's been typed in. "frank lombard" hasn't been searched enough yet to register. I doubt there's anything nefarious going on. Why would they bother with this trivial thing? It's not going to "shake" anything "to its foundation."

If you read my post, you will see that I mention that there are nearly 2 million results for "frank lombard". There is absolutely no chance that "frank lombard" has been searched for less than "frank lomonte". Lombard has 50 times as many results. Your theory is bunk.

As for the Huffington post, I wouldn't exactly consider that to be MSM. How many stories have you seen on the major news networks regarding this story? I haven't seen a single one.

Saul Good

07-11-2009, 04:57 PM

Why would they bother with this trivial thing? It's not going to "shake" anything "to its foundation."

This story has the potential to greatly shape people's opinions regarding gay adoption. You are a fool if you don't see it. This story will make people wonder why a single man, gay or straight, would want to adopt a little boy.

I would be curious to see how many single, straight men adopt children versus how many single, gay men adopt children. Personally, I'm on the fence regarding gay adoption. This kind of story gives me pause.

wild1

07-11-2009, 06:31 PM

This story has the potential to greatly shape people's opinions regarding gay adoption. You are a fool if you don't see it. This story will make people wonder why a single man, gay or straight, would want to adopt a little boy.

I would be curious to see how many single, straight men adopt children versus how many single, gay men adopt children. Personally, I'm on the fence regarding gay adoption. This kind of story gives me pause.

Dots: connected

blaise

07-11-2009, 07:40 PM

I think it was because they weren't arrested immediately, wasn't it?

Whatever - this case has proceeded on a completely different course, so the coverage is different.

I'm not saying these cases should be covered similarly, but I don't see how any person with an ounce of common sense wouldn't believe the amount of coverage the Duke lacrosse case received was 99.99999999% due to the racial angle.

bigfoot

07-11-2009, 08:43 PM

NC child protective services gonna have some explaining to do. This poor kid.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/07/06/frank_lombard’s_wish_list

SHTSPRAYER

07-13-2009, 05:48 PM

Whatever - this case has proceeded on a completely different course, so the coverage is different.

A different course/moonbat interpretation:

An actual crime has occured, but it doesn't fit the leftard narrative so it's ignored.

Saul Good

07-13-2009, 07:26 PM

A different course/moonbat interpretation:

An actual crime has occured, but it doesn't fit the leftard narrative so it's ignored.
Poor minority accuses a bunch of athletic, attractive, intelligent, well-to-do white kids with bright futures ahead of them of rape fits their narrative perfectly.

Too bad she was just a lying slut, and they were innocent. No hard feelings.

SHTSPRAYER

07-13-2009, 08:00 PM

Poor minority accuses a bunch of athletic, attractive, intelligent, well-to-do white kids with bright futures ahead of them of rape fits their narrative perfectly.

Too bad she was just a lying slut, and they were innocent. No hard feelings.

Don't worry, Mike Nifong--- err uh-- Eric Holder will protect you.

:drool:

SHTSPRAYER

07-25-2009, 08:11 PM

bump

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141203&highlight=duke+nifong

SHTSPRAYER

07-25-2009, 08:23 PM

Reaper16

07-25-2009, 08:27 PM

I just can't figure it out--- the moonbats loved to talk about Gates, and they loved to talk about the other black hooker who lied about white Duke student raping her---

But on this, nothing.

Wait, I can figure it out. Tells us all what kind of creepy scumbags these moonbats really are.
People talked about the lacrosse thing because there was controversy; no one was sure who was telling the truth. People are talking about the Gates thing for the same reason.

Where is the controversy in this case? Where are the shades of gray?

Hydrae

07-25-2009, 09:50 PM

This one is just plain sick and I have no desire to discuss it.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 12:14 PM

People talked about the lacrosse thing because there was controversy; no one was sure who was telling the truth. People are talking about the Gates thing for the same reason.

Where is the controversy in this case? Where are the shades of gray?

Gay adoption isn't a controversial subject? Enlighten me. Do 100% of us agree that gay men should be able to adopt little boys or should not be able to adopt little boys?

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 12:25 PM

Gay adoption isn't a controversial subject? Enlighten me. Do 100% of us agree that gay men should be able to adopt little boys or should not be able to adopt little boys?
It shouldn't be controversial. I can't think of anything that would lead me to think that gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 12:26 PM

It shouldn't be controversial. I can't think of anything that would lead me to think that gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.
It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Little Boy Blue Devil
by Mike Adams

It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. This one may hurt the university nearly as much as the one that rocked its campus back in 2006. Unlike the previous case, this one appears to involve a credible confession of sexual abuse. Like the previous case, crucial facts are already being filtered through the prism of identity politics.
Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he’s declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a “perv dad for fun.” The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

If Lombard is convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. His arrest comes about a year after the Court decided that child rapists cannot be executed because “society” has “evolved” to the point where such executions would be “indecent.”

If this case goes to trial, it could be an interesting one to watch. But it will be just as interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to these allegations. It didn’t take them long to respond when several white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper. A whopping 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape. Such was their regard for the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps even more stunning was the response of some professors after it became apparent that the white lacrosse players were innocent. After that became so obvious the school had to readmit the students, Professor Kate Holloway resigned her committee assignments in protest. By the way, the most common form of faculty protest these days is to refuse to work. Most people think this kind of protest is caused by arrogance. But the actual cause is a thing called “tenure.”

So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?

Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the affidavit in support of his arrest warrant shows that this second Duke rape case will also have a strong racial component. According to a confidential source (CS) a man using the user name “cooper2” or “cooperse” logged onto an internet-based video chat room. CS saw him perform oral sex on an African-American child under the age of ten. He also performed other acts on the child, which are too obscene to be described in this column.

The user name “cooper2” has now been linked to Frank Lombard, the associate director Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. A second source has now alleged that “cooper2” has confessed to being “into incest” and that he has adopted two African American children.

The only good news coming out of this story is about Frank Lombard’s live-in homosexual partner. The affidavit in support of Lombard’s arrest warrant shows that he made special arrangements when molesting the child – sometimes even by drugging the child – to make sure his partner did not find out.

Records also indicate that Frank Lombard made a contribution to the Genesis Home in 2003. The Genesis Home is an organization that assists needy families in making a transition out of homelessness, in part by maintaining a child care center. The organization’s website features numerous photographs of African-American children under the age of ten.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 12:30 PM

*quotes original post again*
Care to extrapolate that for me? Because I think that you're trying to make a fucking stupid point, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

orange

07-26-2009, 12:34 PM

Father Raped Daughters For 30 Years, Bore 9 Children
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 | FoxNews.com

LONDON — A father who repeatedly raped his two daughters for nearly 30 years told the children the abuse would never stop.

They finally broke the silence this year, but only after he had fathered nine of their children.

After nearly three decades of abuse, the 56-year-old father was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison with the possibility of parole in about 20 years after pleading guilty last month to rape and assault. During years of incestuous abuse, the man fathered nine children from his two daughters.

"In nearly 40 years of dealing with criminal cases ... (this) is the worst I have come across," judge Alan Goldsack said in his ruling at Sheffield Crown Court in northern England.

The case carries echoes of the case of Josef Fritzl — an Austrian man who confessed to imprisoning his daughter in a cellar for 24 years and fathering her seven children.

Prosecutor Nicholas Campbell said the daughters were raped regularly from an early age. If they resisted, they would be punched, kicked or held to the flames of a gas fire.

The father was furious when he first found out his eldest daughter was pregnant, but nevertheless he refused to let the girls take birth control pills, Campbell said.

The girls' only reprieve came after they had just given birth or when they were too badly hurt by his abuse, Campbell said.

In one incident, the father held a knife to his eldest daughter's throat and told her: "It's never going to end," according to Campbell.

The father made his elder daughter pregnant seven times, fathering two children by her. She bore two other children but they died the day they were born. He made his younger daughter pregnant 12 times; Campbell said she has five surviving children.

Saul Good's reasoning = men should not be allowed to have children.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:25 PM

I didn't say that gay men shouldn't be able to adopt little boys. Reaper said that there was no controversy in this scenario and that, "I can't think of anything that would lead me to think that gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children."

It just made me wonder if he read the OP.

My mind isn't 100% made up either way, but I think that the notion that sexual deviants* should be allowed to adopt deserves at least some scrutiny.

*deviants in the sense that they deviate from the behaviors of the overwhelming majority of the population, not deviants in the pejorative sense

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:33 PM

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:34 PM

Everything deserves "some scrutiny." After scrutinizing the issue, I can't find any good objections to allowing homosexuals to adopt.

How many straight, single men do you think apply to adopt little boys?

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:35 PM

How many straight, single men do you think apply to adopt little boys?
I don't know. I don't know how many gay single men apply, either.

Or, since you're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia for some backwards-ass reason, I don't know how many straight, single men apply to adopt little girls, either.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:38 PM

I don't know. I don't know how many gay single men apply, either.

Then I would contend that you haven't exactly "scrutinized" the issue. It appears that you gave it a cursory glance and settled on a position that fit your world view.

If adoption statistics were to indicate that single, gay men were over 100 times more likely to apply to adopt little boys than are single, straight men, would that give you pause?

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:39 PM

Or, since you're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia for some backwards-ass reason, I don't know how many straight, single men apply to adopt little girls, either.

I'm not conflating anything. Stop assigning me points of view so that you can then skewer these imagined positions.

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:41 PM

Then I would contend that you haven't exactly "scrutinized" the issue. It appears that you gave it a cursory glance and settled on a position that fit your world view.

If adoption statistics were to indicate that single, gay men were over 100 times more likely to apply to adopt little boys than are single, straight men, would that give you pause?
It might. That's a very small slice of the relevant data, and doesn't constitute a careful examination. For example, do single gay men adopt boys at a much larger rate than single heterosexual men adopt girls?

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:42 PM

I'm not conflating anything. Stop assigning me points of view so that you can then skewer these imagined positions.
They're plan as day, broseph. Plain as day.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:44 PM

It might. That's a very small slice of the relevant data, and doesn't constitute a careful examination. For example, do single gay men adopt boys at a much larger rate than single heterosexual men adopt girls?

You tell me. You claim to have scrutinized the issue.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:45 PM

They're plan as day, broseph. Plain as day.

I never contended anything of the sort. I also did not take the opposite position. I'm undecided on the issue. My point is that it's worth evaluating. You are the one who said that there is nothing controversial about the issue.

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:46 PM

You tell me. You claim to have scrutinized the issue.
I've never heard of your 100 times figure. I've never read anything that speaks to a huge statistical outlier that would flag gay adoption as a problem. Maybe I need to reexamine the issue.

Saul Good

07-26-2009, 01:48 PM

I've never heard of your 100 times figure. I've never read anything that speaks to a huge statistical outlier that would flag gay adoption as a problem. Maybe I need to reexamine the issue.

I never said that it was an actual figure. In fact, I made it up out of whole cloth. If you had truly scrutinized the issue as you claim, you would know what the real numbers are.

Instead, you just hop on the side that fits your paradigm and defend it with all your might.

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 01:50 PM

Dad will I grow up and marry a girl?

Maybe you will. Or maybe you will grow up and marry a boy

Marry a boy?

Yes son. That's just as fine

If I marry a boy will I kiss him like I kiss a girl?

Yes son.

Will we have babies?

Only if you adopt

Why?

Because you can't make a baby sticking your dick in another guys ass.

Yeah, no problems there.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:51 PM

I never said that it was an actual figure. In fact, I made it up out of whole cloth. If you had truly scrutinized the issue as you claim, you would know what the real numbers are.

Instead, you just hop on the side that fits your paradigm and defend it with all your might.
I can admit, then, that I haven't scrutinized this issue to the extent that some people think that I should. I probably won't unless I come across a reason to. And this one case is not reason enough.

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:52 PM

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 01:57 PM

Try making sense.

What didn't make sense. Not saying Gays shouldn't adopt. Just saying there are "problems" with a boy being raised by Gays.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 01:59 PM

What didn't make sense. Not saying Gays shouldn't adopt. Just saying there are "problems" with a boy being raised by Gays.
Posted via Mobile Device
There are similar problems with kids being raised by single/divorced/separated parents, too. There are always going to be "problems" with raising kids; its hard stuff.

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 02:07 PM

There are similar problems with kids being raised by single/divorced/separated parents, too. There are always going to be "problems" with raising kids; its hard stuff.

True. As a single divorced Dad I have to somehow explain to my kids how that is and to hopefully guide them to a happy healthy life.

The difference is I don't and won't teach them divorce was as good as making it work. I'll be open in explaining their parents screwed up by not making it work.

The Homosexual tells his kids is normal and just as fine to marry a boy as it is to marry a girl.

You are living in lala land if you think that's ideal.

Likewise heterosexual divorced parents who justify their own guilt by teaching their kids if marraige didn't make mommy and daddy happy so it was best to end it are teaching their kids marraige doesn't mean shit and they are gauranteeing their kids will divorce their spouses when times get tough too.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock

07-26-2009, 02:10 PM

It's way past time for the anti-gays to get over it. You have lost, deal with it.

SHTSPRAYER

07-26-2009, 02:10 PM

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 02:12 PM

True. As a single divorced Dad I have to somehow explain to my kids how that is and to hopefully guide them to a happy healthy life.

The difference is I don't and won't teach them divorce was as good as making it work. I'll be open in explaining their parents screwed up by not making it work.

The Homosexual tells his kids is normal and just as fine to marry a boy as it is to marry a girl.

You are living in lala land if you think that's ideal.

Likewise heterosexual divorced parents who justify their own guilt by teaching their kids if marraige didn't make mommy and daddy happy so it was best to end it are teaching their kids marraige doesn't mean shit and they are gauranteeing their kids will divorce their spouses when times get tough too.
Posted via Mobile Device
"Likewise?" I don't know if you meant to say this, but you effectively said that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children.

SHTSPRAYER

07-26-2009, 02:12 PM

True. As a single divorced Dad I have to somehow explain to my kids how that is and to hopefully guide them to a happy healthy life.

The difference is I don't and won't teach them divorce was as good as making it work. I'll be open in explaining their parents screwed up by not making it work.

The Homosexual tells his kids is normal and just as fine to marry a boy as it is to marry a girl.

You are living in lala land if you think that's ideal.

Likewise heterosexual divorced parents who justify their own guilt by teaching their kids if marraige didn't make mommy and daddy happy so it was best to end it are teaching their kids marraige doesn't mean shit and they are gauranteeing their kids will divorce their spouses when times get tough too.
Posted via Mobile Device

"Son, one day you'll be on your knees in a real homo bath house!"

ROFL

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 02:25 PM

"Likewise?" I don't know if you meant to say this, but you effectively said that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children.

Well that's a reach. You can't deny that if a child is raised by divorced parents, divorced is normalized. The taboo is lifted. It makes it easier to do it yourself

Are you telling me if homosexuality is normalized the child isn't more likely to experiment and follow through with that lifestyle? I'm not saying its all by choice. I understanding some things people are born with. But its not black and white as liberals and conservatives like to see everything. Iife is about both who we are and what we learn.

I'm against any defense of marraige act or any of that right wing crap that scapegoats homosexuals. And I wouldn't deny homosexuals the right to adopt or even the right to marry, just as long as they don't expect my church to bless it or to host it.

But don't go the other extreme and tell me the child isn't going to be influenced by the lifestyle of his parents.
Gay Dads telling Billy if he's attracted to a boy, what the hell, go for it, just as good as a girl, is a definate influence.

If that's Anti-Gay to you fine. I'm not a slave to P.C.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 02:32 PM

Well that's a reach. You can't deny that if a child is raised by divorced parents, divorced is normalized. The taboo is lifted. It makes it easier to do it yourself

Are you telling me if homosexuality is normalized the child isn't more likely to experiment and follow through with that lifestyle? I'm not saying its all by choice. I understanding some things people are born with. But its not black and white as liberals and conservatives like to see everything. Iife is about both who we are and what we learn.

I'm against any defense of marraige act or any of that right wing crap that scapegoats homosexuals. And I wouldn't deny homosexuals the right to adopt or even the right to marry, just as long as they don't expect my church to bless it or to host it.

But don't go the other extreme and tell me the child isn't going to be influenced by the lifestyle of his parents.
Gay Dads telling Billy if he's attracted to a boy, what the hell, go for it, just as good as a girl, is a definate influence.

If that's Anti-Gay to you fine. I'm not a slave to P.C.
Posted via Mobile Device
Even if the parental influence could result in some experimentation, that's not really a bad thing. I really don't think that someone is going to engage in a long-term relationship with someone of their own gender if they aren't homosexual. It might happen sometimes, but very rarely and I doubt that parental influence would have much of an effect.

Anyway, if Billy, is attracted to men than Billy should should go for it.

Brock

07-26-2009, 02:39 PM

Oh noes, they'll either steer those kids into "teh ghey"! ROFL

Or even if they're already gay, will let them know that they aren't bad people because of it. The horror!

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 02:44 PM

yeah, go for it Billy. No problem. Perfectly normal. Just as good. Just as natural to stick it up a guys ass.

Good for you. I don't agree

And as long as my beliefs don't infringe on anyone else rights, which they don't, as I have stated by my views on any legislation, then I'm entitled to those beliefs.

But again you are proving my point. A lifetime of the people with the most influence on you saying Go for it will influence you to go for it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 02:46 PM

Brock

07-26-2009, 02:48 PM

But again you are proving my point. A lifetime of the people with the most influence on you saying Go for it will influence you to go for it.
Posted via Mobile Device

And so?

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 02:53 PM

Oh noes, they'll either steer those kids into "teh ghey"! ROFL

Or even if they're already gay, will let them know that they aren't bad people because of it. The horror!

Who said "bad people"?

You guys really think seeing a lifestyle doesn't influence a child.

Ok then why not smoke in front of your kids. Drinlk in front of your kids. Beat your wife in front of your kids.

I'm not putting labels of good or bad on it. You have.

What om discussing here ois the issue of influence.

And you can't have it both ways. If gay parents don't influence kids. Then any other kind of parenting doesn't influence them either. Straight. Alcoholic. Generous. Abusive. Nurturing. Parenting has no influence then at all.

Because I wasn't born generous.

Best analogy may be alcoholism. Alcoholism is in the genes. You might say an alcoholic has a genetic disposition to it. Now if that persons parents were alcoholics it didn't CAUSE that child to be an alcoholic later. But do you think if they were it would be more likely that kid would turn to alcohol easier than if they weren't? Explain to me the difference.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 02:55 PM

And so?
Well that's all I'm saying. Reaper doesn't agree.
Posted via Mobile Device

Demonpenz

07-26-2009, 02:59 PM

so like most teenagers do shit to spite their parents. And teen years is when you start getting sexual. so I don't think a person with homo parents would be swayed because dad and dad are doing it.

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 03:03 PM

Who said "bad people"?

You guys really think seeing a lifestyle doesn't influence a child.

Ok then why not smoke in front of your kids. Drinlk in front of your kids. Beat your wife in front of your kids.

I'm not putting labels of good or bad on it. You have.

What om discussing here ois the issue of influence.

And you can't have it both ways. If gay parents don't influence kids. Then any other kind of parenting doesn't influence them either. Straight. Alcoholic. Generous. Abusive. Nurturing. Parenting has no influence then at all.

Because I wasn't born generous.

Best analogy may be alcoholism. Alcoholism is in the genes. You might say an alcoholic has a genetic disposition to it. Now if that persons parents were alcoholics it didn't CAUSE that child to be an alcoholic later. But do you think if they were it would be more likely that kid would turn to alcohol easier than if they weren't? Explain to me the difference.
Posted via Mobile Device
There has been some shocking new scholarship on the matter to come out in recent months. Some researchers have begun to think that homosexuality isn't a choice. Who knew?

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 03:06 PM

so like most teenagers do shit to spite their parents. And teen years is when you start getting sexual. so I don't think a person with homo parents would be swayed because dad and dad are doing it.

Ok, again I'm asking, then what do parents influence their kids about? What does it matter what a parent says or does or teach? Since it has no influence anyway.
Are parents there just to house and feed?
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 03:07 PM

There has been some shocking new scholarship on the matter to come out in recent months. Some researchers have begun to think that homosexuality isn't a choice. Who knew?

You didn't answer my question.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16

07-26-2009, 03:16 PM

You didn't answer my question.
Posted via Mobile Device
With respect to homosexuality, you (an editorial you) can tell your kids either that its ok or not ok. Whatever values you want your child to have. And maybe the kid rejects those values or adopts them, but you're just doing what you think is right. But that kid, if homosexual, is going to grow up thinking either his feelings are ok or they aren't ok. You very well could be influencing your kids to hate themselves.

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 03:49 PM

You've bought into the idea its 100 percent predetermined

Some buy into the idea its all choice.

I say its neither. But I don't live in a extreme simplistic black and white world like most people.

I'm going to love my child no matter what sexual orientation they end up being. And I'm the first to speak out against "christians" who shun their kids or try to "cure" them.

But that doesn't mean when they are 2 or 4 or 8 I want them taught all lifestyles are equal.

And if you deny that a parent has influence then I must disagree. With that we have exhausted this.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock

07-26-2009, 03:53 PM

Who said "bad people"?

You guys really think seeing a lifestyle doesn't influence a child.

Ok then why not smoke in front of your kids. Drinlk in front of your kids. Beat your wife in front of your kids.

I'm not putting labels of good or bad on it. You have.

So, you're not saying it's bad or anything, you're just comparing it to smoking, drinking, and domestive violence. Nosir, you're not labeling it at all.

Pioli Zombie

07-26-2009, 07:39 PM

So, you're not saying it's bad or anything, you're just comparing it to smoking, drinking, and domestive violence. Nosir, you're not labeling it at all.
Idiot.
If you could read - I was talking about whether what goes on in the home influences upbringing. I could just as easily say generosity or working with the poor. Whatever. But because you are so married to your PC viewpoint you will see what you want to see.

So again I ask. Do parents influence anything? Or is it just housing and food they provide?
Posted via Mobile Device