Has the normalizing of pedophilia begun?

[Ethel K]

DON W SOUTH wrote:

<quoted text>No, not what you posted, but what he posted that you answered.

I see. So you think that GBA started his unfortunate behavior initially because that behavior was considered forbidden? I think not. But you know him and I don't and this conversation has become tiresome. You are nit-picking.

[DON W SOUTH]

Ethel K wrote:

<quoted text>
I see. So you think that GBA started his unfortunate behavior initially because that behavior was considered forbidden? I think not. But you know him and I don't and this conversation has become tiresome. You are nit-picking.

Actually, I read & listen to his posts. But you could post to him & ask.

[GBA]

Ethel K wrote:

<quoted text>
Ummm, no. But, maybe I am dumb as you say because I don't see what battling addiction has to do with what I posted about this thread.

Everybody has limits to their ability to envision the total thought process. The similarity is in the naughtiness of doing what is socially unacceptable. I accept the limits of your mind

[Ethel K]

GBA wrote:

<quoted text> I accept the limits of your mind

Good. Then you won't mind me saying that I still think your reference to forbidden fruit being tastier during a discussion about pedophelia is creepy.

[Change is Scary]

You perverts think way too much about this stuff. It must excite you.

[GBA]

Change is Scary wrote:

You perverts think way too much about this stuff. It must excite you.

I find those who think that same sex sex and same sex marriage to be normal and taught to young minds far more scary.

[Normal Luv]

They are right. We really do need to get normal and stop living in the past. If it takes the homosexuals and the pedophiles to help us make the jump, hey I'm all for it. So are my three same-sex husbands and our 12 adopted welfare rats. It's time for GBA, Pollster, Voice and Don W to pick up the tab for a change. We're getting back to Normlluv and Nambla. Ya'all swing over too!

[pollster]

All driven by homosexuals, homosexual pedophiles and Gender Neutral. More confusion!

California bill would redefine family, allow children to have more than 2 parents

By Cristina Corbin

Published July 10, 2012




Talk about modern family.

In a move that's stirring opposition from conservative groups, California lawmakers are considering whether to change the legal definition of family by allowing a child to technically have more than two parents.

The proposal, by Democratic state Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, would allow for children to benefit from multiple sources of child support, advocates argue, and would legally recognize those families that do not represent traditional parent structure.

Proponents say the measure does not change the definition of who qualifies as a parent under current California law -- it only amends the two-parent limit. The proposal states that "a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents," and requires the court to grant "custody and visitation among the parents on the best interest of the child."

But the legislation is being fiercely criticized by conservative and family-values groups who claim it would have detrimental effects on children -- psychologically and legally -- and should be struck from consideration.

"It represents an attack on the fundamental nature of parenthood, which is every child has two parents -- one mother and one father," Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told FoxNews.com .

"It's a Trojan horse for the same sex-marriage movement," he said, adding that the measure would ultimately put more power into the hands of judges to "decide how children should be parented."

Sprigg also said that the bill, if enacted into law, would have many unintended consequences, leading to conflict and instability in a child's life.

"What if there's disagreement among the three of four parents as to how that child should be raised?" he said.

Leno told the Sacramento Bee that the bill, which passed the state Senate and is now in the Assembly, "brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today."

In his original statement on the bill earlier this year, Leno said: "We live in a world today where courts are dealing with diverse circumstances that have reshaped California families. This legislation gives courts the flexibility to protect the best interests of a child who is being supported financially and emotionally by those parents."

Possible three-parent scenarios might include a same-sex couple and a surrogate who carried their child, or a divorced mother who remarried but wanted the child's biological father to be included as a legal guardian.

The bill's proponents stress that additional parents added by a court must still meet the definition of a parent under current law.

Supporters of the measure say it stems from a 2011 appellate court decision involving a young girl and her two mothers. When one of the women was sent to prison and the other hospitalized, the girl's biological father was unable to act as her legal guardian under current California law, which only recognizes two legal parents per child.

"Right now, under California law, a judge is being forced to rule in a way that he knows will hurt the child in front of him by denying the child a relationship with a real parent that would otherwise meet the stringent test for being a parent," said Ed Howard, of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law.

"This has nothing at all to do with the broader culture wars," Howard told FoxNews.com . "It has to do with recognizing on the ground who should make the call as to whether or not the evidence and the facts show that it's in the best interest of the child."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/ca...

[pollster]

Perhaps you've never heard of the Secretary of State Project. But if you haven't, you should.

With backers including George Soros and Tim Gill, the Secretary of State (SoS) Project is quietly packing Secretary of State offices across the country with left-wing activists...designed to tip the balance in close elections.

Gill, Soros and their cronies know one thing: For less than a million dollars, they have already had a major impact in important, but overlooked statewide races. Or, as the American Spectator put it, "Political observers know that a relatively small amount of money can help swing a little-watched race for a state office few people understand or care about...Talk about return on investment!"

And that's putting it mildly.

One of those first SoS Project targets was Minnesota – where with just a few dollars they managed to replace a two-term incumbent with former community organizer and ACORN ally, Mark Ritchie.

That race paid Soros and company their first dividends as Ritchie oversaw the 2008 recount between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

And now Ritchie is USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE to UNDERMINE the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Simply put, the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment would amend the Minnesota Constitution to include the words: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

But Mark Ritchie apparently didn't like the way the amendment was worded, and now when people step into the voting booth, thanks to Mark Ritchie, this is the new title people will read:

"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."

Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.

Just about any pollster will tell you: a shift from neutral wording to prejudicial language—like Mark Ritchie's prejudicial language—can help swing the results of an election, particularly in a tight race.

Instead of being asked to decide if marriage is "the union of one man and one woman," Mark Ritchie wants voters to decide if they want to "LIMIT" the definition of marriage. Of course, the truth is that all that the Marriage Protection Amendment does is take Minnesota's current definition of marriage—one man, one woman—and put it in the state constitution where it will be safe from meddling by activist judges and ambitious politicians like Ritchie.

[LindaS]

pollster wrote:

And now Ritchie is USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE to UNDERMINE the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between "one man and one woman."
Simply put, the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment would amend the Minnesota Constitution to include the words: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."
But Mark Ritchie apparently didn't like the way the amendment was worded, and now when people step into the voting booth, thanks to Mark Ritchie, this is the new title people will read:
"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."
Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.
Just about any pollster will tell you: a shift from neutral wording to prejudicial language—like Mark Ritchie's prejudicial language—can help swing the results of an election, particularly in a tight race.
Instead of being asked to decide if marriage is "the union of one man and one woman," Mark Ritchie wants voters to decide if they want to "LIMIT" the definition of marriage. Of course, the truth is that all that the Marriage Protection Amendment does is take Minnesota's current definition of marriage—one man, one woman—and put it in the state constitution where it will be safe from meddling by activist judges and ambitious politicians like Ritchie.

Plagiarized from the National Organization for Marriage blog, a VERY biased source.
It's a nonsensical argument. The wording of the amendment is just as "limiting"
the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment would amend the Minnesota Constitution to include the words: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

Notice the word "only" in there??? Limiting. Notice how they left the word, "only" out of the first sentence of the last paragraph because it disproves their argument?
Poor logic. Faulty argument.

[pollster]

But Mark Ritchie apparently didn't like the way the amendment was worded, and now when people step into the voting booth, thanks to Mark Ritchie, this is the new title people will read:

"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."

Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.

Once again TVOSR is proven right. Concerning gay word manipulation to sell a corrupt concept.

[pollster]

If you support all the gay stuff and the gay pedophile stuff. How can this type of harm to these children be stopped?

Disturbing viral video of 6-year-old boy with bikini-clad women a 'joke,' says director

Published July 11, 2012

FoxNews.com

A sexually-suggestive viral video of a 6-year-old boy cavorting with bikini-clad women was just a "joke," said the director, who defended his role in shooting the footage for the kid's parents.

In the video, which has since been pulled from YouTube, the boy is sandwiched between two bikini-covered backsides as he sings: "I can make your booty pop, booty pop, booty pop." He later holds a water gun near his crotch and douses a dancer. Florida authorities refused to say if the boy's parents or anyone else involved in the video are being investigated.

"It's supposed to be a joke, but I'd say [only] about 30 percent of the people watching it find it funny," Tyler Council, president of the Florida-based Froze-N-Time Productions, told the Miami New Times. "But I still don't regret it."

The video drew outrage throughout the blogosphere, with some critics in the African-American community calling for the parents of the boy, who is not being identified by FoxNews.com , to be charged with child abuse.

"I can’t even begin to wonder what the motivation behind this video and song was, or why so many adults thought it was cool," read a blogpost in Vibe.com . But watching [the boy] sing of making a grown woman’s booty pop while a half-dozen of them dance around him in the pool, just made me sad.

"Though the young boy did not utter a profanity,[he] certainly participated in a video that most responsible parents would find repulsive and inappropriate for an adolescent child," wrote BlackAmericaWeb.com .

Appearing on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow called the video “sexual abuse of a 6-year-old boy by the adult women who participated in making the video, any producer involved, and his parents.”

But clinical psychologist Dr. Andrea Macari, who also appeared on the show, said calling a video shot in admittedly poor taste "child abuse" cheapens the plight of real victims.

“We cannot blur the lines between what is and what isn’t child abuse," Macari said. "When we do that we take away from the very resources that we need to help the true kids who are being victimized.”

Erin Gillespie, a spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Children and Families, said she could not confirm or deny that an investigation had been launched into the video.

“If a call was made to the [child abuse] hotline with an allegation of neglect or abuse, we would definitely investigate it,” Gillespie told FoxNews.com .

The boy's parents, meanwhile, who live in Oakland Park, Fla., paid “peanuts” for the video, Council said, declining to be more specific.

"He's just trying to imitate his idols that he hears on the radio," Council said. "There's no touching going on; there's no drug abuse."

Attempts to reach the parents were unsuccessful.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/11/director...

[LindaS]

pollster wrote:

But Mark Ritchie apparently didn't like the way the amendment was worded, and now when people step into the voting booth, thanks to Mark Ritchie, this is the new title people will read:
"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."
Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.
Once again TVOSR is proven right. Concerning gay word manipulation to sell a corrupt concept.

It's still true. It says exactly what's below but in different words, and no more slanted than the original wording, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

Now prove there is anything at all gay behind Ritchie's wording, if you can.

[LindaS]

pollster wrote:

A sexually-suggestive viral video of a 6-year-old boy cavorting with bikini-clad women was just a "joke," said the director, who defended his role in shooting the footage for the kid's parents.

Those crazy straight parents!

[pollster]

As I have shown if you buy into the gay- gay pedophile lies being told. You cannot help but to give your support to this type of behavour. When a young child is aware of two bears for example slamming around in a bed room. That child knows what is happening and is made frightened by this unnatural behavour.And this epidemic of unnatural behavour suggests to children that they mimic adult feelings and behaviors, rather than remaining true to their authentic feelings and behaviors, short-circuiting normal psychological development.

The Roundtree's son's "Booty Pop" video is only the latest example. To name just a few: In August, 2011, Vogue magazine published extremely sexual pictures of child model Thylane Blondeau, with full makeup, heels and a come-hither stare. Abercrombie and Fitch marketed padded bikini tops to 8-year-old girls to make their breasts appear larger. And, this May, Time magazine published a cover photo of a four-year-old boy being breast fed by his beautiful, model mom, while he stands on a stepstool and stares directly at the camera.

This epidemic of sexualizing children will reinforce the pathological view common among pedophiles that children are sexual beings, wrongly portrayed as innocents, who can engage in sexual activities with adults and not be harmed.

This epidemic suggests to children that they mimic adult feelings and behaviors, rather than remaining true to their authentic feelings and behaviors, short-circuiting normal psychological development.

This epidemic makes children feel unsafe because they see messages around them that repeatedly imply that adults find them sexy—which is psychologically terrifying to children, because they are not prepared physically nor emotionally to be the objects of erotic interest.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/11/why...

[pollster]

LindaS wrote:

<quoted text>
It's still true. It says exactly what's below but in different words, and no more slanted than the original wording, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."
Now prove there is anything at all gay behind Ritchie's wording, if you can.

Sure no problem.{"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."}

Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.

Just about any pollster will tell you: a shift from neutral wording to prejudicial language—like Mark Ritchie's prejudicial language—can help swing the results of an election, particularly in a tight race.

[GBA]

Ethel K wrote:

<quoted text>
Good. Then you won't mind me saying that I still think your reference to forbidden fruit being tastier during a discussion about pedophelia is creepy.

Nope, sparring is good exercise of the mind.

[Ethel K]

GBA wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, sparring is good exercise of the mind.

Wow, GBA. Not only was that comment interesting and helpful, but I agree!!

Oh wait.....I see someone else does, too. Gee. What a coincidence.

[LindaS]

pollster wrote:

1.When a young child is aware of two bears for example slamming around in a bed room. That child knows what is happening and is made frightened by this unnatural behavour.

2.The Roundtree's son's "Booty Pop" video is only the latest example.

3. And, this May, Time magazine published a cover photo of a four-year-old boy being breast fed by his beautiful, model mom, while he stands on a stepstool and stares directly at the camera.
This epidemic of sexualizing children will reinforce the pathological view common among pedophiles that children are sexual beings,

1. Your fantasies are pretty twisted and we really don't appreciate you sharing them with us. Pervert!

2. That incident and the others you gave have nothing to do with gays and there is no way you can claim they do. Sexualizing children happens because all people accept it instead of refusing to buy those products and writing the company a letter.

3. Breastfeeding is in no way sexualizing the child. Again, you must be a pervert who sees no use for breasts other than sexual uses.

[LindaS]

pollster wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure no problem.{"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."}
Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.
Just about any pollster will tell you: a shift from neutral wording to prejudicial language—like Mark Ritchie's prejudicial language—can help swing the results of an election, particularly in a tight race.

The original wording was no way neutral wording to begin with. Boy, as you mentally slow!