…are wonderful low carbon sailboats, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Da Techguy’s Blog, with a post on the Biden regime and the plague of loneliness.
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- SR on If All You See…: “Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story | Official Trailer https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2024/04/thank-you-goodnight-bon-jovi-story.html” Apr 26, 17:08
- Dana on EPA Announces New Standards Which Will Raise Energy Prices: “We need more coal-burning power plants! As of January 1, 2022, the demonstrated reserve base (DRB) was estimated to contain…” Apr 26, 14:51
- Bear Claw on Pro-Hamas Mob Chases NYPD Chief Into NYU Building: “Catholic center, bwahahaha. Probably catholic charities center who has facilitated thousands of these gimmegrants into our country” Apr 26, 14:42
- Bear Claw on Surprise: Terrorists Attack Biden’s Gaza Aid Pier: “Video or it didn’t happen,,,, even then.” Apr 26, 14:38
Most drag performers are gay men so one has to wonder why they’re so adamant about performing for children.
#TrannysAreTerrorists
#DragQueensArePedophiles
Bwaha! Lolgf
The real question is, why would anyone defend or advocate for this behavior?
Simple: the normalization of drag and homosexual men lowers the resistance of boys to homosexual ‘curiosity,’ which means that a greater percentage of them might just try to take a walk on the wild side. The left hate that sensible people have called them ‘groomers,’ but that’s exactly what they are doing, and exactly what they are.
Reproduction is a strong, innate drive among humans, and this is how homosexuals reproduce.
Pure nonsense. But Mr Dana is entitled to his unsupported opinions.
Gays and lesbians are made in the womb!
They are? Are you claiming that there exists a “gay gene” and that it is therefore a “third sex”? Really doctor? Where did you pull this crap out of? Now we have male, female and gay? Does that apply to dykes too? Do we now have male, female, fag and dyke at birth?
You are a complete numbskull.
The only way fags and dykes can reproduce is through grooming. Nobody is born fag or dyke, they are converted. Unless perhaps fagism and dykism are birth defects of the brain. Tell us dowd, are fagism and dykism birth defects?
CarolAnn: The only way fags and dykes can reproduce is through grooming. Nobody is born fag or dyke, they are converted.
That is untrue. There are gays and lesbians in cultures where the actions are prohibited, e.g., fundamentalist Islamic nations? Gays and lesbians are executed in those cultures. Is there secret grooming going on?
CarolAnn: are fagism and dykism birth defects
NuConservatism and magatism ARE birth defects, although science cannot rule out levels of grooming. For example, the kids of KKK members are more likely to become KKK members. Nurture vs nature?
Male magadonians are officially called ‘Mags’ and female magadonians are now known as ‘Fykes’. Are Fykes like you, CarolAnn, born or groomed? How about a Mag like Mr Teach?
Why didn’t the anti-grooming atmosphere of fundamentalist cultures eliminate gayness? If persecution, prosecution and murder didn’t discourage gayness, doesn’t that suggest it may be inherent not learned?
The idea that sexuality is a ‘choice’ is rejected by the scientific community.
But of course, the idea of a scientific community is rejected by the nuConservative community.
I’m old enough to remember when homosexuals told us that what they did in their bedrooms was nobody else’s business, yet, really only a few years later, they want to tell everybody what they do in their bedrooms.
Why the change? What made it either necessary or even just desirable to start publicly announcing and celebrating and telling everyone else what they do in their bedrooms, if it isn’t for the purpose of ‘grooming?’
Most normal people are open about whether they are married or single, but in telling you that I’m married isn’t really saying much about what Mrs Pico and I do in our bedroom. Because we are normal, people might assume fairly normal things, if they really cared about it, but that’s about the extent of it.
Not the abnormals! It’s one thing to say, “Oh, I’m gay,” but something quite different to have drag shows and parades, to wave rainbow signs and tell us all about it. If it isn’t for a f(ornicated) up way of ‘grooming,’ what is the purpose?
This, you see, is your logical problem: you tell us that it isn’t for ‘grooming,’ but there’s really no other explanation for it. Our culture has been slowly accepting the notion that homosexuals can live together, and even engage in some sort of simulacrum of marriage, when they mostly kept it as private as normal people do about their own sexual activities. But now? They’ve turned the amps up to 11, and there really does have to be a reason, because they’ve generated a strong, negative response.
The redoubtable Mr Dana: I’m old enough to remember when homosexuals told us that what they did in their bedrooms was nobody else’s business, yet, really only a few years later, they want to tell everybody what they do in their bedrooms.
Non-heteros wanted government and police out of their bedrooms because they were being prosecuted for their sexuality.
Now they’re asking for acceptance (which may or may not be given in a free society). If conservatives want to fantasize what non-heteros do in their bedrooms, that’s on them!
Maybe it’s time to ban all public expressions of sexuality. No more boy-girl busses! No hand-holding. No husband-wife photos on your desk.
The socialist from St Louis wrote:
Which was pretty much the case. There were very few prosecutions for consensual, adult homosexual acts, and even the ones which did occur were for acts committed not in private bedrooms, but publicly.
No, they are asking not for acceptance, but positive approval.
The esteemed Mr Dowd claimed:
Really? It was just a few days ago that our distinguished host posted an article telling us of a surge in the percentage of people who identify as abnormal. What biological processes could have changed, due to political pressure, to change the normal human heterosexual response to something else while babies are still in utero? Surely, if you believe that homosexuals “are made in the womb,” you must have some idea how that change has occurred.
The estimable Mr Dana has repeatedly told us that the increase in persons identifying as non-hetero is a result of societal ‘grooming’, rejecting the logical conclusion that these persons were non-hetero but now feel safe ADMITTING it. We understand that conservatives (mags and fykes) feel that non-hetero individuals should hide their sexuality.
The idea that all babies are born hetero but are recruited or ‘groomed’ into becoming non-hetero is not supported by the medical or scientific communities.
That said, adolescents sexually abused by trusted Catholic priests, Protestant ministers and camp counselors DO more often identify as non-hetero later in life, in addition to being more likely to suffer from substance abuse and depression. But scientists cannot disentangle the result from the cause, i.e., were the victims selected because they were already non-hetero?
The persistent Mr Dowd wrote:
In 1970, there were 10.6 marriages registered for every 1,000 adults in the country, while the divorce rate was 3.5 per 1,000. That meant that the vast majority of people were staying married, and the marriage rate was cumulative. Get married, stay married. Very few people lived their entire lives unmarried. If we take your argument at face value, that there were a lot more homosexuals that simply kept their mouths shut, then we must also conclude that they were ‘flexible’ enough to engage in normal sexual activity with a husband or wife.
But that leaves you with yet another logical problem: if you are claiming that homosexuals can manage to live and lead happy enough lives as heterosexuals, then you are concomitantly arguing that societal and cultural norms influence sexuality, and that’s an admission that ‘grooming’ can work.
The consistent Mr Dana seems to think sexuality is only an action. Of course a non-hetero woman can have sex with a man, and a non-hetero man can have sex with a woman.
But think of innate sexuality in terms of whom you could desire, and even fall in love with. If you HAD to, would you prefer sex with a young Brad Pitt or Rosanne Barr. If you’re a male and you say neither, but if forced, Rosanne, you’re hetero. If you’re a female and prefer Rosanne to Brad, you’re non-hetero. If, as a female you’d prefer Harrison Ford over Gal Gadot, you’re likely hetero.
Until the last couple of decades it was impermissible to be non-hetero in the US. Non-heteros were not permitted to have open relationships, could not marry. Society did not tolerate them. They were discriminated against in employment, military service and public accommodations. It shouldn’t be surprising that most non-hetero Americans hid their desires, even marrying a hetero to be accepted at work, school, church and all aspects of social life. An obviously non-hetero couple stopping at a diner in Bumfuk KY in 1975 would likely be made to feel unwelcome if not attacked in the parking lot.
Mr Dana hates non-hetero individuals which is perfectly OK.
Solid!
Yes, they’re wonderful, low-carbon sailboats, but let’s fact it: they’re all owned by the Evil Rich, many of whom made their fortunes by selling petroleum!
How brave of Magadonians to threaten children!
Don’t see where they want to turn them over, grease ’em up and serially assrape them like you and your side wants to do.
#PedoPervRimjob
#ItReallyIsAboutTheChildren
Bwaha! Lolgf
So your side murders 600,000 children in utero a year but you wane sarcastic about us? Nazi dog.
Perhaps the fyke, CarolAnn, doesn’t understand the difference between a child and a fetus.
She advocates the killing of all liberals and democrats (millions of US citizens!) but wishes to force 10 yr old girls to give birth to their rapist’s child.
Do you really defend the murder of AG Garland’s children because you oppose abortion of a 8 cell embryo?? Fyke!
[…] Cove shares not one, not two, but THREE hot women wondering what you […]
Brandon: “In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”
My mistake, that was Donald Trump on Aug. 18, 2016. As President he signed the bill making misuse of classified information a felony. Hoist with his own petard much?
Lock him up! Lock him up!
Maybe Rimjob could point to where President Trump “misused” classified information.
Citations needed not your usual bullshit.
Maybe The Cowardly TurdSucker could read items 6a and 6b on page 3 of the indictment.
That’s it?
Bwaha! Lolgf