The writing is on the wall.
You knew it was coming. Next you'll see "science" that supports this.
To each his own. If they aren’t harming anyone, why do you care?
Reality wrote:
To each his own. If they aren’t harming anyone, why do you care?
Because this affects young children.
Oh God the children 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That line has been used to keep people from doing what they want forever and it’s a total failure. You surely must have a better reason to keep people from doing what they want.
Reality wrote:
Oh God the children 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That line has been used to keep people from doing what they want forever and it’s a total failure. You surely must have a better reason to keep people from doing what they want.
I did not find the original article until now which I will address so I understand your comment. For wh**ever reason the below article popped up which is pretty d********g. Its nothing to laugh off.
Polyamory is for Pre-Teens in Public Schools (polyamory is being in love with more than one person at a time)
California instructs teachers to talk to youngsters about sex “partners.” They are to avoid terms like “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” because “some students may be non-monogamous.” This is in the lesson plan for 12-year olds.
The education department tells teachers that 14-year-olds “may have various g****r identities and sexual orientations.” Indeed, “there are an infinite number of ways an individual can express their individuality and sense of self.”
Special emphasis is to be given to non-heterosexual ways, however. “Teachers should affirmatively acknowledge the existence of relationships that are not heterosexual by actively using examples of same-sex couples in class discussions.”
California schools aren’t the only ones intentionally sexualizing kids. Northern Virginia schools are also used as “laboratories” for L**T policy experimentation. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network admitted that to the Washington Post last year.
After reading my column, a mom in Fairfax wrote to me about the “thruples” and “quadruples” (rhymes with couples) her kids encountered at a Fairfax County high school. These are polyamorous groups of 3 or 4. “These groups are allowed to openly ‘be together’ (hold hands, kiss, wrap arms, etc.), just as standard couples are in the halls,” she said.
She also told me there are “furries.” Rhymes with insane. Poor souls who believe they are animals and self-identify as such. “This year, we have some cats and a fox.”
There is a very good chance that most moms and dads are not even remotely aware of the insanity going on in government schools today. None of it is by accident. All of it is by design. All of it funded by you and me.
Children are being used as lab rats in a social experiment. Without the consent of their parents. But with the encouragement and approval of the American Psychological Association.
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV19G05California health education framework -
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/he/cf/
Reality wrote:
To each his own. If they aren’t harming anyone, why do you care?
It's called spillover and it harms everyone who isn't a sick puppy. I don't want to see or hear of this perversion anymore. D**g Q***ns reading to kids? Turning kids into d**g q***ns. That's mostly what it's about, now they are coming for our children. If you don't care that's on you.
This is nutty. And from what people think is a reputable organization.
Peewee's article (which wouldn't come up for me) -
According to the supposed "mental health experts," open marriages are the tolerant approach to intimacy. And they've launched a task force to prove it to the world.
According to the APA's official description of this initiative, "Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people's life experience. However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all." People who practice "consensual non-monogamy," as they call it, are unduly "marginalized," and it's time, the APA argues, to promote "awareness and inclusivity" for people who practice "polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical, non-monogamous relationships."
Well, the APA may call these open relationships "ethical," but the American people sure don't. In Gallup's latest survey on moral acceptability, it's hard to find a behavior more universally frowned upon than adultery or polygamy. Only nine percent of the country agrees with the APA that fidelity is somehow narrow-minded or passé. The multiple-spouse relationship has mildly more support at 18 percent.
Still, the head of the task force writes, "I'm concerned about the lack of support this community is receiving." "Too many clients who are in consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, have to educate their therapists. Too many of them discontinue therapy because their therapist judged them, didn't know enough about CNM to be helpful, or worse, makes actively stigmatizing comments..." It's time, he insists, "to examine our biases and take a non-judgmental posture toward clients engaged in consensual non-monogamy -- just as we would with L***Q clients."
FRC's Cathy Ruse, who -- like most -- thinks the APA has long been off the rails for some time, can't believe the organization is fighting to give swingers "protected legal status." And they're supposed to be the psychologically healthy ones! Keep in mind, she points out, "the American Psychological Association is a professional guild. When it makes a controversial decision, like this one, that decision is not made by a v**e of its 100,000+ members (which include "educators" and "students," according to Wikipedia). No, it is made by small numbers of powerful activists, who have sought out places of influence, like task forces."
And how will the APA fight for the liberty of sexual anarchists against "social and medical stigmatization," she asks? With a measly budget of just over $100 million. Just as it's tried to tear down the social norms for t*********rism and other sexual proclivities, they'll start in the usual place -- soft targets, like children. "How long will it take American public schools to incorporate swinging into their sex ed?" she wonders. As long as it took them to stigmatize abstinence and promote sexual anarchy in its place? If so, we won't have to wait long.
Rose42 wrote:
This is nutty. And from what people think is a reputable organization.
Peewee's article (which wouldn't come up for me) -
According to the supposed "mental health experts," open marriages are the tolerant approach to intimacy. And they've launched a task force to prove it to the world.
According to the APA's official description of this initiative, "Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people's life experience. However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all." People who practice "consensual non-monogamy," as they call it, are unduly "marginalized," and it's time, the APA argues, to promote "awareness and inclusivity" for people who practice "polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical, non-monogamous relationships."
Well, the APA may call these open relationships "ethical," but the American people sure don't. In Gallup's latest survey on moral acceptability, it's hard to find a behavior more universally frowned upon than adultery or polygamy. Only nine percent of the country agrees with the APA that fidelity is somehow narrow-minded or passé. The multiple-spouse relationship has mildly more support at 18 percent.
Still, the head of the task force writes, "I'm concerned about the lack of support this community is receiving." "Too many clients who are in consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, have to educate their therapists. Too many of them discontinue therapy because their therapist judged them, didn't know enough about CNM to be helpful, or worse, makes actively stigmatizing comments..." It's time, he insists, "to examine our biases and take a non-judgmental posture toward clients engaged in consensual non-monogamy -- just as we would with L***Q clients."
FRC's Cathy Ruse, who -- like most -- thinks the APA has long been off the rails for some time, can't believe the organization is fighting to give swingers "protected legal status." And they're supposed to be the psychologically healthy ones! Keep in mind, she points out, "the American Psychological Association is a professional guild. When it makes a controversial decision, like this one, that decision is not made by a v**e of its 100,000+ members (which include "educators" and "students," according to Wikipedia). No, it is made by small numbers of powerful activists, who have sought out places of influence, like task forces."
And how will the APA fight for the liberty of sexual anarchists against "social and medical stigmatization," she asks? With a measly budget of just over $100 million. Just as it's tried to tear down the social norms for t*********rism and other sexual proclivities, they'll start in the usual place -- soft targets, like children. "How long will it take American public schools to incorporate swinging into their sex ed?" she wonders. As long as it took them to stigmatize abstinence and promote sexual anarchy in its place? If so, we won't have to wait long.
This is nutty. And from what people think is a re... (
show quote)
Sorry about that Rose, thanks for reposting it.
Reality wrote:
Oh God the children 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That line has been used to keep people from doing what they want forever and it’s a total failure. You surely must have a better reason to keep people from doing what they want.
Infidelity has always existed and always will. It is the issue of making this a norm when it isn't and shouldn't be. I speak from the viewpoint of someone who has had many affairs. Monogamy is the norm, helps stabilize society, helps to stabilize a family unit and give children a better up bringing and a strong sense of a family unit and felling of safety and belonging. Meanwhile swinging and infidelity offers nothing but a lot of fun, spreading of diseases, lack of reliable paternity, etc.
If you want to and your partner doesn't care, your partner isn't really your partner, so go for it. But don't preach normality or justification. There isn't any.
Reality wrote:
Oh God the children 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That line has been used to keep people from doing what they want forever and it’s a total failure. You surely must have a better reason to keep people from doing what they want.
Yeah, care about others as lest as much as you care about yourself.
Didn’t preach anything, much less normality. Adults are free to do as the please as long as they aren’t harming anyone. This I believe.
Peewee wrote:
Yeah, care about others as lest as much as you care about yourself.
Makes no sense. Adults are free to live as they please as long as they aren’t harming anyone.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.