Reggie and Rocky. 50 years old. Holding a 'marriage ceremony' on October 9th. Participating in the ceremony will be their two "children", Jim Cullion (the best man) and Cherrie McCoy (the best woman).
Monday, September 20, 2010
Come On Bra ...
Reggie and Rocky. 50 years old. Holding a 'marriage ceremony' on October 9th. Participating in the ceremony will be their two "children", Jim Cullion (the best man) and Cherrie McCoy (the best woman).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Brother DV:
What do you estimate will be the impact on these two young minds as they are conditioned to normalize the relationship of these two souls who impart the expression of their love and connection with each other via the stimulation of the nerves at the end of each other's digest track?
Well, what's the alternative for black children needing to be adopted?
I don't think it's an optimal situation, but is it worse to be adopted by gay men, or be tossed around foster homes?
CF!
What's happening man?
Impact on these two young souls?
Not sure.
However, I suspect the impact will ultimately not be measured by its effect upon the children, it will be measured by its impact upon society.
Well, what's the alternative for black children needing to be adopted?
What's the alternative to being adopted by two 50 year old homosexual men in an interracial same-sex "marriage"?
...
orphanages.
The fact is black children aren't getting adopted. Black folks of means haven't stepped up and taken them in, and I include myself. I've thought about, and planned to do it, but to date haven't.
So you'd prefer black children to be raised in an orphanage to that of a home with same-sex partners? I already know the answer.
So you'd prefer black children be raised in a home with two homosexual men ... boning each other in the ass ... right down the hallway ... than raised in an orphanage?
I already know the answer.
I don't suppose your kids have a front row seat when you and the wife are "having relations"...so why would you think these kids would.
I'd prefer the traditional mom and dad. Hell, I'll come out and say I'd prefer children to be in a family similar to their ethnic make-up, but we all know that's not going to happen.
I don't have an answer for this other than black folks with means stepping up. Do you and the Mrs. plan on adopting? If not, then you really have no say, right?
DMG logic...
If you don't adopt then you can't have any say on whether homosexuals should be able to adopt.
Complete nonsense, of course...
Do interracial homosexual couplings really believe they are the VERY LAST option in matters of adoption?
If not, they should know and know it HAS TO BE for very good reason. They are some of the most radical of autonomists. Procreation and parenting are impediments completely abhorred by such individuals.
Cats like DMG just have an inexplicable desire to see the "goodness" of homosexuality. It's weird, US Marine.
Yeah, that's right, because you aren't offering any options. And last I checked homosexual United States Citizens have the same rights as other United States Citizens....and I'm SURE some have died in combat wearing my Eagle, Globe, and Anchor...so what's your point?
Oh, wait...radical autonomy, blah, blah, blah. Right? Move it along simpleton.
It's more a "worse possible case" scenario. No I know who came out of the foster care system is okay. It's a horrible, traumatizing situation. And it's not like there's not sexual abuse in those situations either.
Do I like explaining to my kids why some of their classmates have two mommies or daddies? Nope.
But life is full of tough choices. The foster care system is a failure factory.
DMG,
Offering the VERY LAST OPTION is not an indication that that last option is better than the foster home.
Clowns like you act as though it shouldn't even be a consideration. You know, whether the VERY LAST OPTION is, in fact, a good option for the child. Clowns like you act as though interracial homosexual couplings are NO DIFFERENT than any other parenting concoction. Clowns like you will tell yourself that these males living in a state of radical autonomy can actually be good parents. Why? What's your evidence, Doc?
Bacon-Bey markets failure:
1. Unwanted pregnancies
2. Paternal sexual license and profligacy.
3. False status-seeking.
4. Conspicuous consumption.
5. Meanness and vanity
6. Pseudo-science
7. New age paganism
Moorish science crystallizes evil.
Accept no substitutes..... suckers.
Clowns like you act as though interracial homosexual couplings are NO DIFFERENT than any other parenting concoction.
One could always be born to a neolithic skinhead coupling in San Diego CA....,
Clowns like you will tell yourself that these males living in a state of radical autonomy can actually be good parents. Why? What's your evidence, Doc?
Exhibit A. would be y.o.u. you ruh-tarded sack of oxygen-thieving pus...,
"And last I checked homosexual United States Citizens have the same rights as other United States Citizens.." DMG
WRONG.
SILLY.
BULLSHIT.
Example of how the Plantation uses identity politics to control the minds of Plantation Negros.
"Homosexual United States Citizens" do have the same rights as other United States Citizens."
They are granted the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that all United States citizens are granted.
Are you saying that someones sexual orientation somehow limits their rights as a United States Citizen? :P
"Do I like explaining to my kids why some of their classmates have two mommies or daddies? Nope.
But life is full of tough choices. The foster care system is a failure factory." That Dude
Dude! What up Bra?
Feel ya man. But don't get suckered into the false dichotomy of 1) either allow / endorse the adoption of children by sexual perverts ... or 2) allow the child to languish in a failed foster care system.
That's a Trojan Horse of mixed issues.
Identity Politics making a move.
Want to reduce the number of children in Foster Care?
Stopping the War on Drugs would release millions of PARENTS capable of raising their own children without foster care or homosexual interracial couples.
These "Goody Two Shoe" technocratic negros (always talking about how much they "care") get suckered into symptom chasing social engineering scams that never actually empower anyone.
Are you saying that someones sexual orientation somehow limits their rights as a United States Citizen? :P DMG
Is that what you are hearing?
What I said speaks for itself.
I'll slow it down for ya Doc.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. "homosexual United States citizens".
There are only United States citizens.
All citizens of the United States have the same rights.
The ones that don't know it are called "Plantation Negros" or "Plantation Crackas".
DV- I got a question I am curious about.... do the ACTS homosexuals participate in make them perverts, or the fact that they are the same sex? (Yeah I am nosy as Hell, and I have a dirty mind...) so basically I wanna know if you are cool with a heterosexual couple participating in the same nonreproductive sexual acts as two gay men??? And I am really asked for no other reason than I am a nosy heffa (and a perv, but not a gay perv LOL)! Cuz you know some states have "sodomy" laws that apply even to married hetereosexual couples!
Joanna,
Who cares about attempting to equate "acts" when it is the natures that are important.
For someone like yourself steeped in liberalism, one's nature IS liberal... It is perverted... It is homosexual...
No one looks at the married couple and says, "How liberal."
And one doesn't look at the homosexual coupling and say, "How traditional."
No one is exalting traditional marriage with idea that they are exalting non-traditional sexual acts (homosexual acts).
And no one is exalting homosexual "marriage" with the idea that they are fortifying tradition.
These are simple understandings that completely evade the liberal-minded.
The homosexual NATURE is a perverted nature. Meaning, the homosexual nature seeks to pervert reality. It does so most effectively through equalization. Its most self-evident perversion of reality is its attempt to equate the homosexual nature to the heterosexual nature.
And now that you are forced to accept a particular homosexual nature, CAN OR WILL you actually articulate what that nature is?
It's the "nature" you experienced in the lockup thorpimple, that is, before you got paroled and got back out to the trailer park where you could inflict your special hell on Becky and your spawn out there in her family's old broken down double-wide....,
Craig,
We already know why you have a soft-spot for self-annihilators... Does Joanna?
Go on back to worshipping your unknowable god.
@ Joanna
Not attempting to speak for DV.
Defining terms by western constructs continue to empower those terms or concepts.
Not tripp'n on people who practice Kwanza, but the practice of Kwanza fortifies Christmas because it's timing is based on a Roman calender, aligning it's commemorative practice with winter solstice. Absolutely no concept or distinct way of marking a practice by non-western dating systems. So the African light bulb is being charge by the European electric company. That's fine if that's one's objective. So it's no wonder Kwanza comes off to most people as a black version of Christmas. Black Santa, black Superman aka Steel; the first black to __________ (fill in the blank) what the white has already accomplished. "The first black" defines that accomplishment as subservient or less than, before even entering the conversation. Defines it as a race between races.
I'm saying this because it applies to terms/definitions. Ultimately, how are we defining these terms entering the conversation? So when Reverend Wright gets on Hannity's Show and says that "a black person can't be racists because you have to have power to enforce racism", Hannity fires back "that's not how Webster's define racism." But when KRS-1 gets on the show and Hannity talks about blacks using the "N-word" and whites can't, KRS-1 begins to define "n-i-g-g-e-r" as oppose to the hip-hop generation's usage (white, black, latino, asian) of "n-i-g-g-a." Hannity abandons the conversation because he has absolutely no reference point to begin to object. That is the power of defining terms.
So say the early Egyptians. Osiris, Isis, Horus. Man, woman and child. No terms of heterosexual, but man, woman and child. Therefore the opposite of that being, not homosexual, but "NO" man, woman and child. No future, no successors to continue the cycle of life. But you create the Greek term hetero (different) then you have it's opposite homo (same). So one has every right to say heterosexual if one concedes to Greco-Roman (now defined as Judeo-Christian) supremacy as how they define their existence. If not, then an argument is that homo grammatically cannot be apart the word sex. Homosexual= Non-reproductive reproduction intercourse?
Men engage in acts of sodomy (non-reproductive intercourse) with women. However the potential for sex (reproductive intercourse) yet remains. However for two gay men, it's obvious that sodomy is a signature act with no alternative of reproductive intercourse.
Farst,
Few things compare to the nihilistic nothingness of your arrogant ignorance.
An itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny little man like you is the modern day embodiment of expendable grist for intelligent and predatory evil.
and you know it...,
Craig,
All I know is no one in DV's spot could really tell us what we CNu...
It's nothing, magne... Nothing.
"Is that what you are hearing?
What I said speaks for itself."
No, I'm setting your monkey ass up. Nobody hyphenated homosexual and US citizen. Maybe I should slow it down for you. Are you saying United States Citizens who happen to enjoy the exclusive intimate company of other human beings of the same gender have fewer rights than those who happen to enjoy the exclusive intimate company of other human beings of the opposite gender?
We both know the answer should be NO. However, we both also know that the answer is effectively yes. There is no dichotomy. There are children, many of them black who have no parents, either through no fault of their parents (death no relatives) or because they were born to unfit parents. Children should have a safe permanent place to grow and learn. If these two cats can provide that, then it's better than getting pushed around the foster system.
But since you think it's such a travesty, are you planning to adopt a young black child?
YES or NO?
If no, then shut the fuck up, you have no say, because you aren't doing anything to get those kids out of that potential situation.
And I don't know why as much emphasis has been placed on the "interracial" aspect of their relationship as the homosexual aspect...I have some ideas though.
DMG,
The path to radical autonomy is either purposefully pursued or one of sheer ignorance. Because notions of "race" and "mother" are antithetical to the radical autonomist, one then willfully or ignorantly implies that an interracial homosexual coupling doesn't really mean anything.
BUT IT MEANS SUCH INDIVIDUALS are living in a state of radical autonomy.
This interracial coupling is saying that these black kids' race DOES NOT MATTER...
This homosexual coupling is saying that these black kids don't need a mother as she is meaningless.
But of course, those living in a state of radical autonomy via sheer ignorance will say, "What's wrong with raising radically autonomist children?"
[quote]Well, what's the alternative for black children needing to be adopted?
[/quote]
DMG:
You set up a fake constraint and then demand an answer that is on the track that you have laid down.
I have to find the flick that I watched on "NetFlix". There was ONE Black woman in Mississippi who took in a bunch of children over her lifetime under her roof.
SOME were her grand children
SOME were kids from the community - their mothers down on their luck or in jail.
THIS WOMAN was a hero.
Beyond that it is ironic that you point to a piece of fruit that springs from the DYSFUNCTION that has been allowed from the benign neglect and (sold out) miss management of our human resources and then want to have us argue with the assumption that what you say is a given.
The Black community needs to do a better job of CULTURAL and BEHAVIORAL ENFORCEMENT of standards.
Today we seek to outsource this responsibility to the government via the fraud called "SOCIAL JUSTICE". Instead it is time to turn to the INDIVIDUALS who have allowed themselves to be called "The Least of These" and get them to see that the outcomes that they desire must come off THEIR OWN BACKS. The discipline that they learn along the way will allow them to see the COST of allowing such FOOLISHNESS in our midsts and instead they will choke it off as if it were an INVASIVE SPECIES trying to take root.
So you call the woman who took in alot of children over her lifetime a HERO, but somehow my suggesting taking in alot of children over a lifetime is somehow blasphemy?
Do you read what you right before you hit "Publish Your Comment"?
Post a Comment