Media nervous on new Duke U. rape case
 

Media nervous on new Duke U. rape case

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...duke_u_ra.html

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.

______

Lombard is gay and white, his adopted son is black....

This is really an outrage and I'll bet that most people have not heard the story. It that because.....(from the article)

I am afraid that as far as the media and academic communities are involved, it is not the crime itself that matters, but rather whether the alleged perp is a member of an "oppressor" group. Although white, Lombard is gay, so in the interest of avoiding unpleasant stories involving homosexual adoption, the media is anxious to shut down public interest in the affair.

Unfortunately, this is the usual consequence of turning over little boys to aggressive homosexuals to be “adopted.”

It is a widespread form of severe child abuse that the homosexual news editors at the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, ad nauseum, never allow to be reported.

Is it wrong to read this and think “some people deserve to be shot”?

Because this is disgraceful, and disgusting, and morally repugnant: Inviting someone [anyone!] to rape [statutory or not] someone!? WTF?

cdc, it is indeed unfortunate that politics, race issues and other agendas always come to the fore and even obscure the REal point when crimes like this are committed.

ASSuming the allegations are founded, the bottom line is, a reprehensible act was perpetuated by a man upon a helpless child and no, it is not wrong to feel that some people deserve to be shot. Because they do - and that includes any animals, media hacks, black, white, gay, hetero and "other" whose actions and influence provide a screen and support network for the perpetrators of such crimes.

I agree - this type of crime is beyond the pale and the barely human being that did this, whether gay or not deserves jail time at the least. But beyond that, placing a child in the care of a gay couple or just a gay man is at best questionable to me - now I have evidence.

Think about it - a gay man turns over his adopted son, presumable not gay (especially at 5 years old), to another gay pedophile for sex, exposing the child to HIV and AIDS!

God knows what else the 'father' had in mind.

Automatically and instinctively, I agree with everything you typed. However - and here's where we often lose sight of the common ground between us - being at the receiving end of stereotyped judgementalism myself, I tend to judge people's actions in isolation and to not lump them into whatever convenient group they happen to fit.

So okay, the guy is homosexual, white, a pedophile and a criminal. He's also a director, fits into a certain age group and lives in a specific area. Which of these traits explain his dirty deed? To me it's only the pedophile and criminal parts. All of the others are traits that many other people share; and they don't necessarily engage in criminal behavior. The homo part is definitely a contributing factor, but only in that his chosen victim was male. Had he been the same person but heterosexual, I volunteer that he would have done the same thing to a little girl.

In spite of all that though, I have to truthfully admit that as much as the rational side of my brain says otherwise (IOW- a homosexual may be a queer bugger, but not necessarily a criminal or a pedophile), the instinctive side of my brain balks at the idea of a gay male couple adopting a male child.
Conclusion? I really shouldn't try to post on a serious topic while bbq'ing and drinking mango coladas.:LOL:

Well, it's a stange world filled with more than passingly strange people. Perhaps we are all strange in some way no matter what our background, orientation or circumstances. It's those that act out the real strangeness that worry all of us. Millions or those people are in prison at this time, millions.

Being stupid also seems to accompany strange acts - like offering up a 5 year old on the web for sex. That's when stupidity steps in to help all of us to eliminate these people from society. Being strange and stupid is not a good way to go through life.

Well, as I have said before, gay people should not be allowed to adopt. No one has a right to "assist" another child into accepting/assuming deviant sexuality. If that was too harsh, I should say "abnormal" sexuality (for you to get my drift). I do not see how a gay couple could avoid this. Yeah, I know, by default, "normal" parents are teaching their kids "normal" sexuality. And that's because that's the way it should be.

There will always be pathological cases that are the exception to the rule. But no one who builds towards the future on such cases can reasonably expect good outcomes.

As long as gay people are self estinguishing, their numbers should remain at some constant percentage of the population. If they are allowed to procreate artificially, then their political power will grow. This must not happen for our society to remain healthy and growing.

Let me say this again. I have NO problem with gay people as grown adults making their own informed choices. Procreation, however (via adoption) should not be allowed.


Edit: BTW, I don't think the deviant behavior shown in the Duke case is sympotmatic of being gay or expressive of gayness. There are sick basturds in the hetero world that do the same types of stuff. ALL sexual predators are evil and should be treated as such.

Couldn't agree more it's learned behavior, not some gene defect or affliction.

It should not be accepted behavior, period. Pretending it's OK and worse yet, calling it a "family" will erode our culture even more that it already is.

For all our advancemnets and knowlage, the thought that we now can't comprehend the proper way to procreate...

I am avoiding THAT topic as I do not know the answer. However, I do believe that some HS behavior can be learned or chosen. Read about Meagan Fox. Good looker, but she has got her brain in backwards.

Mike

It's not learned behavior. Here's how I prove that fact - look at your dreams - if you are dreaming gay stuff, you are hard wired gay.

I have some great hetro dreams, occasionally. If I started dreaming gay stuff, I'd probably off myself.

Gays dream of gay stuff. There is nothing they can do about their sexual orientition, except not act on it. Huge numbers of them wish that they were not gay.

Your confusing the end result of learned behavior with instinct. Your "hard wired" to desire orgasims, how you accomplish this is learned behavior. (typically from enviroment)

Since it's "self defeating" by nature it would thin itself out of the gene pool.

Your mental capacity is genetic, your mental state is enviroment. (which, of course explains Kalifornia):rolleyes:

When doesn't the thinning begin?

I've always thought it was impossible for same sex parents to raise a child to be a hetero conservative. Well, the unthinkable has happened and now I have evidence:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayof...ref=newssearch

We really need to stop this deviant behaviour before it becomes an epidemic.

:LOL::LOL:
Steve

The view from the gay community is always welcome here, VRM - it's nice to have someone 'on the front' and in the know (if you know what I mean). Be careful out there.

Everybody here ALWAYS knows what you mean.

:LOL::LOL:

Are the two little yellow guys in your posts gay friends or some sort of gay code message in your community - works for me.

Well, there's always a silver lining in any dark cloud... (still a dark cloud though)

Funny how people will accept that wife beaters and molesters are usually the result of enviroment (which it is) but not being gay.:rolleyes:

Known a few of them over the years, all but one had completely screwed up personal lives. Lets not forget the four-fold suicide rate...

CDC, my point exactly, the thinning is not happening so it's not "hard wired".;)

If someone has unnatural [non-procreation] sexual tastes, for whatever reason. Other than the RIGHT to Privacy, how does weird sexual conduct bestow ANY other "right?" How did raging queenliness become a CIVIL RIGHT? What gives a back door bandit the right to marry the pokee?
Why can't xtra ardent animal "lovers" marry their sheep?

Ummm.... no...they are called SMILIES. You can use them to indicate a lot of things in forum posts - like derision.

But I guess if a 'gay code' works for you, then go for it.

CDC<>VRM ...not allowed.
It seems the only way to enforce this is just shut the threads when it happens.