Cheryl Kilodavis Beleives that Strong Parenting is Allowing One's Kid to do What he Pleases

Cheryl Kilodavis recently wrote

 "It's unfortunate that people are filled with negativity about you and me for simply supporting, nurturing, leading and loving our children. I know it's hard, please stay strong. Continue the discussions. We have started a much needed worldwide conversation about what strong parenting should be like to stop bullying. Thank you for staying with me, my princess boy, and with each other. To acceptance!"

 

Anyone can use rhetoric.  Let's the real truth of what she stated.

Supporting - They are supporting a child's gender confusion
 
Nurturing - They are nurturing an amoral value system where it is strictly about what the child wants vs what is good and moral.

Leading - They are the one's influencing the innocent child into homosexual lifestyle simply for the pleasure of making a political point: that the child has a predisposition towards girl clothing; then it is the child leading the parent, not the parent a child. Of course, in other occasions, they confess that it is actually the child that has the presupposition towards homosexuality, which then it would be the child leading the parent, not the parent the child. Just like the homosexual lifestyle, they like to have it both ways.

Loving - She means acceptance.  To the princess boy movement love and acceptance are mutually the same in the same way that some homosexuals equivocate love with sex.  Most parents agree that loving one’s child does not mean accepting any behavior that his child may conjure up.  In fact, it is because a parent loves the child will he reject certain behaviors and teach him better ways to express himself.  Cheryl Kilodavis version of love is really a love for her own political aspirations.

Believing a boy should act like a boy is not bullying.  It’s called boyhood.  When Chery Kilodavis talks about acceptance, she is not speaking of her boy.  I do not think anyone who objects to her parental philosophy takes issue with the boy.  All of us are in agreement that the boy bears no fault.  The one that we take issue is with her,  She knows this.  So when she speaks of acceptance, she is speaking of acceptance of homosexuality.  The boy was not born with a tutu.  She gave the tutu to HIM.  She wants the world to accept homosexuality even if it means sacrificing the boys innocence.

 

Go to our facebook page to see comments.