LGBT Activists in CA Begin Incrementally Lowering the Age of Consent Under the Radar

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't care who's lowering it. 18's ridiculous. It's 15 in New Hampshire, and can get married and then have sex at 15 as well here in Missouri.

Outta be 16 like it is to drive a car. If we trust people not to play demolition derby on freeways at 16, outta trust em to have sex too. Would like to see an additional provision for lower ages if with parental consent (as it should be anyway.) How it is in many other developed nations.

Human animal is biologically ready for sex when ever puberty/menstruation begins. That's 'sexual maturity' in every animal but our own. But because that can start at very young ages (youngest I've read about is 9 which is too young imo despite biology.) So having it way the hell up at 18 is patently absurd. Nevermind the immorality of making criminals out of teenagers doing nothing we didn't do back in a time when the furor over teenaged sexuality wasn't like it is now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This is how conservatives should fight the pervert movement. By pointing out that most of these people are child molesters.

 

[Inevitable]

This is how conservatives should fight the pervert movement. By pointing out that most of these people are child molesters.

That seems to be how they have continued to lose. But yes I agree. They should use the shittiest tactic possible.

 

[Silhouette]

I disagree with lowering the age of consent and will fight against it. That being said the op was mistaken because that is nit the goal of the revisions to California law.

A simple statement to that is: why were the age limits in Sections 2 & 3 lined out? The illegal revision without voters' permission of initiative law in this family code section was advertised to the Public as only about revision of gender terms. Not age descriptions.

Yet there was the age of 18, lined out several times in the OP link. It's a fact that the gay senator Mark Leno was behind this illegal revision. And it's a fact that he is the one who promoted that children in public schools in California celebrate "Harvey Milk Day". [which is the same as promoting that they celebrate Jerry Sandusky Day]. It's the same guy. And I'll wager it's the same guy who lined out the text of that draft in the OP; or one of his cohorts for sure. The distinction within the LGBT activism and pedophilia is not as clear as you would like it to appear to the public Inevitable. But your name itself and your avatar of a very young gay youth is not helping distinguish that line. It's of a very young male, barely legal looking with a see-through jersey on, laying on his back with the photo cropped off just above where it looks like his hands are down his pants. ie, he looks like a very very young male prostitute. You're clearly not expressing outwardly your stated intent of disagreement with lowering the age of consent. Indeed you seem to be very eager to push that age right down to its limit [and then suddenly apply the brakes?]

Maybe it was expressed as not about the goal of revisions [which are illegal in any event], but it happened nevertheless. And I'd like to know why.

 

[Inevitable]

I disagree with lowering the age of consent and will fight against it. That being said the op was mistaken because that is nit the goal of the revisions to California law.

A simple statement to that is: why were the age limits in Sections 2 & 3 lined out? The illegal revision without voters' permission of initiative law in this family code section was advertised to the Public as only about revision of gender terms. Not age descriptions.

Yet there was the age of 18, lined out several times in the OP link. It's a fact that the gay senator Mark Leno was behind this illegal revision. And it's a fact that he is the one who promoted that children in public schools in California celebrate "Harvey Milk Day". [which is the same as promoting that they celebrate Jerry Sandusky Day]. It's the same guy. And I'll wager it's the same guy who lined out the text of that draft in the OP; or one of his cohorts for sure. The distinction within the LGBT activism and pedophilia is not as clear as you would like it to appear to the public Inevitable. But your name itself and your avatar of a very young gay youth is not helping distinguish that line.

My avatar is a picture of me at 23. CurrentlyI am 24. Seems you make up some non-existent pedophilia wherever you see gay people. Tell me this, since you blame all homosexuals for the actions of one or two people, can I blame all heterosexuals for 54 million counts of filicide? I am pretty sure it isn't gay women going to planned parenthood to butcher their unborn. I mean 54 million, you're sexual orientation has wiped out almost a sixth of our national population. Since you rant and rave aboutHarvey milk (whoever the hell that is, I don't care) and some isolated cases of child molesters having been gay, and thus all gay people are child molesters, I am then justified in saying all heterosexuals are baby killers right? It was heterosexuals that made the laws, heterosexuals that enforced them.

That is basically the argument you are making It's extremely prejudiced, ignorant and poorly thought out.

Maybe it was expressed as not about the goal of revisions [which are illegal in any event], but it happened nevertheless. And I'd like to know why.

Well that's fair, but blame the courts, lgbt people don't have omnipotence or the ability to control courts.

 

[LockeJaw]

Harry Hay & Harvey Milk are the godfathers of the faggot movement. Both child molesters & both homos. Seems to be a theme for leaders of the radical gay movement.

 

[Silhouette]

My avatar is a picture of me at 23. CurrentlyI am 24. Seems you make up some non-existent pedophilia wherever you see gay people.

Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.

It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?

To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.

And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....

 

[Inevitable]

Harry Hay & Harvey Milk are the godfathers of the faggot movement. Both child molesters & both homos. Seems to be a theme for leaders of the radical gay movement.

So, you murder the unborn. Seems you are worse than any gay person.

 

[LockeJaw]

Yeah, There is NO reason whatsoever to think homosexuals have tons of chomos in their ranks:
May 21, 2009
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

By Judith Reisman

The Advocate is the pioneering "gay" publication (1967) and the undisputed, mainstream expression of "Gay Culture," the history, beliefs, and aims of this sexually revolutionary movement.

What does it mean then, that The Advocate's boy "mascot" was fêted in Long Road to Freedom The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement (1994, p. xix)?

The artist "Toby" drew The Advocate boy-man with a child's face under macho adult chest, arms, muscled legs, and buttocks. No normal, "straight" American publication has ever postured a boy in this manner.

By rotating The Advocate boy's head 180 degrees the conscious brain can process the lad's innocent eyes and tender trusting mouth as imagined by "the artist Toby."

The Library Journal says this book reflects "individuals sharing a common goal." What "common goal" then, is shared by erotizing a boy as The Advocate's "unofficial mascot during its early years" (left)?

Concerned about the sexualization of boys, supported by an analysis of The Advocate from 1967 to 1988, Judith A Reisman, PhD joined with statistician Charles B Johnson, PhD, to study male In-Search-Of (ISO) advertisements in The Advocate. These ads were compared to similar liberal, upscale male ISOs in The Washingtonian (DC), from 1988 to 1992.

The report is entitled, "Partner Solicitation Characteristics as an Expression of Male Sexual Orientation."

Since "hate crimes" (or bias motivated crimes), involve targeting someone because of his or her being of a specific group, (religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political) a disturbing Advocate finding are data implying a "hate" crime bias against the boy class — trivialized as "playful" recreational sex toys (above left).

For pre-1988 the boy as a recreational sex toy appeared in pictures, film, and general advertisements in almost every issue of The Advocate. January 1988 found 50 such boy adverts and 20 in June 1992. Post 1992 in order to be carried by mainstream newsstands, then school libraries, and bookstores, boy sex ads were wisely jettisoned.

The buttocks-up image of The Advocate mascot was of a piece with other such images of "provocative" boys. In fact, during the 1970's The Advocate regularly republished a full-page advertisement for a "Penetrable Boy Doll."

The "Penetrable Boy Doll" was a black silhouette of a nude, white, underage youth, phallically posed. Evidence that the boy sex doll had an eager market is demonstrated by the ad's repeated appearance in The Advocate. The boy sex doll had to have sold well to appear often in this mainstream, upscale journal.

My apologies for the following direct quotes:

"The Penetrable Boy Doll is available in 3 provocative positions. Choose the model that will fill your needs...Always up and ready. Every Doll Features: Realistic penis....Realistic penis that vibrates....Realistic penis that vibrates & ejaculates."
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

It may not be all of them, but it's enough of them that are potential chomos that we should not take the idea of normalizing homosexuality lightly.

To say otherwise is not only foolish, but downright neglectful & demonstrably evil on the part of homosexual advocates that know the truth and condone it.

 

[Inevitable]

My avatar is a picture of me at 23. CurrentlyI am 24. Seems you make up some non-existent pedophilia wherever you see gay people.

Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.

It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?

To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.

And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....

This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.

"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.

You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.

 

[Inevitable]

Yeah, There is NO reason whatsoever to think homosexuals have tons of chomos in their ranks:
May 21, 2009
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

By Judith Reisman

The Advocate is the pioneering "gay" publication (1967) and the undisputed, mainstream expression of "Gay Culture," the history, beliefs, and aims of this sexually revolutionary movement.

What does it mean then, that The Advocate's boy "mascot" was fêted in Long Road to Freedom The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement (1994, p. xix)?

The artist "Toby" drew The Advocate boy-man with a child's face under macho adult chest, arms, muscled legs, and buttocks. No normal, "straight" American publication has ever postured a boy in this manner.

By rotating The Advocate boy's head 180 degrees the conscious brain can process the lad's innocent eyes and tender trusting mouth as imagined by "the artist Toby."

The Library Journal says this book reflects "individuals sharing a common goal." What "common goal" then, is shared by erotizing a boy as The Advocate's "unofficial mascot during its early years" (left)?

Concerned about the sexualization of boys, supported by an analysis of The Advocate from 1967 to 1988, Judith A Reisman, PhD joined with statistician Charles B Johnson, PhD, to study male In-Search-Of (ISO) advertisements in The Advocate. These ads were compared to similar liberal, upscale male ISOs in The Washingtonian (DC), from 1988 to 1992.

The report is entitled, "Partner Solicitation Characteristics as an Expression of Male Sexual Orientation."

Since "hate crimes" (or bias motivated crimes), involve targeting someone because of his or her being of a specific group, (religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political) a disturbing Advocate finding are data implying a "hate" crime bias against the boy class — trivialized as "playful" recreational sex toys (above left).

For pre-1988 the boy as a recreational sex toy appeared in pictures, film, and general advertisements in almost every issue of The Advocate. January 1988 found 50 such boy adverts and 20 in June 1992. Post 1992 in order to be carried by mainstream newsstands, then school libraries, and bookstores, boy sex ads were wisely jettisoned.

The buttocks-up image of The Advocate mascot was of a piece with other such images of "provocative" boys. In fact, during the 1970's The Advocate regularly republished a full-page advertisement for a "Penetrable Boy Doll."

The "Penetrable Boy Doll" was a black silhouette of a nude, white, underage youth, phallically posed. Evidence that the boy sex doll had an eager market is demonstrated by the ad's repeated appearance in The Advocate. The boy sex doll had to have sold well to appear often in this mainstream, upscale journal.

My apologies for the following direct quotes:

"The Penetrable Boy Doll is available in 3 provocative positions. Choose the model that will fill your needs...Always up and ready. Every Doll Features: Realistic penis....Realistic penis that vibrates....Realistic penis that vibrates & ejaculates."
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

It may not be all of them, but it's enough of them that are potential chomos that we should not take the idea of normalizing homosexuality lightly.

To say otherwise is not only foolish, but downright neglectful & demonstrably evil on the part of homosexual advocates that know the truth and condone it.

hey, Mrs. Reisman sees a cartoon and her mind interprets child molestation, I would say her mind is in the gutter.

 

[LockeJaw]

You are really pathetic, not to mention completely transparent, Jake.

 

[Silhouette]

My avatar is a picture of me at 23. CurrentlyI am 24. Seems you make up some non-existent pedophilia wherever you see gay people.

Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.

It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?

To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.

And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....

This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.

"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.

You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.

I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.

That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

May 21, 2009
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

By Judith Reisman

The Advocate is the pioneering "gay" publication (1967) and the undisputed, mainstream expression of "Gay Culture," the history, beliefs, and aims of this sexually revolutionary movement.

What does it mean then, that The Advocate's boy "mascot" was fêted in Long Road to Freedom The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement (1994, p. xix)?

The artist "Toby" drew The Advocate boy-man with a child's face under macho adult chest, arms, muscled legs, and buttocks. No normal, "straight" American publication has ever postured a boy in this manner.

By rotating The Advocate boy's head 180 degrees the conscious brain can process the lad's innocent eyes and tender trusting mouth as imagined by "the artist Toby."

The Library Journal says this book reflects "individuals sharing a common goal." What "common goal" then, is shared by erotizing a boy as The Advocate's "unofficial mascot during its early years" (left)?

Concerned about the sexualization of boys, supported by an analysis of The Advocate from 1967 to 1988, Judith A Reisman, PhD joined with statistician Charles B Johnson, PhD, to study male In-Search-Of (ISO) advertisements in The Advocate. These ads were compared to similar liberal, upscale male ISOs in The Washingtonian (DC), from 1988 to 1992.

The report is entitled, "Partner Solicitation Characteristics as an Expression of Male Sexual Orientation."

Since "hate crimes" (or bias motivated crimes), involve targeting someone because of his or her being of a specific group, (religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political) a disturbing Advocate finding are data implying a "hate" crime bias against the boy class — trivialized as "playful" recreational sex toys (above left).

For pre-1988 the boy as a recreational sex toy appeared in pictures, film, and general advertisements in almost every issue of The Advocate. January 1988 found 50 such boy adverts and 20 in June 1992. Post 1992 in order to be carried by mainstream newsstands, then school libraries, and bookstores, boy sex ads were wisely jettisoned.

The buttocks-up image of The Advocate mascot was of a piece with other such images of "provocative" boys. In fact, during the 1970's The Advocate regularly republished a full-page advertisement for a "Penetrable Boy Doll."

The "Penetrable Boy Doll" was a black silhouette of a nude, white, underage youth, phallically posed. Evidence that the boy sex doll had an eager market is demonstrated by the ad's repeated appearance in The Advocate. The boy sex doll had to have sold well to appear often in this mainstream, upscale journal.

My apologies for the following direct quotes:

"The Penetrable Boy Doll is available in 3 provocative positions. Choose the model that will fill your needs...Always up and ready. Every Doll Features: Realistic penis....Realistic penis that vibrates....Realistic penis that vibrates & ejaculates."
The Advocate's eroticized boy "mascot"

It may not be all of them, but it's enough of them that are potential chomos that we should not take the idea of normalizing homosexuality lightly.

To say otherwise is not only foolish, but downright neglectful & demonstrably evil on the part of homosexual advocates that know the truth and condone it.

Good find Lockejaw.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A simple statement to that is: why were the age limits in Sections 2 & 3 lined out?

They were lined out and new language with same age of consent was added in, so that the statute doesn't have cave-man sounding verbiage. This has been explained to you at least six time now in this thread, at this point we can only conclude you are either incredibly stupid or just stubbornly hanging on to what you know is a fail thread in a feeble attempt to save face.

For the nth time: there was no change in age of consent.

You made a fool of yourself with the original thread proving you didn't even understand your own topic, and now you're making an even bigger fool of yourself over and over by basically shouting "I'm too simple to understand how the text of that ends up" over and over.

 

[Inevitable]

[/U]ckeJaw;9424173]You are really pathetic, not to mention completely transparent, Jake.

if you think I am a incarnation of Jake report me.

And you are only mounting these pathetic personal attacks because your argument fails

 

[Inevitable]

Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.

It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?

To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.

And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....

This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.

"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.

You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.

I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.

That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.

No, you are responsible for the fantasies you created.

And more personal attacks becauseyou don't dare present that broken argument

Huh, you were distracted by your fantasies, it's laughable that you are young to blame me for your interpretation of my picture.

How pathetic. No wonder your side is losing. You can't argue because your position isfallacious.

 

[Silhouette]

A simple statement to that is: why were the age limits in Sections 2 & 3 lined out?

They were lined out and new language with same age of consent was added in, so that the statute doesn't have cave-man sounding verbiage. This has been explained to you at least six time now in this thread, at this point we can only conclude you are either incredibly stupid or just stubbornly hanging on to what you know is a fail thread in a feeble attempt to save face.

For the nth time: there was no change in age of consent.

You made a fool of yourself with the original thread proving you didn't even understand your own topic, and now you're making an even bigger fool of yourself over and over by basically shouting "I'm too simple to understand how the text of that ends up" over and over.

I don't see any need to have redacted any age part of the family law statute. If the illegal redaction of gender terms were merely switched, the flow of the dialogue would not sound awkward any more than the original. Yet there we see the age limits lined out.

But disturbing as to the original topic of this sedition of the voters' rights in CA is the specific lined-out clause defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". That is a direct assault/revision/revocation on Prop 8 without an initiative to revoke or alter it as is required by state law there. Look at this Section:

SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

The part in red is lined out. That's a direct redaction of Prop 8 without voters' approval. And that is the defiance of democracy at its core.

 

[LockeJaw]

[/U]ckeJaw;9424173]You are really pathetic, not to mention completely transparent, Jake.

if you think I am a incarnation of Jake report me.

And you are only mounting these pathetic personal attacks because your argument fails

My argument does not fail just because I call you a dumb ass, it's a fact just like it's a fact The Advocate's mascot is a young boy bent over & they advertised the sales of penetrable boy dolls with vibrating penises that ejaculate...they flew off the shelves!

And you don't help your argument with that avatar of yours, by the way.

Sil is 100% in her observation.

 

[Inevitable]

A simple statement to that is: why were the age limits in Sections 2 & 3 lined out?

They were lined out and new language with same age of consent was added in, so that the statute doesn't have cave-man sounding verbiage. This has been explained to you at least six time now in this thread, at this point we can only conclude you are either incredibly stupid or just stubbornly hanging on to what you know is a fail thread in a feeble attempt to save face.

For the nth time: there was no change in age of consent.

You made a fool of yourself with the original thread proving you didn't even understand your own topic, and now you're making an even bigger fool of yourself over and over by basically shouting "I'm too simple to understand how the text of that ends up" over and over.

No, silhouette is dreaming up fiction and then pretending it is fact to produce false propaganda to suit his/her goals. Basically, "fuck the truth, silhouette's agenda is moreimportant."

He/she projected some sexual fantasy onto my avatar. Mostly because he argument failed on epic levels. So he/she resorted to personal attacks.

Silhouette has been had the he/she is a bullshit artist.