An argument for criminalizing LGBT and transgender media

[Questioner]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

 

[mdk]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Shut it down, and just classify all LGBT groups and cults which promote the ideas above as criminal or terrorist organizations for all I care. Profile them, contact their employers, and have them fired from their jobs for peddling their snake oil to children.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no valid reason to criminalize the legal activities of consenting adults.

You thinking it is "yucky" is not valid grounds.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Easily changed?? Really?

Have you looked at the requirements for a constitutional amendment?

 

[playtime]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

 

[Questioner]

There is no valid reason to criminalize the legal activities of consenting adults.

You thinking it is "yucky" is not valid grounds.

I'd argue the worldview associated with said cult or fringe movement should be criminalized, the behavior itself supposedly existing? I'm not bored enough to care.

 

[007]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society. Homosexuality should be shunned.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Repeal the 1st Amendment, simple as that. Bye bye, frozen peaches and the moral degenerates so heavily invested in the myth of "freez peach" to begin with, when they barely produce anything even recognizable as "speech" to begin with, nor would have any idea what this Amendment actually meant in practice, were it enforced according to some originalist interpretation, such as not prohibiting "fighting words" online, or offline.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society.

Pity you can't make laws based solely on biblical laws.

If the federal courts would not allow a 2 ton granite monument, with the 10 Commandments on it, to be the sole decoration in the Alabama State Supreme Court, they are certainly not going to create an entire set of laws based on the Bible.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

Easily changed?? Really?

Have you looked at the requirements for a constitutional amendment?

Honestly, just ignoring it altogether and doing it outright by fiat, rather than bothering with legalities would be my cup of tea lately.

And if the people riot? Have the police forces shoot them with live ammunition. Problem solved in the blink of an eye.

 

[007]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Repeal the 1st Amendment, simple as that. Bye bye, frozen peaches and the moral degenerates so heavily invested in the myth of "freez peach" to begin with, when they barely produce anything even recognizable as "speech" to begin with, nor would have any idea what this Amendment actually meant in practice, were it enforced according to some originalist interpretation, such as not prohibiting "fighting words" online, or offline.

What?

 

[g5000]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

Apparently, tard, you don't know that most child molesters are heterosexual males.

You are sick in the head. Get help.

As for banning media for "conspiracy theories"...BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Boy that's rich! Fox News and OAN would have to be shut down immediately.

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society.

Pity you can't make laws based solely on biblical laws.

If the federal courts would not allow a 2 ton granite monument, with the 10 Commandments on it, to be the sole decoration in the Alabama State Supreme Court, they are certainly not going to create an entire set of laws based on the Bible.

The Common Law system is more informed by the Bible and older legal systems which it developed from than it is by other beliefs and notions, I will say that much.

 

[007]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

The constitution can NOT, be EASILY, changed.

However, to the OP, yes, homosexuality and it's all it's perverted derivatives are all Satanic in nature. The Bible warns against such disgusting things, and they shouldn't have any place in a normal, moral society.

Pity you can't make laws based solely on biblical laws.

If the federal courts would not allow a 2 ton granite monument, with the 10 Commandments on it, to be the sole decoration in the Alabama State Supreme Court, they are certainly not going to create an entire set of laws based on the Bible.

Mankind can't regulate itself. It will digress into a hell hole, as is it's obvious path.

Not to mention that homosexuality goes against the very grain of nature itself.

 

[Questioner]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

Apparently, tard, you don't know that most child molesters are heterosexual males.

You are sick in the head. Get help.

As for banning media for "conspiracy theories"...BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Boy that's rich! Fox News and OAN would have to be shut down immediately.

I'm talking about worldview, not criminal cases. The worldviews I mentioned above being marketed to children is a dangerous innovation and should be eliminated, predicated on a conspiracy theory which is against the very Fabric of the Common Law and its legal philosophy itself.

I don't care about Fox News or OAN.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Repeal the 1st Amendment, simple as that. Bye bye, frozen peaches and the moral degenerates so heavily invested in the myth of "freez peach" to begin with, when they barely produce anything even recognizable as "speech" to begin with, nor would have any idea what this Amendment actually meant in practice, were it enforced according to some originalist interpretation, such as not prohibiting "fighting words" online, or offline.

Simple as that?? Really? Do you think you can get the votes necessary to repeal the 1st amendment??

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You want to remove that, just so you can legally arrest gays?? LMAO!! Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

 

[007]

I believe we could make a sound argument for criminalizing LGBT or transgender media, including social media on the following grounds:

1. Promotion of conspiracy theories - the "trans" narrative is based on a mythical history and conspiracy theory, in which "trans people" supposedly had a "sacred status" in ancient cultures, only to be repressed by civilization - in reality, this is sketchy if not untrue, and it often directly attacks subjects such as biology or evolutionary psychology, as well as our society's institutions such as the Common Law system itself, which are built and founded on the notions that sex and gender are innate or genetic in origin.

2. Association with pedophilia and sexual deviancy - while not all people affiliated with it are pedophiles, the LGBT subculture or fringe movement as a whole has had a documented history of association with pro-pedophilia groups (e.x. IGLA's association with NAMBLA back in the 1990s), as well as being tolerant of worldviews which are, at least potentially tolerant of pedophilia or which advocate "libertine" sexuality in general, possibly including bestiality, incest, and other degenerate sexual preferences, which, on the whole, civilization's manifesto as per the common law and its theorists is not predicated on, much as it isn't violence or fueding - something which our Common Law system is against as a worldview, potentially one being promoted to children as a lifestyle.

Based on this, I believe the legal systems of the states' as well as Britain or other nations under the Common Law system would have a sound case of banning or criminalizing these views via the mass media, as well as arresting or imprisoning those who promote them - potentially under state or national obscenity laws.

Apparently, tard, you don't know that most child molesters are heterosexual males.

You are sick in the head. Get help.

As for banning media for "conspiracy theories"...BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Boy that's rich! Fox News and OAN would have to be shut down immediately.

Nope, that's a lie.

If the number of child molesters and pedophiles are AVERAGED OUT, there are FAR more homo molesters and peds than heterosexuals.

 

[Gdjjr]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

That's the trade off when you criminalize behavior you don't approve of-

 

[Questioner]

There is no sound argument when you want to wipe your ass with the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed, as well as rendered culturally irrelevant under the changing legal whims and tides.

As far as Britain is concerned, I believe that they don't have to bother with Constitutional shenanigans like "freeze peach" and the misinterpretations thereof - at least in the sense that Americans so, nor other Commonwealth nations, so shutting down said media on a national basis should be a much easier legal feat than it sadly would be here.

the constitution can be added to because it is a living document; but it cannot be changed.

Repeal the 1st Amendment, simple as that. Bye bye, frozen peaches and the moral degenerates so heavily invested in the myth of "freez peach" to begin with, when they barely produce anything even recognizable as "speech" to begin with, nor would have any idea what this Amendment actually meant in practice, were it enforced according to some originalist interpretation, such as not prohibiting "fighting words" online, or offline.

Simple as that?? Really? Do you think you can get the votes necessary to repeal the 1st amendment??

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You want to remove that, just so you can legally arrest gays?? LMAO!! Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

I could care less about what "gays" do in private - I would merely shut down the media in question and its dangerous rhetoric