An argument for criminalizing LGBT and transgender media

[fncceo]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can easily be changed

Try it.

 

[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.

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.

So does refrigeration, antibiotics, shaving and a host of other things.

Homosexuals are not going back in the closet, no matter how hard you tap your ruby slippers and wish.

 

[g5000]

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. - PubMed - NCBI

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

I stand corrected.

 

[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.

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.

So does refrigeration, antibiotics, shaving and a host of other things.

Homosexuals are not going back in the closet, no matter how hard you tap your ruby slippers and wish.

Were not talking about homosexuals, and the direct conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, no.

 

[fncceo]

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

Are you willing to live without cheeseburgers?

Also, driving on Saturday, wearing wool with linen, and pre-marital sex?

 

[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.

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

Shut down the media? So tell the press they can't talk about it?? Not only is that a very dangerous precedent to set, it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.

But what you are saying is being homosexual is not the problem, but the media talking about it is?? lol

 

[g5000]

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

If ANY media advocated for pedophilia, then there are laws already in place to shut them down.

You clearly just want to force gays back in the closet. You want to shut them up.

Get help.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

So does refrigeration, antibiotics, shaving and a host of other things.

Homosexuals are not going back in the closet, no matter how hard you tap your ruby slippers and wish.

Were not talking about homosexuals, and the direct conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, no.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

If someone is a pedophile, put them away for life. But you can't convict all homosexuals because a few have molested children. Far more straight males have molested children. Do we restrict the media talking about them?

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Are you willing to live without cheeseburgers?

Also, driving on Saturday, wearing wool with linen, and pre-marital sex?

Maybe we could make stonings for premarital sex legal?

 

[Questioner]

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

Are you willing to live without cheeseburgers?

Also, driving on Saturday, wearing wool with linen, and pre-marital sex?

Who's making an argument for Iron Age theocracy or monarchy here? Not me.

And I rarely eat cheeseburgers, if it's all the same to you.

 

[Questioner]

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

If ANY media advocated for pedophilia, then there are laws already in place to shut them down.

You clearly just want to force gays back in the closet. You want to shut them up.

Get help.

"Gays" associated with what I've described above? Yes.

 

[Questioner]

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

Are you willing to live without cheeseburgers?

Also, driving on Saturday, wearing wool with linen, and pre-marital sex?

Maybe we could make stonings for premarital sex legal?

Not sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women, likely underage - I suppose the state laws could use that information to track him down, or one of those cyber vigilante groups like "anonymous" could keep a record of that and do it themselves, I honestly wouldn't mind it.

Nor would I honestly mind it if the states banned the promotion of pre-marital sex as a lifestyle; arresting consenting adults? No. As how that would ultimately be identified and defined, I'm sure it would be tricky, but it would certainly be doable in theory.

 

[JGalt]

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

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

If that's the case, there should be no grounds for illegality for having sex with animals or prostitutes.

 

[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.

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.

never could happen but please, by all means show the class just how delusional you can be.

 

[g5000]

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

If ANY media advocated for pedophilia, then there are laws already in place to shut them down.

You clearly just want to force gays back in the closet. You want to shut them up.

Get help.

"Gays" associated with what I've described above? Yes.

Why would you outlaw gays' conspiracy theories but not Fox News or OAN or Infowars' conspiracy theories? What is the possible legal justification that could differentiate?

How about birthers like Trump? Send him to jail?

 

[fncceo]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

 

[Questioner]

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

If ANY media advocated for pedophilia, then there are laws already in place to shut them down.

You clearly just want to force gays back in the closet. You want to shut them up.

Get help.

"Gays" associated with what I've described above? Yes.

Why would you outlaw gays' conspiracy theories but not Fox News or OAN or Infowars' conspiracy theories? What is the possible legal justification?

How about birthers like Trump? Send him to jail?

No, the argument here is about advocating pedophilia, or worldviews potentially tolerant or pedophilia, or the marketing of dangerous ideologies and conspiracies at odds with the fabric of the Common Law system itself to children.

 

[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

 

[Questioner]

ot sure on that one, I met a pedophile once online who boasted about supposedly having sex with 80 women,

Anyone who boasts about having sex with 80 women, hasn't slept with 8.

Right, he was supposedly messing around with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter, and dumb enough to admit that.

 

[fncceo]

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

Are you willing to live without cheeseburgers?

Also, driving on Saturday, wearing wool with linen, and pre-marital sex?

Maybe we could make stonings for premarital sex legal?

Everyone woman I've ever slept with was stoned ...

To this day, the words, 'F'ck it, it's closing time', still arouse me.