Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"

Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.

But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

 

[Silhouette]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"

Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.

But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

You just keep dancing around that little cult issue, don't you.

Let's say there was a group of people who identified Jerry Sandusky as "representative of our socio-sexual group". Let's say they call themselves the Groobies. Let's say the Groobies wanted equal access to adoptable orphans as other people. And, let's say the Groobies had a lot of money and political influence. Should we elevate them to top-tier qualification to adopt kids?

The issue is that people who emulate and defend a child sex predator, even after just freshly reminded of his crimes, are not fit to raise up to the level of top-tier to adopt kids.

Pretty much common sense, wouldn't you say; to deny the "Groobies" access to kids?

 

[Seawytch]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"



Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.



But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

You just keep dancing around that little cult issue, don't you.



Let's say there was a group of people who identified Jerry Sandusky as "representative of our socio-sexual group". Let's say they call themselves the Groobies. Let's say the Groobies wanted equal access to adoptable orphans as other people. And, let's say the Groobies had a lot of money and political influence. Should we elevate them to top-tier qualification to adopt kids?



The issue is that people who emulate and defend a child sex predator, even after just freshly reminded of his crimes, are not fit to raise up to the level of top-tier to adopt kids.



Pretty much common sense, wouldn't you say; to deny the "Groobies" access to kids?

Do you stay up nights making this shit up in your head?

This "top-tier" one is new and interesting. A ridiculous Strawman, but oh so "fresh".

 

[Flopper]

And not accused by law enforcement, mind, but by internet amazin kreskins.

A broken law that endangered or harmed children is a broken law that endangered or harmed children. The federal and state statutes that require protection of children as a top priority of law give unusual leeway in merely suspecting a danger to children as a mandate to report it: instead of having proof as is the usual case.

As I said before: it is particularly disturbing that time and again you see gays defending and promoting Harvey Milk by sing-songing that he wasn't prosecuted for the crimes he openly admitted to doing to those boys. Remember, he was ensconced in San Franfreakshow that is spreading its cancerous tendrils all across that poor state and "across the nation and the world". Just because the Bay Area thinks a man shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes, doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees.

It would be like what happened with Jerry Sandusky. He was allowed continued access to those teen boys because even after someone saw him sodomizing a boy in the showers, they failed to report: which is a prosecutable offense. So as a result, that Sandusky phenomenon was allowed to flourish under wraps as more and more boys became emotionally damaged by his "unprosectued crimes" ...until someone FINALLY blew the whistle on him.

We just don't want to wait that long with the gay marriage/access-via-marriage-to-adopt-orphans situation. The law requires to err on the side of child protection.

I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today. However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.

Christians, Be Cautious! 50 Disgraced Christian Leaders

 

[Silhouette]

I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today. However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.

The best proof we have of Harvey Milk sodomizing the 16 year old minor orphan street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" and officiating as his father figure is Milk's good friend and gay journalist's biography of him. That and common knowledge at the time. Perhaps we should interview Dianne Feinstein since she knew Milk quite well?

This elevation of Harvey Milk to iconic status, the messiah essentially of the LGBT cult, didn't happen 40 years ago. The law enshrining him as such was passed only a few years ago and his commemorative stamp, complete wiht rainbow colored "USA" at the top was I believe just issued this month.

As to Seawytch's rant. Here is the low down on adoption and marriage. How it elevates one to top preference in adopting...*drum roll* orphaned kids..

Most adoption agencies consider specific qualifications in prospective parents. They consider age and income. And when it comes to marital status, they usually prefer married couples.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said agencies do that for good reason.

"I think it's legitimate for us to uphold the natural family as ideal, but to uphold the adopted family with a married mother and father for children who do not have the blessing of being raised by their natural parents," he told CBN News.

Sprigg also believes that kids receive huge benefits from being raised in a two parent family over living with a single parent.

"It is important for children to have the role modeling of the male, female relationship that they receive from living with a married couple," he explained. "They learn how a man treats a woman and a woman treats a man. They learn what that relationship is like." Singles Adoption: A Tough Question for the Church - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Occasionally, once in awhile I get my facts crosswired. But it isn't often. And in this case particulary it is spot on.

Marriage elevates a person in most adoption agencies to top-tier status to adopt. There's the access for the Harvey Milkers to get at orphans.

And what do the faithful of the LGBT cult do when you confront them with the facts of Harvey Milk's celebrated sexual legacy? They defend him, make excuses for him. They say "it was 40 years ago, why worry?" or "the age of consent should be lowered".

And that, objectively, presents a problem with gay marriage. And as you know by now if you've been following my posts or my signature, if you suspect children may come to harm you must report that suspicion. You do not need proof in this rare type of prosecution. You only need to suspect it and err on the side of protecting children.

Now, go ahead and argue to SCOTUS that you should err instead on the side of Harvey Milkers getting what they want instead of children being protected. I dare you, no, I double-dare you to argue that...lol..

And, good luck!

 

[Barb]

False argument, except for some sense in "hat you do not see is an equitable distribution, in fact, far greater percentages of the homosexual community, abusing children sexually, then their hetero cousins"



Your problem with the statement is that the numbers you assert are questionable and cannot be emphatically pin downed.



But if we say homosexuals can't marry and adopt because they abuse children, then by that logic we need to end heterosexual marriage now.

You just keep dancing around that little cult issue, don't you.



Let's say there was a group of people who identified Jerry Sandusky as "representative of our socio-sexual group". Let's say they call themselves the Groobies. Let's say the Groobies wanted equal access to adoptable orphans as other people. And, let's say the Groobies had a lot of money and political influence. Should we elevate them to top-tier qualification to adopt kids?



The issue is that people who emulate and defend a child sex predator, even after just freshly reminded of his crimes, are not fit to raise up to the level of top-tier to adopt kids.



Pretty much common sense, wouldn't you say; to deny the "Groobies" access to kids?

Do you stay up nights making this shit up in your head?

This "top-tier" one is new and interesting. A ridiculous Strawman, but oh so "fresh".

particularly egregious:

Milk sodomized a minor orphaned teen, among many others like him, while officiating as his father.

Where to start? to address the first lie: the kid was of age , and the second: even HE was the youngest, and the third: right there in the courtroom?

About that, anyway - Milk did that to help Jack in a situation where he needed an older family member and couldn't ask anyone at home because his father beat him - the reason he ran away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What’s particularly egregious is Silhouette's ignorance as to the utter irrelevance of this subject to the issue at hand, where a single, anecdotal, unsubstantiated accusation concerning a particular individual is in no way representative of the gay community as a whole, and consequently carries no legal weight whatsoever.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gay marriage is inevitable. And only religious progressives believe in Government controlling our sex lives as marriage. Marriage is a Government issue for tax reasons only, get rid of the deductions and taxes and there is no reason for Government to be involved in a religious matter.

Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. PERIOD.

Not according to the laws in close to a score of states...and growing rapidly.

Your religion may have a different view but it is of no relevance to the topic.

That's true, but the laws in that score of states, are based upon subjective nonsense. We know this because the laws of nature say that marriage is one male and one female, joining together.

Your rationalizing that because its legal, its right. Historically that's been a HUGE mistake.

Ya may want to turn to one of your black friends and ask him about that. I expect that he (or she) may have some information you'll want to hear, within the scope of that subject.

If ya don't have any black friends, maybe you have a Jewish friend. They've had some problems with that system of reasoning, from time to time, over the last 5 thousand years.

My friend isn't here at the moment, but he was born after his mother, who was a highly motivated, upwardly mobile executive, decided that she'd abort one of her babies, spent a ridiculous amount of money getting it done. She felt that two babies was more than she could handle and that it would be bad for her image as a hard nosed executive.

It was all perfectly legal. She's dead now, committed suicide from the guilt of having killed her child's twin. Adding to the horror, she succumbed to it, the day after his 5th birthday. Left a note begging him to forgive her.

He's a great guy, but I would wager that he'll suicide at some point. It's all quite tragic really. But perfectly legal.

People these days, particularly those caught up in pop culture, seem to have absolutely no sense of morality.

Now I blame human nature. We're a weak species, prone toward the endless search for the easier way. Hey! They've built an entire political system around that very idea. So, whatta ya gonna do?

Right?


Anywho.

Learn to reason soundly, friend, it'll help move the conversation along.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. PERIOD.

Not according to the laws in close to a score of states...and growing rapidly.

Your religion may have a different view but it is of no relevance to the topic.

That's true, but the laws in that score of states, are based upon subjective nonsense. We know this because the laws of nature say that marriage is one male and one female, joining together.

Your rationalizing that because its legal, its right. Historically that's been a HUGE mistake.

Ya may want to turn to one of your black friends and ask him about that. I expect that he (or she) may have some information you'll want to hear, within the scope of that subject.

If ya don't have any black friends, maybe you have a Jewish friend. They've had some problems with that system of reasoning, from time to time, over the last 5 thousand years.

My friend isn't here at the moment, but he was born after his mother, who was a highly motivated, upwardly mobile executive, decided that she'd abort one of her babies, spent a ridiculous amount of money getting it done. It was all perfectly legal. She's dead now, committed suicide from the guilt of having killed her child. She did so the day after his 5th birthday. Left a note begging him to forgive her.

He's a great guy, but I would wager that he'll suicide at some point. It's all quite tragic really.

People these days, particularly those caught up in pop culture, seem to have absolutely no sense of morality.

Now I blame human nature. We're a weak species, prone toward the endless search for the easier way. Hey! They've built an entire political system around that very idea. So, whatta ya gonna do?

Right?


Anywho.

Learn to reason soundly, friend, it'll help move the conversation along.

Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality?

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.

 

[Flopper]

I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today. However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.

The best proof we have of Harvey Milk sodomizing the 16 year old minor orphan street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" and officiating as his father figure is Milk's good friend and gay journalist's biography of him. That and common knowledge at the time. Perhaps we should interview Dianne Feinstein since she knew Milk quite well?

This elevation of Harvey Milk to iconic status, the messiah essentially of the LGBT cult, didn't happen 40 years ago. The law enshrining him as such was passed only a few years ago and his commemorative stamp, complete wiht rainbow colored "USA" at the top was I believe just issued this month.

As to Seawytch's rant. Here is the low down on adoption and marriage. How it elevates one to top preference in adopting...*drum roll* orphaned kids..

Most adoption agencies consider specific qualifications in prospective parents. They consider age and income. And when it comes to marital status, they usually prefer married couples.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said agencies do that for good reason.

"I think it's legitimate for us to uphold the natural family as ideal, but to uphold the adopted family with a married mother and father for children who do not have the blessing of being raised by their natural parents," he told CBN News.

Sprigg also believes that kids receive huge benefits from being raised in a two parent family over living with a single parent.

"It is important for children to have the role modeling of the male, female relationship that they receive from living with a married couple," he explained. "They learn how a man treats a woman and a woman treats a man. They learn what that relationship is like." Singles Adoption: A Tough Question for the Church - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Occasionally, once in awhile I get my facts crosswired. But it isn't often. And in this case particulary it is spot on.

Marriage elevates a person in most adoption agencies to top-tier status to adopt. There's the access for the Harvey Milkers to get at orphans.

And what do the faithful of the LGBT cult do when you confront them with the facts of Harvey Milk's celebrated sexual legacy? They defend him, make excuses for him. They say "it was 40 years ago, why worry?" or "the age of consent should be lowered".

And that, objectively, presents a problem with gay marriage. And as you know by now if you've been following my posts or my signature, if you suspect children may come to harm you must report that suspicion. You do not need proof in this rare type of prosecution. You only need to suspect it and err on the side of protecting children.

Now, go ahead and argue to SCOTUS that you should err instead on the side of Harvey Milkers getting what they want instead of children being protected. I dare you, no, I double-dare you to argue that...lol..

And, good luck!

Harvey Milk is honored today not because he was accused of sodomizing a teen which you seem to believe but because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office.

 

[BillyZane]

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.

Putting civil rights up for a ballot question is one of the worst things you can do to a group of people you know.

What do you think would happen if the people of Alabama were left to decide the fate of the African American communities in the 1960's?

did you know that every single right protected by the COTUS was in fact VOTED ON? Making your claim that we shouldn't decide which rights should be protected by votes ridiculous.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good that the Supreme Court put a halt to this. The solution here is to ask the residents of Utah during the midterms later this year. Let the residents of Utah decide the direction of their state.

Putting civil rights up for a ballot question is one of the worst things you can do to a group of people you know.

What do you think would happen if the people of Alabama were left to decide the fate of the African American communities in the 1960's?

did you know that every single right protected by the COTUS was in fact VOTED ON? Making your claim that we shouldn't decide which rights should be protected by votes ridiculous.

Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama (amongst other States) voted to ban interracial marriages, that vote was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967.


>>>>

What does race have to do with LGBTQs or the cult of Harvey Milk wanting to marry? Race has as much to do with polygamy as LGBTQs; which is to say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Plus, there's that terrible snag that the messiah of the church of LGBT was a pederast who buggered orphaned teens on drugs for his jollies. He even officiated as "father figure" to at least one of those boys; who later committed suicide on Harvey Milk's birthday. The faithful line up to defend him when reminded of his sexual legacy and child victims.

Letting this church access orphans via marriage is a poor idea. And as luck would have it, is against child endangerment laws and statutes. Those statutes require people report just suspicions of potential harm, without the requirement of a legal conviction. So here I am, reporting. As required of me by law...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues hung up on the cult nonsense.

Her logic fails: if she wants homos to not marry because they might abuse children they adopt, then the same applies to heteroes.

There is way her logic can escape that fallacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not according to the laws in close to a score of states...and growing rapidly.

Your religion may have a different view but it is of no relevance to the topic.

That's true, but the laws in that score of states, are based upon subjective nonsense. We know this because the laws of nature say that marriage is one male and one female, joining together.

Your rationalizing that because its legal, its right. Historically that's been a HUGE mistake.

Ya may want to turn to one of your black friends and ask him about that. I expect that he (or she) may have some information you'll want to hear, within the scope of that subject.

If ya don't have any black friends, maybe you have a Jewish friend. They've had some problems with that system of reasoning, from time to time, over the last 5 thousand years.

My friend isn't here at the moment, but he was born after his mother, who was a highly motivated, upwardly mobile executive, decided that she'd abort one of her babies, spent a ridiculous amount of money getting it done. It was all perfectly legal. She's dead now, committed suicide from the guilt of having killed her child. She did so the day after his 5th birthday. Left a note begging him to forgive her.

He's a great guy, but I would wager that he'll suicide at some point. It's all quite tragic really.

People these days, particularly those caught up in pop culture, seem to have absolutely no sense of morality.

Now I blame human nature. We're a weak species, prone toward the endless search for the easier way. Hey! They've built an entire political system around that very idea. So, whatta ya gonna do?

Right?


Anywho.

Learn to reason soundly, friend, it'll help move the conversation along.

Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality?

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

 

[Seawytch]

That's true, but the laws in that score of states, are based upon subjective nonsense. We know this because the laws of nature say that marriage is one male and one female, joining together.

Your rationalizing that because its legal, its right. Historically that's been a HUGE mistake.

Ya may want to turn to one of your black friends and ask him about that. I expect that he (or she) may have some information you'll want to hear, within the scope of that subject.

If ya don't have any black friends, maybe you have a Jewish friend. They've had some problems with that system of reasoning, from time to time, over the last 5 thousand years.

My friend isn't here at the moment, but he was born after his mother, who was a highly motivated, upwardly mobile executive, decided that she'd abort one of her babies, spent a ridiculous amount of money getting it done. It was all perfectly legal. She's dead now, committed suicide from the guilt of having killed her child. She did so the day after his 5th birthday. Left a note begging him to forgive her.

He's a great guy, but I would wager that he'll suicide at some point. It's all quite tragic really.

People these days, particularly those caught up in pop culture, seem to have absolutely no sense of morality.

Now I blame human nature. We're a weak species, prone toward the endless search for the easier way. Hey! They've built an entire political system around that very idea. So, whatta ya gonna do?

Right?


Anywho.

Learn to reason soundly, friend, it'll help move the conversation along.

Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality?

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

 

[Geaux4it]

Ironic post is ironic. You posted nothing but your subjective opinion with no basis in fact and I'm the one that needs to learn to reason soundly? Seriously?

What does abortion have to do with marriage equality?

All my black, Jewish, and even Muslim friends support marriage equality...like the rest of America.

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

So you're saying that because something is declared legal, it is therefore morally sound?

That by virtue of it having been declared law by some government edict, it serves justice?

Again folks, please take note of what relativism looks like.

These people are desperate to be 'normal'. And they're prepared to do ANYTHING to get there, except reason objectively and discipline their behavior to activities that comport with the laws of nature.

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux

A chicken can't consent to a legal contract.

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.

 

[Geaux4it]

"These people"?

Marriage equality IS moral.

BTW...your're on the losing side in the "morality" debate too.

Gallup: Majority Say Gay/Lesbian Relations Morally Acceptable

I don't care if 'these people' want to marry a chicken, however, if they want the benefits of such union, then I have to draw the line.

-Geaux

A chicken can't consent to a legal contract.

You can draw all the lines you want to, but legally married gays do get the benefits no matter how you scribble.

Meh, that's fine. IMO, just adds to the list of enormous weights dragging down the human race

-Geaux

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I seriously doubt that a reported but unproven act of a gay man 40 years ago endangers any children today. However, using your line of reasoning, it might be appropriate to ban Christian marriages to protect the children since there have been a number of arrests and convictions of Christians leaders who have not just been accused but arrested and convicted of molesting, sodomizing, and raping children.

The best proof we have of Harvey Milk sodomizing the 16 year old minor orphan street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" and officiating as his father figure is Milk's good friend and gay journalist's biography of him. That and common knowledge at the time. Perhaps we should interview Dianne Feinstein since she knew Milk quite well?

This elevation of Harvey Milk to iconic status, the messiah essentially of the LGBT cult, didn't happen 40 years ago. The law enshrining him as such was passed only a few years ago and his commemorative stamp, complete wiht rainbow colored "USA" at the top was I believe just issued this month.

As to Seawytch's rant. Here is the low down on adoption and marriage. How it elevates one to top preference in adopting...*drum roll* orphaned kids..

Most adoption agencies consider specific qualifications in prospective parents. They consider age and income. And when it comes to marital status, they usually prefer married couples.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said agencies do that for good reason.

"I think it's legitimate for us to uphold the natural family as ideal, but to uphold the adopted family with a married mother and father for children who do not have the blessing of being raised by their natural parents," he told CBN News.

Sprigg also believes that kids receive huge benefits from being raised in a two parent family over living with a single parent.

"It is important for children to have the role modeling of the male, female relationship that they receive from living with a married couple," he explained. "They learn how a man treats a woman and a woman treats a man. They learn what that relationship is like." Singles Adoption: A Tough Question for the Church - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Occasionally, once in awhile I get my facts crosswired. But it isn't often. And in this case particulary it is spot on.

Marriage elevates a person in most adoption agencies to top-tier status to adopt. There's the access for the Harvey Milkers to get at orphans.

And what do the faithful of the LGBT cult do when you confront them with the facts of Harvey Milk's celebrated sexual legacy? They defend him, make excuses for him. They say "it was 40 years ago, why worry?" or "the age of consent should be lowered".

And that, objectively, presents a problem with gay marriage. And as you know by now if you've been following my posts or my signature, if you suspect children may come to harm you must report that suspicion. You do not need proof in this rare type of prosecution. You only need to suspect it and err on the side of protecting children.

Now, go ahead and argue to SCOTUS that you should err instead on the side of Harvey Milkers getting what they want instead of children being protected. I dare you, no, I double-dare you to argue that...lol..

And, good luck!

Harvey Milk is honored today not because he was accused of sodomizing a teen which you seem to believe but because he was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office.

Yes Milk was a pedophile.

So was the Father of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, Alfred Kinsey.

But unlike Milk, Kinsey molested THOUSANDS of Children, Infants and toddlers. And he did so using FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.

As a Eugenicist, Kinsey studied human sexuality, declared it a discipline of "SCIENCE!", and once established as an authority in the field, his 'Institute', declared sexual-abnormality to be 'perfectly normal'.

Kinsey-ites, have literally declared that 'some children may actually benefit from Adult/child sexual relations'.

The entire advocacy to normalize sexual-abnormality is a lie, from soup to nuts.

But it rests in Socialism, which rests in Relativism, which rejects objectivity, which is essential to truth, trust and morality.

So that serves reason.