First Gay Marriage, Then Pedophilia

[deltex1]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

If you're a 12 year old boy who has the authority to declare he is a girl, why can't he declare he is a 20 year old girl...and there you go.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

Good point.

It's just like if you allow people to own guns, they'll automatically want to murder people.

Your local priest touched you a lot when you were a kid, right?

I was jewish, so it was my Rabbi who touched me. Where were you in the mid 80s?

 

[G.T.]

Like rally....im soo00o0o worried gazzz...if we allow teh gays to marry then.........**** babies!

 

[The Rabbi]

Good point.

It's just like if you allow people to own guns, they'll automatically want to murder people.

Your local priest touched you a lot when you were a kid, right?

I was jewish, so it was my Rabbi who touched me. Where were you in the mid 80s?

So in addition to being a fool you also lie. No shocker there. But at least we can account for your hostility in general.

 

[G.T.]

Your local priest touched you a lot when you were a kid, right?

I was jewish, so it was my Rabbi who touched me. Where were you in the mid 80s?

So in addition to being a fool you also lie. No shocker there. But at least we can account for your hostility in general.

Your sense of humor has made zero vaginas wet.

No matter how drunk or sober.

 

[The Rabbi]

I was jewish, so it was my Rabbi who touched me. Where were you in the mid 80s?

So in addition to being a fool you also lie. No shocker there. But at least we can account for your hostility in general.

Your sense of humor has made zero vaginas wet.

No matter how drunk or sober.

Thanks. I think.

 

[Redfish]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

Nope. No more than legal hetero marriage did. But you keep on flapping them lips....you sound just like the anti-interracial marriage people did in the 60s & 70s.

I have been consistent on this from the beginning. When I said all forms of marriage, it was limiting it to consenting adults, I should have made that clear. I was not talking about animals or kids.

interracial and interfaith marriage is not a valid comparison to gay marriage. those involved a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

So let me try again, are you opposed to bigamy and polygamy being legal? yes or no?

If yes, how do you refute the legal defense that will be raised using gay marriage as a precedent? what do you say when the bigamists and polygamists claim discrimination because of who they love and how they choose to live?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It always frightens me a little...the posters here who cannot or will not distinguish the clear differences between consenting adults and forcing one self upon a child or animal who cannot give consent...ever.

Lol. Animals can't give consent. It's your word against his baa.

 

[Redfish]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

why are you confused? its a simple question. how do you respond to their claim of discrimination?

 

[Redfish]

It always frightens me a little...the posters here who cannot or will not distinguish the clear differences between consenting adults and forcing one self upon a child or animal who cannot give consent...ever.

Lol. Animals can't give consent. It's your word against his baa.

I hope it would be her baa.

 

[G.T.]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

why are you confused? its a simple question. how do you respond to their claim of discrimination?

its stupidity

polygamy has no rational basis for being illegal in a free society except for the state benefits part being the only rationale

it doesn't matter if I personally like polygamy or not

I like fast and loose rules


sometimes

on Tuesdays specially

 

[The Rabbi]

why are you confused? its a simple question. how do you respond to their claim of discrimination?

its stupidity

polygamy has no rational basis for being illegal in a free society except for the state benefits part being the only rationale

it doesn't matter if I personally like polygamy or not

I like fast and loose rules


sometimes

on Tuesdays specially

There ya go. Polygamy down. What's next? Oh yeah, pedophilia. Just as predicted. There is no rational basis for an age of consent being 18. Ot 16. Or any other arbitrary number.

 

[G.T.]

It always frightens me a little...the posters here who cannot or will not distinguish the clear differences between consenting adults and forcing one self upon a child or animal who cannot give consent...ever.

Lol. Animals can't give consent. It's your word against his baa.

I hope it would be her baa.

redfish responding to trout

it sounds like two trucker buddies on the mic or some shit

 

[G.T.]

why are you confused? its a simple question. how do you respond to their claim of discrimination?

its stupidity

polygamy has no rational basis for being illegal in a free society except for the state benefits part being the only rationale

it doesn't matter if I personally like polygamy or not

I like fast and loose rules


sometimes

on Tuesdays specially

There ya go. Polygamy down. What's next? Oh yeah, pedophilia. Just as predicted. There is no rational basis for an age of consent being 18. Ot 16. Or any other arbitrary number.

no.

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

 

[ron4342]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

It is quite apparent that if anyone doesn't know the truth, it is rabbi!!
This has been another "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" post by rabbi.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeah yeah the fudgpackers and carpet munchers will loudly tell us there is absolutely nothing in common between these two. But everyone knows the truth: sexual deviance is sexual deviance. And the arguments legitimating one are the same for all of them.
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL | UK | News | Daily Express

If you're a 12 year old boy who has the authority to declare he is a girl, why can't he declare he is a 20 year old girl...and there you go.

Or a 45 year old man declaring he is a ten year old girl. You might have meant this in some sort of humor, but no, it's real. It's called transageism, like transgenderism.

Jezebel Headline: ?Female Adult Baby Wears Diapers 24/7? | GenderTrender

Urban Dictionary: Transage


1.




Transage

People who are a certain age, like all people.
However, they are as a person a different age, in most cases older.
Sometimes, though, their true age is younger. For example, Micheal Jackson.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol. Animals can't give consent. It's your word against his baa.

I hope it would be her baa.

redfish responding to trout

it sounds like two trucker buddies on the mic or some shit

No, just juxtaposing bod's comment on animal consent.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you libs and fags can minimize this all you want, but you are wrong.

once gay marriage becomes legal it will set a valid precedent for all forms of "marriage".

All the lawyer has to say is " my clients are being discriminated against because of who they love and want to live with and commit to, and I claim the gay marriage laws as precedent because they are based on exactly the same premise"

Its coming, the ACLU is gearing up.

what will be your legal argument against it, libs?

Nope. No more than legal hetero marriage did. But you keep on flapping them lips....you sound just like the anti-interracial marriage people did in the 60s & 70s.

I have been consistent on this from the beginning. When I said all forms of marriage, it was limiting it to consenting adults, I should have made that clear. I was not talking about animals or kids.

interracial and interfaith marriage is not a valid comparison to gay marriage. those involved a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

So let me try again, are you opposed to bigamy and polygamy being legal? yes or no?

If yes, how do you refute the legal defense that will be raised using gay marriage as a precedent? what do you say when the bigamists and polygamists claim discrimination because of who they love and how they choose to live?

My personal opinion is that as long as no fraud is involved, I don't care. If all are consenting adults and all parties are aware of what is going on, then I personally don't care.

 

[Silhouette]

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

 

[G.T.]

pedophilia HAS rational basis for being illegal.

the others do not.

Given the upcoming Harvey Milk v Utah case, what rational basis is there to deny polyamorous people from marrying the people they love? You know, if they are consenting adults? And please, don't reply "because polygamy is illegal" because well, so were a lot of other things that have rapidly been forced as "legal" on the people in just the last decade...

did you read my post wrong hunn hunny?