Homosexual declarations of children of homosexuals brings gay lifestyle into question..

[BlackSand]

pimping children?

in what way?

Careful there ...
All I did was suggest there is a decent chance the kid escapes the mortal combat between fundamentalists and the militant LGBT movement ...
Regarding how they view his gender compliance issues ... And who can screw him up the worst.

The next thing you know ... They'll try to have you locked up and throw away the key ...
For violating the sickest things they can think up.

.​

 

[koshergrl]

Except the reams and reams and tomes and tomes of research showing that a boy not having a father or a girl not having a mother for life is deleterious to them. Just that. And that uniquely of all parenting situations, "gay marrieds" possess a contract they share with prospective children that guarantees them the absence of a father or mother under their roof for life.

Just that. Same sex marriage actually, truly, provenly, and proximally hurts children for the duration of their entire lives; using a contract no less. That is illegal also per contract laws where both adults and children share vital benefits. See Obergefell Opinion page 15 for details; and the Infancy Doctrine.. Fun fact, children's interests in the contract re: their stated benefits and shared-status, was not separately briefed to the court in Obergefell. That means the USSC in Obergefell did not follow law in rendering its decision.

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

How do you agree on a standard of morality with people who find the whole idea of a standard of morality offensive?

aka every pervert and criminal to ever walk the earth.

 

[koshergrl]

It is stunning to me that anyone can look at the complex, complicated, difficult job of effective parenting and raising a sane, functional, productive human being, which is incredibly hard to do even when you have a mother and father working at it together, and just casually decide that it's no big hairy deal if you simply subtract one of them from the equation. Meh. It's like looking at the schematics for building a nuclear reactor, and then deciding that the lead shielding isn't necessary.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

 

[Auld Phart]

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

and my worldview is the *normal* one.

Yes, YOUR 'worldview'.
not everyones

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

illegal?

Where?

Got a link to the law?

 

[koshergrl]

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

and my worldview is the *normal* one.

Yes, YOUR 'worldview'.
not everyones

Yes that's my point. Pedophiles exist. Their existence doesn't impart morality.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

illegal?

Where?



Got a link to the law?

Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to aschild sexual abuse images.Jul 25, 2017
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice

 

[flacaltenn]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

 

[Auld Phart]

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

and my worldview is the *normal* one.

Yes, YOUR 'worldview'.
not everyones

Yes that's my point. Pedophiles exist. Their existence doesn't impart morality.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

illegal?

Where?



Got a link to the law?

Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to aschild sexual abuse images.Jul 25, 2017
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice

you're labeling it as child pornography now?

Feel free to try that in a court of law.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No kidding.

My family bought into that feel good the devil be damned marriage is just a piece of paper single women have a right to raise their kids alone bs that was pushed on our society during the 60s and 80s...and it decimated it. There is a reason we celebrate and support traditional family values..and it's because children in traditional families do better. That's the beginning and end of it. That isn't to say there isn't the occasional non traditional family that doesn't produce an amazing set of kids..but for the most part, homosexual families and single parent families are poorer, are more dysfuctional in every way, and have children who suffer for their selfish decisions for their entire lives.

Prove it!! Put up or shut up.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

Really? Because they used to dress up little boys in dresses back in the 1800's.
It was a custom called "breeching". Prior to a boy being allowed to wear pants, they were generally dressed up in gowns. And, if you don't like what Wiki has to say about it, Google "breeching" for yourself.

Breeching (boys) - Wikipedia

Breeching was the occasion when a small boy was first dressed in breeches or trousers. From the mid-16th century[1] until the late 19th or early 20th century, young boys in the Western world were unbreeched and wore gowns or dresses until an age that varied between two and eight.[2] Various forms of relatively subtle differences usually enabled others to tell little boys from little girls, in codes that modern art historians are able to understand.


Breeching was an important rite of passage in the life of a boy, looked forward to with much excitement, and often celebrated with a small party. It often marked the point at which the father became more involved with the raising of a boy.[3]

 

[Syriusly]

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

Until all parties can agree on a standard of "morality" y'all gonna be spending a lot of time blue in the face... the word 'futile' comes to mind

There it is...I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

The people who think that just because they think it's cool means it's *okay*..and who think that diversity demands that we accommodate all lifestyles including the ones that exploit, damage, and molest children...are criminals.

Just because you like it doesn't mean we have to accommodate it. Just because you don't agree with decency and morality doesn't mean you get to molest, exploit and sexualize children.

Get it?

I'm sorry, the entire world recognizes that dressing up children in sexually provacative clothing and having them lisp about their *sexuality* is immoral, depraved, and criminal.

maybe your, (very small) world does.

No, pedosexuals are still the minority, thank goodness, and my worldview is the *normal* one.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

and my worldview is the *normal* one.

Yes, YOUR 'worldview'.
not everyones

Yes that's my point. Pedophiles exist. Their existence doesn't impart morality.

In case you missed it..dressing up little boys to look like sexualized little girls and parading them in front of faggots is sick, twisted, and illegal.

illegal?

Where?



Got a link to the law?

Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to aschild sexual abuse images.Jul 25, 2017
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice
Child Pornography | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice

As always- if you know of any examples of child pornography posted here at USMB please report it to the authorities immediately.

IF you are claiming something is child pornography but you are not reporting it to law enforcement you either:
a) Don't give a flying **** about the child or
b) You are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Well if it was 'choosing a gender' for a child before they could even comprehend their behaviors or preferences a whole lot of parents of transgender adults whose parents tried to force them not to be transgender.

taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Families have been taking kids to nudist colonies for decades- and while its not my cup of tea- not sure why you think that nudity by itself would be a form of pornography.

Certainly we are in no disagreement that adults should not be exposing children to pornography- but a nude adult with no sexual context is not pornography.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm wondering if Kosher Twit thinks that the custom of breeching from the 16th to the 19th century where they dressed up boys in dresses is "child pornography" as well? Especially since there are pictures of little boys dressed up in a gown or dress?

 

[Auld Phart]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Well if it was 'choosing a gender' for a child before they could even comprehend their behaviors or preferences a whole lot of parents of transgender adults whose parents tried to force them not to be transgender.

taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Families have been taking kids to nudist colonies for decades- and while its not my cup of tea- not sure why you think that nudity by itself would be a form of pornography.

Certainly we are in no disagreement that adults should not be exposing children to pornography- but a nude adult with no sexual context is not pornography.

at one time, this was considered a cute famil;y picture, brought out to embarrass prospective spouses during courting rituals.

PC has turned it into child pornograghy

 

[ABikerSailor]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Well if it was 'choosing a gender' for a child before they could even comprehend their behaviors or preferences a whole lot of parents of transgender adults whose parents tried to force them not to be transgender.

taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Families have been taking kids to nudist colonies for decades- and while its not my cup of tea- not sure why you think that nudity by itself would be a form of pornography.

Certainly we are in no disagreement that adults should not be exposing children to pornography- but a nude adult with no sexual context is not pornography.

You know, every time I went on a deployment, I always had to take a couple of days to get used to the beaches in the Med. Why? Because ALL of them are top optional for women, and many women like to walk around in nothing more than a skimpy bikini bottom. In Brazil, it's the same thing, but they prefer french cut bottoms.

I also remember one time a few women from the AIRDET decided to go native in Greece one port visit. Well, the OIC chewed them out for not being covered on their chest and sent them back to the ship. When the CO heard about it, he chewed out the OIC, because the CO said that was probably one of the safest things for them to do, because they didn't look like Americans when they were topless. The girls were back on the beach the next day, topless.

I've never understood why Americans are so prudish.

 

[Auld Phart]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Well if it was 'choosing a gender' for a child before they could even comprehend their behaviors or preferences a whole lot of parents of transgender adults whose parents tried to force them not to be transgender.

taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Families have been taking kids to nudist colonies for decades- and while its not my cup of tea- not sure why you think that nudity by itself would be a form of pornography.

Certainly we are in no disagreement that adults should not be exposing children to pornography- but a nude adult with no sexual context is not pornography.

You know, every time I went on a deployment, I always had to take a couple of days to get used to the beaches in the Med. Why? Because ALL of them are top optional for women, and many women like to walk around in nothing more than a skimpy bikini bottom. In Brazil, it's the same thing, but they prefer french cut bottoms.

I also remember one time a few women from the AIRDET decided to go native in Greece one port visit. Well, the OIC chewed them out for not being covered on their chest and sent them back to the ship. When the CO heard about it, he chewed out the OIC, because the CO said that was probably one of the safest things for them to do, because they didn't look like Americans when they were topless. The girls were back on the beach the next day, topless.

I've never understood why Americans are so prudish.

I (fondly) remember Page 3 girls from my tour in London.

NO newspaper in the US would have the balls to do that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

Not a thorough definition. It can also be exposure to porn or fornication or other inappropriate media. It could be over-emphasizing sexuality convos at too young an age. It COULD be choosing a gender FOR a child before they even comprehend their behaviors or preferences. Or taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Well if it was 'choosing a gender' for a child before they could even comprehend their behaviors or preferences a whole lot of parents of transgender adults whose parents tried to force them not to be transgender.

taking them to nudist activities or Gay Pride parades before they have an adequate understanding of such things.

Families have been taking kids to nudist colonies for decades- and while its not my cup of tea- not sure why you think that nudity by itself would be a form of pornography.

Certainly we are in no disagreement that adults should not be exposing children to pornography- but a nude adult with no sexual context is not pornography.

You know, every time I went on a deployment, I always had to take a couple of days to get used to the beaches in the Med. Why? Because ALL of them are top optional for women, and many women like to walk around in nothing more than a skimpy bikini bottom. In Brazil, it's the same thing, but they prefer french cut bottoms.

I also remember one time a few women from the AIRDET decided to go native in Greece one port visit. Well, the OIC chewed them out for not being covered on their chest and sent them back to the ship. When the CO heard about it, he chewed out the OIC, because the CO said that was probably one of the safest things for them to do, because they didn't look like Americans when they were topless. The girls were back on the beach the next day, topless.

I've never understood why Americans are so prudish.

I (fondly) remember Page 3 girls from my tour in London.

NO newspaper in the US would have the balls to do that.

I still remember the very first time I went to the beach in Europe. We had pulled into Palma Mallorca during the summer. Well, I had duty the first day in, so my friends gave me instructions as to where to meet them when I got liberty the next day. Well, found the beach, found them, but still hadn't really looked around much, because I was focused on finding my friends. Saw a dude named Moose (freaking dude was 6 1/2 ft. tall), ran into the water and tackled him. Well, he picked me up, threw me over his shoulder, and when I surfaced, there were 2 of the most beautiful long haired women I'd ever seen.............topless with big smiles. They asked if I was an American sailor (they had heard we pulled in). I said yes, and they asked if they could join me and my friends for a bit.

I gotta say, that was probably the finest group of breasts I'd ever seen.

 

[Auld Phart]

Not hard to say, and prove, we're more Victorian than Queen Victoria was.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not hard to say, and prove, we're more Victorian than Queen Victoria was.

But then again, we gotta remember that this country was originally settled by the Puritans.

People who were so uptight that England kicked them out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is this a healthy loving environment, or is it sex abuse of minors?

It is, after all, illegal to entice children to think or participate in sexual activity...

So why is it the homosexual community thinks that they are exempt?

Ellen praises girlish biological boy's "good lips":

Sexual abuse of a child by definition occurs when an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor. The only evidence seems to be your warped imagination.

WRONG. Sexual abuse, by definition, is when undesired sexual BEHAVIOR is forced on a person. Not the same thing. And if anything, the definition becomes broader when directed at a child, not narrower. Sexual abuse of children includes things which aren't "sexual activity" as you mean it, and sexualization of the child is one of them.

"Traumatic sexualization refers to a process in which a child’s sexuality (including both sexual feelings and sexual attitudes) is shaped in a developmentally inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion as a result of sexual abuse. This can happen in a variety of ways in the course of the abuse. Traumatic sexualization can occur when a child is repeatedly regarded by an offender for sexual behavior that is inappropriate to his or her level of development. It occurs through the exchange of affection, attention, privileges, and gifts for sexual behavior, so that a child learns to use sexual behavior as a strategy for manipulating others to satisfy a variety of developmentally appropriate needs. It occurs when certain parts of a child’s anatomy are fetishized and given distorted importance and meaning. It occurs through the misconceptions and confusions about sexual behavior and sexual morality that are transmitted to the child from the offender. And it occurs when very frightening memories and events become associated in the child’s mind with sexual activity."

http://csom.org/train/victim/resources/The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse.pdf

Looks like the "warped imagination" is on YOUR side, not ours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You think he's employable because he's an underaged kid in makeup and heels.

That's called pimping.

No ... I think he will be able to eventually get a job or work for himself.
You are the one hung up on his age, the heels and everything.

.​

Yeah that's straight out of the pedosexual manual as well.
"Age is irrelevant..all that matters is that they express themselves sexually"
"Love knows no age bounds"
"Children are individuals and have *rights* to experience love in all it's forms

Ain't that the truth. What's sad is that they're so busy trying to argue that transgenderism is a normal sexuality for children, they don't even realize they crossed the "abnormal" way back at the point where they thought 10-year-olds HAD a sexuality at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh huh. Okay, first of all, your first sentence made no actual sense. Maybe dial back on your "how DARE you!" outrage enough to be coherent, huh?

OK, I screwed up the first sentence! Sue me. Here it is again:

It's stunning to me, to listen to you people rant and rave about this issue, claiming that kids need a mother and a father, while having the temerity to expect that your appeals to ignorance will convince anybody except those who already agree with you.

I'm not the Moron Whisperer, and have no interest in trying to decipher gibberish into communication. Also, one definition of "jackass" is "a person who ***** up, and then gets angry at OTHER people for not compensating for it".

Moving along . . .

Now that you have finally made yourself coherent, let me point out that I don't expect to convince YOU of anything. In fact, I don't consider YOU to be important enough to care what you do and don't believe.

What's at issue here is simply that I have no intention of letting you and your ilk shout your insane, evil fuckery into the world without challenge.

So if you want to be "stunned" by the fact that people actually "have the temerity" to respond to and disagree with your bullshit . . . well, no one ever accused you of being overly bright.