Pronoun fines and jail time for librarians: Republicans target LGBTQ+ rights with new laws

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh look... yet another Tommy Troll thread.

They want libraries showing kids gay porn.

I can only imagine how they whine about their "rights" when the local adult store won't let them drag a prepubescent kid into the viewing booths with them.

 

[Hurricanelover]

There's vastly more sciencific support for LBGT people being an biological reality than your god that you use to attack our existence. Isn't it funny how people that aint rational and simply just want to wipe out people that you don't like? Shows the flaws in our species. Instead of using logic and facts we always go back to things that we can't prove to attack things we believe shouldn't exist. It doesn't erase those that we wish didn't exist but is used as justication for evil.

 

[westwall]

I see .. yes .. yes .. because addressing a nude male as female is intelligent.

See, it's all about the fight picking with you.

Not very intelligent.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yup. Nowhere in your post do you mention sexually explicit material. Where in Macbeth is there sexually explicit material? You are hoist on your own petard.

Romeo and Juliet sex scene.

 

[JusticeHammer]

I dont think any decent people would want to go there. There are civilised parts of America that have more to offer.

LGBTQ retards are anything but decent. And... STFU commie Britt.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Born a man, you're a man.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I see. So you think "da gays' are all pederasts, therefore anything restricting their ability to groom children is all about "da gays'".

Got it.


A deep thinker you are not.

No I think you're terrified of Da Gayz and are using this as a fucked up excuse to ban books. Newsflash it's not Da Gayz that are ******* kids, it's their own family members, and church clergy.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Romeo and Juliet sex scene.

So, you are all about wanting to expose young children to illustrations of gay sex because there are veiled written references to sex in an archaic and highly colorful brand of English no child would understand to begin with?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Zincwarrior]

So, you are all about wanting to expose young children to illustrations of gay sex because there are veiled written references to sex in an archaic and highly colorful brand of English no child would understand to begin with?

Yeah, that makes sense.

No dumbfuck, but I am not about banning books in public libraries. The Taliban should not be a ******* "how to" manual.

Again it's North Dakota so no one actually gives a ****.

 

[protectionist]

I guess that you would be the best judge of that.

Not the best, but adequate.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

These people honestly believe that we want to do sexual things to little kids? WTF? I think people that want to do sexual things to little kids don't deserve to live. I find it disgusting that they see me as someone that wants to hurt children. I find it a disgraceful and disrespectful thing to say about me and a smear on my character and honor. No, American taliban. I and people that support Lgbt aint doing it because we want to harm children and/ or are sexually interested in them as that is evil and beneath contempt, but we're doing this because your child has the brainwiring that makes them gay or trans within their biology. We believe that your child should be able to be who they're and we're asking you to accept them for that. Why lie about us and make it something that it isn't? We know why, because you don't have any real defense for your beliefs besides making up shit about us and people that you hate.

You waste your time trying to reason with these wankers.If its a comfort you are giving other minorities a break from hate.

 

[protectionist]

No dumbfuck, but I am not about banning books in public libraries. The Taliban should not be a ******* "how to" manual.

Again it's North Dakota so no one actually gives a ****.

Where would you consider that somebody might "give a **** " ?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No I think you're terrified of Da Gayz and are using this as a fucked up excuse to ban books. Newsflash it's not Da Gayz that are ******* kids, it's their own family members, and church clergy.

I'm not terrified of gay people at all. My favorite employee is gay, I have another friend who is gay, I have had lots of gay friends in the past I have been in gay bars, I support gay marriage and do not see anything wrong with being gay.

What I am against is the sexual indoctrination of children. You just have your head so far up your ass that you feel you have to support the indoctrination to support gay people. Heck ,you are so far off the deep end that you support little children watching gay pornography!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's clear a few on here vehemently oppose restrictions on sexualizing children

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Romeo and Juliet sex scene.

They were both underage. Shakespeare was obviously a groomer and this work would be banned on North Dakota

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It's clear a few on here vehemently oppose restrictions on sexualizing children

Its clear you cant answer why you want to ban Tom Jones. You have never read it you stupid cow. Have you read any book ?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Where would you consider that somebody might "give a **** " ?

Any state that has a lower population than Houston is a twelve on the shit scale and don't have a reason to live

 

[Zincwarrior]

They were both underage. Shakespeare was obviously a groomer and this work would be banned on North Dakota

Titus, King Lear,Julius Caesar and Macbeth are better of course.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They were both underage. Shakespeare was obviously a groomer and this work would be banned on North Dakota

Even more shocking is that in Wills time Juliet would have been played by a young boy. WTF !!! How did mankind survive ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Titus, King Lear,Julius Caesar and Macbeth are better of course.

The Tempest is most appropriate here. The Calibans are deciding shit for all of us.
People who are barely literate decidng what we can read.