SHOCKING: Did Anyone see Joy Reid defend an LGBTQ book about rape and incest against Mom's For Liberty?

[Mac-7]

Desire is subjective. My argument is that they are natural, whether they are desirable is only answerable by individuals.

Overeating is not good or desirable no matter what the cavemen did

Well thanks for your Bingo opinion. The problem is people have natural same sex attractions so what you're proposing is grooming them out of them.

There you go with the personal insults again

That may be ok in the ghetto but its not ok with me

Homosexuality is not natural

Its a malfunction of the natural process

Men were designed to mate with women

Trying to get your buddy pregnant is a waste of time

Unfortunately homo sex is legal in the US so we are wasting our time with that

What matters is that children should not be groomed into the homosexual lifestyle

They should be protected from perversion (and perverts) till they are adults

 

[hadit]

You sound like you want more children raped by Christians as the Bible instructs.

Currently, you are free to keep the Bible away from your children so they don't learn how much God loves them. Do you want that freedom to continue, or do you want school administrators to decide it's a fine book for kids to read without your knowledge or supervision?

 

[Curried Goats]

Overeating is not good or desirable no matter what the cavemen did

Good and Bad in this sense of desire are subjective. You can objectively argue eating a salad is healthier than a burger slathered in grease but I still desire the burger more. Not my wife though. She doesn't eat meat other than fish and loves a salad. That's the nature of subjectivity.

There you go with the personal insults again

Well in fairness to me you are incredibly stupid it's almost irresponsible not to point it out.

That may be ok in the ghetto but its not ok with me

I don't care. Your only recourse is the safe space of the ignore button. Feel free to crawl into anytime.

Homosexuality is not natural

Its a malfunction of the natural process

Machines malfunction because they are actually designed with a purpose. That vocabulary doesn't make any sense with regards to natural processes like attraction.

Men were designed to mate with women

Trying to get your buddy pregnant is a waste of time

Do you think homosexuals are trying to mate and simply getting confused? Why don't you come back to class with an adult argument?

Unfortunately homo sex is legal in the US so we are wasting our time with that

It's your time to waste, spend it obsessing over other people's sex lives if that makes you happy. I'm not here to discourage you, only to mock you relentlessly.

What matters is that children should not be groomed into the homosexual lifestyle

Sexuality is natural as is Homosexuality. Religion is not. That is what requires the grooming.

They should be protected from perversion (and perverts) till they are adults

This has nothing to do with children, gay or otherwise. It's your feeble emotions you argue to protect.

 

[Mac-7]

Good and Bad in this sense of desire are subjective. You can objectively argue eating a salad is healthier than a burger slathered in grease but I still desire the burger more.

Sure, its a free country

Go ahead and stuff your face till you are round as a bowling ball

Just as homo’s can stuff their pecker where it doesent belong - as long as its not a child

 

[Curried Goats]

Sure, its a free country

Go ahead and stuff your face till you are round as a bowling ball

Just as homo’s can stuff their pecker where it doesent belong - as long as its not a child

The only people trying to legalize adults relationships with children are Republicans.

 

[Mac-7]

The only people trying to legalize adults relationships with children are Republicans.

Nonsense

Clearly the grooming movement is driven by libs

 

[hadit]

The only people trying to legalize adults relationships with children are Republicans.

That seems to be quite an extraordinary claim to make. Can you back it up?

 

[Curried Goats]

Nonsense

Clearly the grooming movement is driven by libs

What did a I say about proving your premise?

Republicans make a case for child marriage

 

[Curried Goats]

That seems to be quite an extraordinary claim to make. Can you back it up?

Just did.

 

[Mac-7]

What did a I say about proving your premise?

Republicans make a case for child marriage

Even in your link it says only a few republicans voted against the ban

I’m told that parts of west virginia are very backward

I would NOT want girls in my family to marry so young

But neither would I want them having sex and abortions or out of wedlock babies

So maybe you should let the people who voted for it speak for themselves since they are s distinct minority

 

[hadit]

Just did.

Let's look at this, shall we? You found an article about a law in West Virginia that came up for a vote that would prevent teenagers from getting married, and there was a handful of people opposing it, who gave reasons why they did. From that, you think you're supporting your statement that, "The only people trying to legalize adults relationships with children are Republicans". Sorry, but that's no more supportive than me finding an article about a handful of democrats opposing a bill preventing drag queens from reading to children in a public library being support for a statement that, "The only people trying to legalize adults' relationships with children are Democrats".

 

[Curried Goats]

Even in your link it says only a few republicans voted against the ban

That's more objective evidence than anything you've produced.

I’m told that parts of west virginia are very backward

I would NOT want girls in my family to marry so young

But neither would I want them having sex and abortions or out of wedlock babies

So maybe you should let the people who voted for it speak for themselves since they are s distinct minority

What you want isn't an argument about whether homosexuality is natural.

 

[Curried Goats]

Let's look at this, shall we? You found an article about a law in West Virginia that came up for a vote that would prevent teenagers from getting married, and there was a handful of people opposing it, who gave reasons why they did. From that, you think you're supporting your statement that, "The only people trying to legalize adults relationships with children are Republicans". Sorry, but that's no more supportive than me finding an article about a handful of democrats opposing a bill preventing drag queens from reading to children in a public library being support for a statement that, "The only people trying to legalize adults' relationships with children are Democrats".

Those aren't same arguments. Reading to children isn't the same as marrying children the vast majority of whom were girls by the way. Over 200 underage girls and curiously only around 50 underage boys got married which means the rest of those girls married adults.

 

[hadit]

Those aren't same arguments. Reading to children isn't the same as marrying children the vast majority of whom were girls by the way. Over 200 underage girls and curiously only around 50 underage boys got married which means the rest of those girls married adults.

The issue is "legalize adult relationships with children", which is a lot larger than teenagers getting married. Should we delve into the relationship NAMBLA has with the democrat party?

No, sorry, your claim is nullified by reality.

 

[Curried Goats]

The issue is "legalize adult relationships with children", which is a lot larger than teenagers getting married. Should we delve into the relationship NAMBLA has with the democrat party?

It is bigger than teenagers getting married. Over 200 underage girls and only around 50 underage boys means there's a lot more adults marrying teenagers than teenagers marrying each other.

Also feel free to bring up whatever points you like. I'm not fearful of your arguments. Especially only ones you can allude to being able to make.

No, sorry, your claim is nullified by reality.

You didn't even bother to actually address the fact that they showed a lot more underage girls being married than underage boys. That's what Republicans in West Virginia supported. I'm unimpressed by your deflection.

 

[hadit]

It is bigger than teenagers getting married. Over 200 underage girls and only around 50 underage boys means there's a lot more adults marrying teenagers than teenagers marrying each other.

Also feel free to bring up whatever points you like. I'm not fearful of your arguments. Especially only ones you can allude to being able to make.

You didn't even bother to actually address the fact that they showed a lot more underage girls being married than underage boys. That's what Republicans in West Virginia supported. I'm unimpressed by your deflection.

Yes, there is a handful of politicians in West Virginia that opposed a bill making it illegal for minor to get married. From that you extrapolated something that is false. Look at Manka Dhingra for a democrat who didn't think stopping child marriage was terribly important and put it off. Where's the concern for the children? Check out the ACLU in California that worked against a bill making it illegal for minor to get married. The ACLU is famously infested with democrats. Now, if you are taking opposition against a ban on teenagers getting married as support for the idea that ONLY Republicans want to legalize relationships between adults and children, you're going to have to accept the same when democrats do it, and there are democrats who have opposed such bills. Are you going to stay wedded to your claim or admit that it's not true?

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, there is a handful of politicians in West Virginia that opposed a bill making it illegal for minor to get married. From that you extrapolated something that is false. Look at Manka Dhingra for a democrat who didn't think stopping child marriage was terribly important and put it off. Where's the concern for the children? Check out the ACLU in California that worked against a bill making it illegal for minor to get married. The ACLU is famously infested with democrats. Now, if you are taking opposition against a ban on teenagers getting married as support for the idea that ONLY Republicans want to legalize relationships between adults and children, you're going to have to accept the same when democrats do it, and there are democrats who have opposed such bills. Are you going to stay wedded to your claim or admit that it's not true?

The only thing I concede to is hyperbole. I don't vote for the ACLU and I don't know who that lone Democrat is nor did you link to any evidence of your claim. Did she single handedly stop legislation meant to prevent adults from marrying teenagers like Republicans in West Virginia did? Is where we are in this debate the concession that homosexuality is natural, religion requires grooming and maybe some Democrats along with Republicans want to protect adult/teenage marriages?

 

[hadit]

The only thing I concede to is hyperbole.

You might want to make that clear when you do it. Simply making a clearly false statement does you no favors.

I don't vote for the ACLU and I don't know who that lone Democrat is nor did you link to any evidence of your claim. Did she single handedly stop legislation meant to prevent adults from marrying teenagers like Republicans in West Virginia did?

They didn't stop it. A handful voted against it, but it went through.

Is where we are in this debate the concession that homosexuality is natural, religion requires grooming and maybe some Democrats along with Republicans want to protect adult/teenage marriages?

Homosexuality is a negative genetic mutation (assuming that it's really genetic) that leads to an evolutionary dead-end. At least you've backed off from your claim, which was the goal.

 

[Curried Goats]

You might want to make that clear when you do it. Simply making a clearly false statement does you no favors.

It doesn't do me any harm either. Your misunderstanding isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you. I understand just fine.

They didn't stop it. A handful voted against it, but it went through.

Thank Sky Daddy and Democrats in West Virginia I guess.

Homosexuality is a negative genetic mutation (assuming that it's really genetic) that leads to an evolutionary dead-end. At least you've backed off from your claim, which was the goal.

Define negative genetic mutation. Also being homosexual isn't the same thing as being infertile.

 

[hadit]

It doesn't do me any harm either. Your misunderstanding isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you. I understand just fine.

Oh, no misunderstanding at all, I was just enjoying watching you at first try to defend your position, then realize it was hopeless.

Thank Sky Daddy and Democrats in West Virginia I guess.

Whatever. It's only been in the last several hundred years that we've thought anything odd about girls getting married fairly soon after sexual maturity. Guys would get married later because they were expected to be stable and able to provide for a family.

Define negative genetic mutation. Also being homosexual isn't the same thing as being infertile.

Of course, it isn't, but being fertile does you no good if you're not willing to mate. Sure, we have in vitro and stuff today, but in the natural world, refusing to mate is an evolutionary dead-end.