muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

Selective application for sure.

muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

Yep. The authoritarians and Gaystapo never target Muslim business owners or mosques. A Muslim community could stone a mentally ill man that thinks he's a woman, and the regressives would be silent. Communities of faith should work together and realize they must be united in opposition to the Marxist authoritarianism.

And you thought you could keep this lunacy contained at college campuses…pic.twitter.com/dqJbh2GRJQ

— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) January 9, 2023

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-is-npr-promoting-teaching-children-how-to-give-oral-sex/

[Why Is NPR Promoting Teaching Children How To Give Oral Sex?


That image above is a panel from the kids' book Gender Queer. This is one of the tame panels; see others below. This is what many educators and other liberal elites want kids to be reading. In 2021, I wrote about how National Public Radio's show 1A deceived listeners about what people object to about Gender Queer. At least some decision makers at NPR believe the network cannot level with its listeners about what's really in the book, because to be honest is to endanger the Narrative...

Why do media outlets like NPR mislead listeners (viewers, readers) about what's in these challenged books? Because they are part of a cultural elite that believe they have the right to deceive parents for the sake of Progress. The contempt they have for normal people and their concerns is breathtaking. For example...]

Welcome to 2023, where you can get FIRED for whomever you FOLLOW on your personal Twitter account.

I'm sure Humck is cool with this.

Here's the CEO of Limited Run Games who fired an employee bc she followed Gina Carano, Blaire White, & Libs of TikTok.

Douglas Bogart (he/him) says people should only be allowed to post their personal opinions if you're a woke liberal. pic.twitter.com/sMq1964Eto

— Datareacer (@Dataracer117) January 8, 2023

Purple Tinker is the founder of BronyCon & the trans actvist responsible for this.

Bronys are adult My Little Pony fans into fury cosplay & pornagraphic cartoon art.

They had multiple Pedophiles in their community, and one tried to abduct an 11 yearold girl at a 2014 BronyCon. pic.twitter.com/mgdSglPXa3

— Datareacer (@Dataracer117) January 8, 2023

Jack Bauer said:

---

Welcome to 2023, where you can get FIRED for whomever you FOLLOW on your personal Twitter account.

I'm sure Humck is cool with this.

Here's the CEO of Limited Run Games who fired an employee bc she followed Gina Carano, Blaire White, & Libs of TikTok.

Douglas Bogart (he/him) says people should only be allowed to post their personal opinions if you're a woke liberal. pic.twitter.com/sMq1964Eto

— Datareacer (@Dataracer117) January 8, 2023

Purple Tinker is the founder of BronyCon & the trans actvist responsible for this.

Bronys are adult My Little Pony fans into fury cosplay & pornagraphic cartoon art.

They had multiple Pedophiles in their community, and one tried to abduct an 11 yearold girl at a 2014 BronyCon. pic.twitter.com/mgdSglPXa3

— Datareacer (@Dataracer117) January 8, 2023

---

And people wonder why we are more divided than ever. We used to celebrate diversity and now we demand adherence to the woke religion.

Is there a term for this? pic.twitter.com/GIzi2WaLCP

— stained hanes (@718Tv) January 10, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Is there a term for this? pic.twitter.com/GIzi2WaLCP

— stained hanes (@718Tv) January 10, 2023

---

Methodism.

"Inclusion"

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I was asking about it from a religious standpoint. I had never heard that hetero backdoor action was forbidden. Hoping hetero oral is ok.

---

If you are not married, then the specific act is unimportant. They will all be forbidden.

---

"If God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn it, I doubt he sent you." - David Huskins

---

If you think typing one sentence that it reflective of Biblical sexual ethics is condemnation, then you need to check yourself. Not my intent. I hear a lot of judgement here that is the job of posters but God's job.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I was asking about it from a religious standpoint. I had never heard that hetero backdoor action was forbidden. Hoping hetero oral is ok.

---

If you are not married, then the specific act is unimportant. They will all be forbidden.

---

"If God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn it, I doubt he sent you." - David Huskins

---

But Christ was sent into our earthly reality to redeem mankind and judge the world.

He even said, "If anyone causes one of these little ones, those who believe in me, to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

One can only speculate what will happen to child groomers and child sexual abusers on the Day of Judgement. God will deal with them.

---

Your speculation is wrong. Groomers and abusers are outside of God's love and this separation is of their own doing.

muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

---

LBGTQ+MX+B, +=PEDO

---

Pedos are in a separate catergory form the LGBTQ community. You are simply lying about lgbtq community. Read up on pedos

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

---

LBGTQ+MX+B, +=PEDO

---

Pedos are in a separate catergory form the LGBTQ community. You are simply lying about lgbtq community. Read up on pedos

---

Do you understand the mathematical meaning of my post?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

---

LBGTQ+MX+B, +=PEDO

---

Pedos are in a separate catergory form the LGBTQ community. You are simply lying about lgbtq community. Read up on pedos

---

Do you understand the mathematical meaning of my post?

---

No I do not

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

---

LBGTQ+MX+B, +=PEDO

---

Pedos are in a separate catergory form the LGBTQ community. You are simply lying about lgbtq community. Read up on pedos

---

Do you understand the mathematical meaning of my post?

---

No I do not

---

Maybe you should not comment on what you do not understand.

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.

---

You don't know much about islam, buddy

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.

---

Not true. The vast majority of Islam is in lockstep with fundamentalist views, including the majority of muslims in western countries.

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I was asking about it from a religious standpoint. I had never heard that hetero backdoor action was forbidden. Hoping hetero oral is ok.

---

If you are not married, then the specific act is unimportant. They will all be forbidden.

---

"If God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn it, I doubt he sent you." - David Huskins

---

But Christ was sent into our earthly reality to redeem mankind and judge the world.

He even said, "If anyone causes one of these little ones, those who believe in me, to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

One can only speculate what will happen to child groomers and child sexual abusers on the Day of Judgement. God will deal with them.

---

Your speculation is wrong. Groomers and abusers are outside of God's love and this separation is of their own doing.

---

Interesting conclusion but it is inconsistent with Scripture in terms of God's love. That "groomers and abusers" have chosen to "separate" themselves is correct and is the core issue of the entire Bible, Jesus' sacrifice, and the Gospels' message of repentance and restoration. What you did say earlier in your response is that "God will deal with them" gets to the heart of the fact that God abhors sin and immorality and will respond in His righteous wrath to punish the unrepentant and the evil ones. But His love remains available to the truly repentant.

This interesting thread began to lose its value with personal attacks. Pretty usual fare for any message board I would guess. and it is probably a given that people would posit the idea of "values" as including human practices and thinking that which holds no redeeming value to society, culture and to individuals. To wit, some "values" have no true value or they are destructive values. Truth is they are not value at all but personal, sometimes collective, desires for living life. Value as a concept has been coopted by forces clearly not Scriptural and thus not of God in order to justify those personal choices.

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

I was asking about it from a religious standpoint. I had never heard that hetero backdoor action was forbidden. Hoping hetero oral is ok.

---

If you are not married, then the specific act is unimportant. They will all be forbidden.

---

"If God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn it, I doubt he sent you." - David Huskins

---

If you think typing one sentence that it reflective of Biblical sexual ethics is condemnation, then you need to check yourself. Not my intent. I hear a lot of judgement here that is the job of posters but God's job.

---

---

Then stop judging those who judge for judging.

If you ask chatGPT to write a story about why drag queen story hour is bad for kids, it refuses on the grounds that it would be “harmful.” If you switch the word “bad” to “good,” it launches into a long story about a drag queen named Glitter who taught kids the value of inclusion https://t.co/9yfdYQfq9C pic.twitter.com/KSYCCEyGV3

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) January 11, 2023

Still one of the greatest trans troll jobs:
https://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-mosque-bomber-identifies-trans-174400740.html

Chloe Cole: “Social media introduced this idea that I could be a boy." https://t.co/i5WbiVQDoc pic.twitter.com/2vKB4nSxb2

— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) January 11, 2023

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

If you had a time machine and could go back to the framers and float your idea that what they were crafting allows men to marry other men....after they got done laughing in your face and threw you out on your arse, you'd return home hopefully with a very different idea about the original intent of "freedom" and "spirit of America".

---

No, I would just return home with a busted arse. If I told the founders about a lot of things in 2022 they would laugh in my face. But if I told them that their principle of erring on the side of too much individual freedom rather than too much government control would result in freedoms they didn't know anyone even wanted, do you think they'd buy me a beer or laugh at me?

The country was narrower in 1776, and the world simpler. Dont tell me the founders wanted the morality of 1776 to dominate in 2023. They understood they were putting forth a principled document rather than a perfected one. My argument is entirely within those founding principles.

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

---

I started the thread. The "agenda" has certainly been in the direction of anything goes perversion.

It started with "we just want to marry who we want" which required redefining marriage. It has moved to encouragement of trans for kids. No pun intended but the feelers are already out for pedo normalization.

In a few years, you'll be able to talk about how your man-boy friends a such good people.

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.

---

I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.

Porteroso: "The country was narrower in 1776, and the world simpler."

Only someone with poor knowledge of History would say so. But it certainly is convenient for you to pretend that was so.

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

---

It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

---

That is a red herring. There is a difference between the average gay couple and the Gaystapo. You know this so stop being intellectually dishonest and hiding pedophilia behind "we just want to be able to love."

We moved at an order of magnitude from
- "we want to visit our lovers in the hospital"
- "we want to be able to be legally united"
- "we want to be married"
- " you must have porn in elementary school libraries
- "you must take your kids to strip shows"

So yes, this is all heading toward the normalization of pedophilia regardless of what the one gay guy you met in college said 30 years ago.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INT whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

If you had a time machine and could go back to the framers and float your idea that what they were crafting allows men to marry other men....after they got done laughing in your face and threw you out on your arse, you'd return home hopefully with a very different idea about the original intent of "freedom" and "spirit of America".

---

No, I would just return home with a busted arse. If I told the founders about a lot of things in 2022 they would laugh in my face. But if I told them that their principle of erring on the side of too much individual freedom rather than too much government control would result in freedoms they didn't know anyone even wanted, do you think they'd buy me a beer or laugh at me?

The country was narrower in 1776, and the world simpler. Dont tell me the founders wanted the morality of 1776 to dominate in 2023. They understood they were putting forth a principled document rather than a perfected one. My argument is entirely within those founding principles.

---

Then you would return the same fool as when you left, still with the ridiculous notion that the founding principle of freedom means the government must validate and support every degenerate whim of its people.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

---

I started the thread. The "agenda" has certainly been in the direction of anything goes perversion.

It started with "we just want to marry who we want" which required redefining marriage. It has moved to encouragement of trans for kids. No pun intended but the feelers are already out for pedo normalization.

In a few years, you'll be able to talk about how your man-boy friends a such good people.

---

don't forget lady-lady friends.

J.R. said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

---

hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.

---

I started the thread. The "agenda" has certainly been in the direction of anything goes perversion.

It started with "we just want to marry who we want" which required redefining marriage. It has moved to encouragement of trans for kids. No pun intended but the feelers are already out for pedo normalization.

In a few years, you'll be able to talk about how your man-boy friends a such good people.

---

don't forget lady-lady friends.

---

What scientists sometimes call the Bimbosity.

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T

— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023

---

There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.

---

It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.

---

You don't know much about islam, buddy

---

Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.