AstroAg17 said:

---

The politics board reaction to this topic the other day was vile, unchristian, and stupid.

---

This sentence is interesting because, given the subject, the predicate is entirely redundant.

Quote:

---

A kid can declare they're the other sex and be prescribed hormone blockers...by a doctor...before they reach puberty. Check.

Can a man and a boy have a sexual relationship?

---

These 2 are absolutely ridiculous. Something should be done about the 1st wherever it is accepted.

The second one is a crime. However, Seamaster likes to use it as an example to fear fluff his post. It's been done to death.

I am reminded of something I heard in anthropology class during my undergrad:

"Anything/everything that is considered taboo in any one country is the norm in some other part of the globe."


Just let that sink in.



Lord........



help!

What about:

Beastiality attracted persons?
Rape attracted persons?
Lynching attracted persons?
Thermonuclear war attracted persons?

This desire is an abomination. That doesn't mean that the person who suffers from it is, but we can't allow this desire to be labeled anything less. There is such a thing as evil sexual desire. A man in Germany was arrested for drilling a hole in a person's head in order to have sex with his brain. The other person consented, but died. Pure evil.

Been awhile since we had a good old fashioned thread comparing gay people to pedophiles. I wondered what had happened to seamaster. Good to see he's still doing seamaster things.

Beer Baron

I take it you believe that there are limits then?

What are they?

So astrosag17.

Is being attracted to kids a mental illness?

???

Or just as natural and valid as being heterosexual or homosexual?

Pedophiles think they're part of it and are latching themselves to it.

Pride and all that.

Seamaster said:

---

Beer Baron

I take it you believe that there are limits then?

What are they?

---

I would think we could all agree that consent is a good place for limits but you never know. Some people have sincere religious beliefs that that child brides are just fine.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The site linked in OP's article actually does a great job of explaining it.

http://www.thepreventionproject.org

It's much more worth your time than the link in the OP.

---

Lifesitenews is always a waste of time.

Quote:

---

I would think we could all agree that consent is a good place for limits but you never know...

---

So, consent is the line?

I hope so.

Will remember this.

I am here to wager that within 10 years the NAMBLA/MIP/Pedo 'cause' will be the new frontier of progressivism.

Just wait.

At least we know that Beer Baron is on our side.

Quote:

---

So, consent is the line?

I hope so.

Will remember this.

---

You say this like you're surprised I think consent should be a line, which I'd argue says a lot about your complete and total inability to rationally approach this subject and the people you interact with about it regularly. What specifically in my posting history would indicate that I don't think consent is a valid line for this type of thing? It's pretty clear that you view gay people as analagous to sexual predators, and that I'm no exception. That is utter bull *****

Quote:

---

I am here to wager that within 10 years the NAMBLA/MIP/Pedo 'cause' will be the new frontier of progressivism.

Just wait.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and take your bet. This absolutely won't be an actual issue. Just like it's not an issue now when people warned us 15 years ago that it would be if we let the gays have too many rights. In 2028 I expect a gift card to a nice steak place that my husband and I can use to celebrate our 20th anniversary and 10th wedding anniversary.

Quote:

---

At least we know that Beer Baron is on our side.

---

Again the fact that you seem to be surprised that I'm not on board with pedophilia shows how completely willfully ignorant you are. Absolutely nothing in my posting history would indicate that I'm ok with that. Meanwhile, plenty of religious sects actually do make a religious argument for why grown men should be allowed to marry underage girls. I unequivocally don't think they should be allowed to, but I'd love to hear your argument for why their sincerely-held religious beliefs don't protect the practice.

I didn't say that you or anybody else was on board with pedophilia.

I asked whether there are limits to our accepting of sexual morays in public and you agree that there are limits.

I note that pedos are working on their public image and already latching themselves to the LGBTQ tent. They're the ones you should be mad at. They're the ones that are designing a pride flag to fit nicely next to yours.

Glad you accept the bet and I hope you win.

Quote:

---

I asked whether there are limits to our accepting of sexual morays in public and you agree that there are limits.

---

Why did your OP seem to focus on trans persons when that has nothing to do with "sexual morays"?

Quote:

---

I didn't say that you or anybody else was on board with pedophilia.

I asked whether there are limits to our accepting of sexual morays in public and you agree that there are limits.

---

First off, you constantly imply that accepting gay people in some way has or will lead to acceptance of pedophiles. You also seemed shocked that I would be in agreement with you that pedophilia is bad.

Quote:

---

I note that pedos are working on their public image and already latching themselves to the LGBTQ tent.

They're the ones you should be mad at. They're the ones that are designing a pride flag to fit nicely next to yours.

---

So what? That doesn't mean there's any kind of connection running in the other direction. You present this as if the gays are welcoming the pedos with open arms. Despite how much you'd like this to be true, it isn't the case at all. I think most people are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the two things and that's why you're not going to see a "P" added to that big scary list of letters.

Seamaster said:

---

I asked whether there are limits to our accepting of sexual morays in public and you agree that there are limits.

---

How about when you can prove that a sexual practice is physically or psychologically damaging to someone? We know that adults having consensual homosexual does not do these things. We know that adults having relations with children does.

So, explain how that line will ever be crossed if we go by that standard?

Seamaster said:

---

"Why did your OP seem to focus on trans persons when that has nothing to do with "sexual morays."

You kid yourself.

---

No, I really don't. Gender identity issues, regardless of what you think of them, have nothing to do with sexual mores.

A quick glance at the definition of "sexual mores":

Quote:

---

sexual mores. socially acceptable sexual behavior, usually based on fixed morally binding customs governing sexual behaviors that are harmful to others or the group, such as rape, incest, and sexual abuse of children.

---

Being trans isn't a sexual behavior, so again, why would you focus on trans persons when you're talking about sexual mores? They have nothing to do with each other.

I don't accept that.

Seamaster said:

---

I don't accept that.

---

See gif immediately following your post.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I support the movement in the OP. Not necessarily the rebranding part of it, but the move toward addressing pedophilia before a crime is committed. Some people are attracted to kids, and they should be treated with dignity, especially if they haven't committed a crime or acted on their urges. The proper attitude toward people with such a burden is sympathy, not hatred. The politics board reaction to this topic the other day was vile, unchristian, and stupid. Public hate for these people is counterproductive; the last thing we need these people to do is avoid getting help or support.

What is better, to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?

---

I'm going to be out of a job soon. You all are really accelerating your own demise.