Rocag said:

---

Because I don't believe people have control over who they are attracted to. It wouldn't be something they've chosen and if they're actively struggling with it presumably it's not something they want either. I'd also imagine someone who is trying to lead a normal life despite those unwanted feelings would be better off with the support of their friends and family rather than being automatically shunned and treated as an outcast. If they've already lost their family and friends, they don't have much to lose at that point do they?

---

Next you will be telling me fat people don't know how to put down a spoon. This is pure delusion.

ME92 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

Those planning crimes should not be entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly.

---

Well, we don't just arrest members of the mob when they meet up. We have to have evidence of a conspiracy.

**** pedophiles but they have to commit a crime for us to take away their rights. Just because this is an emotional topic doesn't mean your emotions matter at all.

Yeah settle down guys

Orientation, attraction, urge, whatever is not a crime. This is the case in all 50 states

Illegal CONDUCT is a crime

In this situation, yes, they have a right to assemble, ie sit in a room and talk, as long as they're not doing anything illegal

As far as I'm concerned, take andvantage of this. Normally these types are in the shadows, behind a computer screen, whatever. Here they're serving their identities as pedophiles up to law enforcement on a silver platter. Easier to keep an eye on them now

Broncos said:

---

Rocag said:

---

But up until the point they've committed a crime, the government has no right to strip them of rights because they are a potential danger.

---

You're encouraging pedos to get one free illegal act against a child, makes sense.

Document these sick individuals. The problem is that children can't protect themselves. Make their identities known so parents can protect their children.

---

Sounds like a plan. Just don't cross the line into harassment or vigilantism. That's how well intentioned citizens wind up in jail themselves

Can we donate to a MAP pager program?

Rocag said:

---

Because I don't believe people have control over who they are attracted to...

---

So many slippery slopes to unpack in this one statement. If you cannot recognize the danger of this foundational belief, I'm not sure any discussions will sway you.

The truth of the statement has nothing to do with any perceived danger regarding it. It either is or it isn't true, I don't think the biology of human sexual attraction cares one whit about your concerns of the consequences.

To be clearer, I don't think straight people choose to be straight or gay people choose to be gay. Assuming you are straight, do you really think you could choose to be attracted to members of the same sex? I don't think that's how it works at all.

K2Ag97 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Because I don't believe people have control over who they are attracted to...

---

So many slippery slopes to unpack in this one statement. If you cannot recognize the danger of this foundational belief, I'm not sure any discussions will sway you.

---

Just to be clear, you think pedos choose to be pedos?

Gays choose to be gays?

Heteros choose to be heteros?

It's clearly a statement about the danger of letting your emotions control you.

Am I responsible for keeping my anger in check?

Am I responsible for keeping my attractions in check?

Sorry guys, no gotcha statements here.

K2Ag97 said:

---

It's clearly a statement about the danger of letting your emotions control you.

Am I responsible for keeping my anger in check?

Am I responsible for keeping my attractions in check?

Sorry guys, no gotcha statements here.

---

Well, of course you have to keep your emotions in check, at least insofar as not allowing emotions to result in illegal conduct

But That's not what you said previously. You went straight to some sort of vague slippery slope, and then went after "beliefs", when all Rocag said was attraction isn't voluntary

Do you think attraction is voluntary? How about just answering my questions in the previous post?

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

It's clearly a statement about the danger of letting your emotions control you.

Am I responsible for keeping my anger in check?

Am I responsible for keeping my attractions in check?

Sorry guys, no gotcha statements here.

---

Well, of course you have to keep your emotions in check, at least insofar as not allowing emotions to result in illegal conduct

But That's not what you said previously. You went straight to some sort of vague slippery slope, and then went after "beliefs", when all Rocag said was attraction isn't voluntary

Do you think attraction is voluntary? How about just answering my questions in the previous post?


Just to be clear, you think pedos choose to be pedos?

Gays choose to be gays?

Heteros choose to be heteros?

---

You'll have to better define your question. What does it mean to "choose to be" X?

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

It's clearly a statement about the danger of letting your emotions control you.

Am I responsible for keeping my anger in check?

Am I responsible for keeping my attractions in check?

Sorry guys, no gotcha statements here.

---

Well, of course you have to keep your emotions in check, at least insofar as not allowing emotions to result in illegal conduct

But That's not what you said previously. You went straight to some sort of vague slippery slope, and then went after "beliefs", when all Rocag said was attraction isn't voluntary

Do you think attraction is voluntary? How about just answering my questions in the previous post?


Just to be clear, you think pedos choose to be pedos?

Gays choose to be gays?

Heteros choose to be heteros?

---

You'll have to better define your question. What does it mean to "choose to be" X?

---

It means exactly what it says it means. Is it something a person chooses? Is it voluntary?

Are you gonna ask me to define "is" next?

Sorry Captain Pablo, it seems like I've wasted your time.

We're talking on two very different levels.

Have a great day!

Asking for a friend, if they don't find the body, is it a crime?

Rocag said:

---

The truth of the statement has nothing to do with any perceived danger regarding it. It either is or it isn't true, I don't think the biology of human sexual attraction cares one whit about your concerns of the consequences.

To be clearer, I don't think straight people choose to be straight or gay people choose to be gay. Assuming you are straight, do you really think you could choose to be attracted to members of the same sex? I don't think that's how it works at all.

---

Sorry Rocag, like Captain Pablo, it seems we're not talking about the same thing.

I don't think the statement is true. I think believing it is true is dangerous. It's a self-affirming system. What I said has nothing to do with straight/gay at all. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Have a great day!

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

When F16 is the jury, all you have to do to get away with murder is say the dead guy was a pedophile.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

And where is there ANY evidence the judge molested the kid

I swear y'all fall for the stupidest sh** on here

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

---

Supposedly it was a deputy sheriff that raped a prisoner, the sheriff was deposed, and the sheriff and judge got into an argument at the courthouse, and the sheriff shot the judge. Motive has not been determined

Rocag said:

---

When F16 is the jury, all you have to do to get away with murder is say the dead guy was a pedophile.

---

Or for our Democrat brethren be named Donald Trump.

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

---

Supposedly it was a deputy sheriff that raped a prisoner, the sheriff was deposed, and the sheriff and judge got into an argument at the courthouse, and the sheriff shot the judge. Motive has not been determined

---

Was the lawsuit the cause of the argument or was the argument about the rape of the sheriff's daughter?

We don't know. It's all speculation.

bobbranco said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

---

Supposedly it was a deputy sheriff that raped a prisoner, the sheriff was deposed, and the sheriff and judge got into an argument at the courthouse, and the sheriff shot the judge. Motive has not been determined

---

Was the lawsuit the cause of the argument or was the argument about the rape of the sheriff's daughter?

We don't know. It's all speculation.

---

Who the hell knows. But what I've see nothing of is any evidence the judge raped the sheriffs daughter

Have you?

By all accounts it was a deputy that did it, and he pleaded guilty

The argument, if I had to guess, was over a lawsuit that was subsequently filed, but who knows

So why is f16 cheering on the murder of this judge?

Captain Pablo said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

---

Supposedly it was a deputy sheriff that raped a prisoner, the sheriff was deposed, and the sheriff and judge got into an argument at the courthouse, and the sheriff shot the judge. Motive has not been determined

---

Was the lawsuit the cause of the argument or was the argument about the rape of the sheriff's daughter?

We don't know. It's all speculation.

---

Who the hell knows. But what I've see nothing of is any evidence the judge raped the sheriffs daughter

Have you?

By all accounts it was a deputy that did it, and he pleaded guilty

The argument, if I had to guess, was over a lawsuit that was subsequently filed, but who knows

So why is f16 cheering on the murder of this judge?

---

The deputy raped the sheriff's daughter???

Your post is confusing.

And yes. Who knows. Done with you on this thread. Take your derail to the other thread.

bobbranco said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

Good! sarcasm or not.... Babies/Kids/Children........... that is a no go zone. Line in the sand. Hypocrisy be damned. Go look review the thread regarding the officer that shot and killed the potential pedo judge in Kentucky. Supposedly diddled his daughter and got dead for doing it. If proven the judge did this, I hope the court gives the officer community service and a medal.

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

He said "If proven the judge did this", and you responded with "You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?"

It seems like you aren't being intellectually honest.

Have a great day!

---

Supposedly it was a deputy sheriff that molested a prisoner, the sheriff was deposed, and the sheriff and judge got into an argument at the courthouse, and the sheriff shot the judge. Motive has not been determined

---

Was the lawsuit the cause of the argument or was the argument about the rape of the sheriff's daughter?

We don't know. It's all speculation.

---

Who the hell knows. But what I've see nothing of is any evidence the judge raped the sheriffs daughter

Have you?

By all accounts it was a deputy that did it, and he pleaded guilty

The argument, if I had to guess, was over a lawsuit that was subsequently filed, but who knows

So why is f16 cheering on the murder of this judge?

---

The deputy raped the sheriff's daughter???

---

Apologies - to clarify - allegedly molested a prisoner

The claim was made in the other thread that the judge molested the sheriff's daughter and the sheriff killed the judge. F16 erupted into thunderous applause

Turns out there is nothing to support this

What actually happened is a deputy supposedly molested a prisoner. A lawsuit was filed, the sheriff was deposed, the sheriff and judge got into an argument, and the sheriff killed the judge

Quote:

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

Yes. We are on a forum where I can do that. That officer did not do what he did without knowing the facts. When he presents that information to the court, they will call on the judge that is dead and he will not be able to defend himself. They will call the girl up to the stand and she will defend her father. Community service and a medal.

I feel bad for geography clubs these days.

K2Ag97 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2Ag97 said:

---

It's clearly a statement about the danger of letting your emotions control you.

Am I responsible for keeping my anger in check?

Am I responsible for keeping my attractions in check?

Sorry guys, no gotcha statements here.

---

Well, of course you have to keep your emotions in check, at least insofar as not allowing emotions to result in illegal conduct

But That's not what you said previously. You went straight to some sort of vague slippery slope, and then went after "beliefs", when all Rocag said was attraction isn't voluntary

Do you think attraction is voluntary? How about just answering my questions in the previous post?


Just to be clear, you think pedos choose to be pedos?

Gays choose to be gays?

Heteros choose to be heteros?

---

You'll have to better define your question. What does it mean to "choose to be" X?

---

It means you could choose to be gay if you wanted to, but you choose to be straight instead

Red flag laws can also keep people that have mental health issues from owning a gun. They haven't been convicted of anything.

So against private property? Got it.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

In the same post you said "potential pedo" and "supposedly diddled"

You don't even know if the judge is guilty but you condone and celebrate his murder?

---

Yes. We are on a forum where I can do that. That officer did not do what he did without knowing the facts. When he presents that information to the court, they will call on the judge that is dead and he will not be able to defend himself. They will call the girl up to the stand and she will defend her father. Community service and a medal.

---

You don't even know that's why the sheriff shot him. Sounds to me like it was tempers flaring over a deposition

But even if that was the motive, what if the judge was innocent? Medal for killing an innocent man?

There's "username doesn't check out", and then there's you

Rocag said:

---

The truth of the statement has nothing to do with any perceived danger regarding it. It either is or it isn't true, I don't think the biology of human sexual attraction cares one whit about your concerns of the consequences.

To be clearer, I don't think straight people choose to be straight or gay people choose to be gay. Assuming you are straight, do you really think you could choose to be attracted to members of the same sex? I don't think that's how it works at all.

---

I don't care what you do in your bedroom. Go have sex with any number of any gender of adult people in the privacy of your own home.

But, your side has completely lost the argument against the slippery slope.

Unless you think that rainbow dildo butt monkey at a kids library is OK.

https://torontosun.com/news/british-library-apologizes-for-hiring-rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-for-kids-event

Given that the slippery slope argument is no longer in question, allowing MAPs to gather together in groups in a support network? Parents have a reason to be concerned.

Learn to fight your battles, Rocag. No one is arguing whether or not you, as an adult, should be able to have sex with any number of people of any gender.

But, leave kids out of it. Let them grow up. Some will come out of puberty attracted to the same sex. Fine. Leave them alone.

Rocag said:

---

Well don't these people, assuming they've committed no crimes, have the right to free speech and assembly?

Personally I don't think people pick who they're attracted to, so the idea that someone could naturally be attracted to people under the legal age seems plausible to me. Not that it would make any kind of sexual contact with them legal, just that attraction alone shouldn't be criminal.

---

I notice you only cared if it was legal...not that it was wrong.

BusterAg said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

No one should be punished for their thoughts.

Actions, however are a much different story. Millstones.

---

Some thoughts should be identified as perverse and dangerous, not condoned, associated with a mental health disorder, and people afflicted by these thoughts treated, not supported as normal.

All MAPs fall into this category.

---

I absolutely agree.

Any "support group" for people who continually have perverse and dangerous thoughts and desires should be focused on ending such thoughts and identifying what may trigger such thoughts so they can be avoided.