• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

16yr old Gay teen, sent to Heterosexual boot camp!

Bigbird

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
vauge said:
I would have tremendous issues if it were a school that my child attended.

Pro gay meaning demanding King & King type books in the library or demanding like you are suggesting - gay clubs or gay classes. That stuff is just silly. Not much different than black only clubs or white only clubs. What purpose do they serve? Promotion of hate...

No that's no what im saying. Im saying Homosexuals able to attend school events like A prom or a dance with another person of the same sex.
im not saying form a club. and as far as club forming.... do you think the black panthers would of been formed is white and blacks always lived in harmony? It's called a self fulllfiling prophecy.. You don't like the clubs, you give them resistance, then the clubs form on their own, when people dealing with the same adversity band together.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
I would have a propblem with any book that promotoes homosexual couples, pedophile couples, zoophile couples, coprophile couples por necrophiel couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples.

The purpose of all these books is political in nature as they are an attempt to equate homosexual partners as normal, acceptable and equivalent...when they are are just not. I am I alone shall decide the values, morality, and judgement that my children shall be taught, and I refuse to leave it to the hands of the government and especially homosexual activists with an agenda to attempt to indoctrinate my children with their perverse values.
 

crimson372

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Libertarian said:
I would have a propblem with any book that promotoes homosexual couples, pedophile couples, zoophile couples, coprophile couples por necrophiel couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples.

The purpose of all these books is political in nature as they are an attempt to equate homosexual partners as normal, acceptable and equivalent...when they are are just not. I am I alone shall decide the values, morality, and judgement that my children shall be taught, and I refuse to leave it to the hands of the government and especially homosexual activists with an agenda to attempt to indoctrinate my children with their perverse values.

okay I'm going to skip commenting on most of what you said here because I could go on for hours, but I want to talk about something specific. Don't you think it is unfair for you to demand that a school reach all of your requirements. Every parent wants to decide the values, morality, and judgement that their children should be taught and many of those things conflict with your personal viewpoints. Someone can equally say they don't want heterosexual couples being promoted in a school library and that would take out pretty much any book with a couple in it. You have to realize that you have two choices. Homeschooling, or public school, and you have to remeber that you do not control public school, the government does, and the government tries their best to keep an unbiased policy. Now, if they were to take out all books with homosexuals it would be unfair, and they would have to also take out all books about heterosexuals. You need to realize that there are always two sides to an arguement and the government should never favor your side, or anyone else's side just because you want to have control over what your sonm is learning. The homosexual thing is one of many many issues america has and will face and always there has been parents who try to get the public schools to lean one way or another. If you truly want control over what your child learns you should home-school him, and if you can't do that then you'll just have to accept that the government will teach your child equality, and will let them see both sides of the issues.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Homosexual agenda extremists see the value of recruiting new fodder into the lifestle which is why they have so successfully done and continue to try to remove parental rights and force indoctrination of kids in public schools into the lifestyle.

maybe it is homosexuals who should "homeschool their own kids", if they could actually reproduce via homosexual sex that is....

Remember, when these homosexuals try to insinuate themselves and their agenda into public schools, they always do so as quietly as possible....this follows a tactic they have strategized called "keeping the camels ugly head in the tent"
 
Last edited:

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
vauge said:
Unfortunatly, you are correct.

Yes, I would indeed say something (if they were kissing). Even more so if my child was with me. Does it HURT me? Of course not. Am I allowed to request them to stop such activities. You missed the part about teenagers that are heterosexual would get my same response. Older couples (heterosexual) would recieve the same attention from me if they were crossing the line as well. I have been applauded for saying such things in public before.

I would agree with you about a child having to see such activity. I too would not want to expose my child to such behavior by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

vauge said:
I have failed to see the relivance. I didn't say that I would prohibit anyone from moving to my neighborhood. Sexual offenders is another topic, and I do have significant issues with them living next to me.

I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had posted anything about sexual offenders. But, to help there is a website which you can use to find out what offenders are actually in your community.
I believe I already posted that link, but if not, please let me know I would be more than happy to post it here for everyone's benefit.


vauge said:
The point is relationships with the public needs to have a thought process. Would you agree that if a homosexual couple moves into a very conservative neighborhood then there will be challenges to that couple?


Challenges, yes of course. Personal biases and discrimination is a very real issue for many minorities, not just gays/lesbians.

vauge said:
If not, you do not understand human nature. I highly doubt my neighborhood would have issues with a homosexual couple living here, but there would be quite a bit of issues if that couple were involved in the PTA and being activists toward allowing pro gay activities in school.

I never suggested that these parents would at all be pushing for "gay activities."
My partner and I are both members of my son's school PTA. We do so because we are involved and concerned parents of a teenager. We do so so that we know what's going on in his school. What programs are in need of support, volunteers..etc. We are members so we know what policies are to be changed or initiated.
Personally I'm more than a little concerned that there is no GSA in my son's school, but I do not even meantion this at PTA meetings.

I must say I am a bit more concerned as to what you are inferring to by: "pro gay activities." I will await your explanation. :smile:
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Libertarian said:
For the same reason if a teen was going down the route of alcohol or drug abuse, no decent parent would hesitate to engage in an intervention program out of love for their children.

Precisely.

The topic of this thread is in regard to a 16 year old young man. NOT an emancipated young man. The parents have every right to teach and instill their beliefs into their own child(ren).

The whole gay lifestyle issue, and the agenda they're pushing, has some very disturbing ideas and tactics.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, between themselves, is their business.

Once they step out into the public domain, it becomes a different story.Their actions aren't just affecting themselves anymore, they're affecting the rest of the population as well.Their actions have every right to fall under scrutiny.

This scrutiny has lead many gay life-stylers to remain in the closet. It doesn't surprise me that they creep around, and hide amongst the general population, fearing detection.This is not normal behavior.

They can't gain public support, so they try and circumvent the constitution, by finding judges, sympathetic to their cause, to overstep their judicial powers and inflict their own personal agendas on the rest of the population.

The most disturbing, and disgusting tactic, is going after the children.They can't make valid arguments against adults, so they use the 1st amendment to foist their agenda into the children's sections of our public libraries.

Case in point:Heather has two mommies , a perfect example of the word fallacy, if there every is one.It's impossible for Heather to have two mommies. Heather can have a biological mommy, a surrogate mommy, she can have an adoptive mommy, a step mommy, a foster mommy, but she can't
have two mommies.I'm sure they'll be some ad nauseum arguments made, so in plain English, one child cannot pass through two separate birth canals, from two separate women, simultaneously.

Banning books isn't what is being suggested here.To put this book in the children sections of public libraries, is what is being questioned.

An alternative lifestyle section in the public library, would give everybody the freedom of choice, without censorship.

I find it pathetic, to sink so low, to target children with their gay lifestyle agenda.To me, the tolerance that the gay life-stylers preach, is only to be reserved for them.
 

crimson372

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Libertarian said:
Homosexual agenda extremists see the value of recruiting new fodder into the lifestle which is why they have so successfully done and continue to try to remove parental rights and force indoctrination of kids in public schools into the lifestyle.

maybe it is homosexuals who should "homeschool their own kids", if they could actually reproduce via homosexual sex that is....

Remember, when these homosexuals try to insinuate themselves and their agenda into public schools, they always do so as quietly as possible....this follows a tactic they have strategized called "keeping the camels ugly head in the tent"

Your point of view will never change. Not because you are right (definately not because you are right) it's because you lack the ability to see life through the other person's shoes. You really truly don't see two points to the arguement, you only see I'm right and everyone who is slightly different from me is wrong, and not only that, I also want every to see things my way even my son who for all you know may even like homosexuals and see nothing wrong with them.

There isn't a gay agenda. I didn't become gay to say "let's make evryone around me gay!" there is no secret society that brainwashes children into having an open-mind, but your too stubborn and prejudice to realize that. Also your comment about why don't homosexuals home-school their kids just prove my point of how you want to try to lean public schools in your favor. Why don't you leave your kids at home. An unbiased public school(which is how it's supposed to be) would have gay and straight books, which gays are just fine with. You are the one complaining. You are trying to make the school unbiased so you should home-school your kids.

You need to realize that just because you're straight doesn't mean your point of view is always right. You don't see things as gay or straight you see them as gays=wrong and straight=right. That is where most of your prejudice ideas stem from and you will get nothing and will never change the way the government is run if you keep thinking like that. (I bet your not even listening to this post you're probably just picking it apart and trying to analyze what strategies I'm using so you can repeat them back with "ah, you're using the old blah blah blah technic to make me seem blah blah blah" Which will make you seem smart but will accomplish nothing).
 

crimson372

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
GottaHurt said:
Precisely.

The topic of this thread is in regard to a 16 year old young man. NOT an emancipated young man. The parents have every right to teach and instill their beliefs into their own child(ren).

The whole gay lifestyle issue, and the agenda they're pushing, has some very disturbing ideas and tactics.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, between themselves, is their business.

Once they step out into the public domain, it becomes a different story.Their actions aren't just affecting themselves anymore, they're affecting the rest of the population as well.Their actions have every right to fall under scrutiny.

This scrutiny has lead many gay life-stylers to remain in the closet. It doesn't surprise me that they creep around, and hide amongst the general population, fearing detection.This is not normal behavior.

They can't gain public support, so they try and circumvent the constitution, by finding judges, sympathetic to their cause, to overstep their judicial powers and inflict their own personal agendas on the rest of the population.

The most disturbing, and disgusting tactic, is going after the children.They can't make valid arguments against adults, so they use the 1st amendment to foist their agenda into the children's sections of our public libraries.

Case in point:Heather has two mommies , a perfect example of the word fallacy, if there every is one.It's impossible for Heather to have two mommies. Heather can have a biological mommy, a surrogate mommy, she can have an adoptive mommy, a step mommy, a foster mommy, but she can't
have two mommies.I'm sure they'll be some ad nauseum arguments made, so in plain English, one child cannot pass through two separate birth canals, from two separate women, simultaneously.

Banning books isn't what is being suggested here.To put this book in the children sections of public libraries, is what is being questioned.

An alternative lifestyle section in the public library, would give everybody the freedom of choice, without censorship.

I find it pathetic, to sink so low, to target children with their gay lifestyle agenda.To me, the tolerance that the gay life-stylers preach, is only to be reserved for them.

Why do you see gay as bad. As a child I would have loved to be introduced to the gay lifestyle as I am introduced to the straight lifestyle. I have many straight friends who would say the same. What do you mean by sink low, surely you and your straight agendas are brought to children everyday through movies and everything trying to convince children that this is right and this is the path to take.

I hate when people consider gay as a genre and put every book with even a bit reference to someone gay, into a gay section. But this I can't argue about because genres are pretty much meant to discriminate. (they do have a black authors section, although if I ever got published I would dread them grouping me like that.)
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
crimson372 said:
Why do you see gay as bad?
Where did I say that? I didn't, my opposition is to the gay life-stylers agenda.

crimson372 said:
...surely you and your straight agendas are brought to children everyday through movies and everything trying to convince children that this is right and this is the path to take.
Heterosexuality isn't the issue, homosexuality is.

crimson372 said:
I hate when people consider gay as a genre and put every book with even a bit reference to someone gay, into a gay section.
But this I can't argue about because genres are pretty much meant to discriminate. (they do have a black authors section, although if I ever got published I would dread them grouping me like that.)
Interesting, that you think that libraries discriminate by having genres.
I see it as an easy and efficient way to locate the materials I'm looking for.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GottaHurt said:
Where did I say that? I didn't, my opposition is to the gay life-stylers agenda.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that day of class, what again is a gay life-styler let alone a gay lifestyle?


GottaHurt said:
Heterosexuality isn't the issue, homosexuality is.

No, actually SEXUALITY is the issue and the perspective therin.


GottaHurt said:
Interesting, that you think that libraries discriminate by having genres.
I see it as an easy and efficient way to locate the materials I'm looking for.

Well yes, in fact it is, but I believe the term "discriminate" was being used in a broader sense.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustineCredible said:
I'm sorry, I must have missed that day of class.
You don't have to be sorry. I can understand and respect the fact that your support groups take precedent over your education.

JustineCredible said:
What again is a gay life-styler let alone a gay lifestyle?
Confused about your own lifestyle? Seems to be par for the course.

JustineCredible said:
No, actually SEXUALITY is the issue and the perspective therin.
You see it your way, I see it mine.

JustineCredible said:
Well yes, in fact it is, but I believe the term "discriminate" was being used in a broader sense.
Superb, another interpretation of someone else's words.
 

crimson372

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
GottaHurt said:
You don't have to be sorry. I can understand and respect the fact that your support groups take precedent over your education.

Confused about your own lifestyle? Seems to be par for the course.
Now, you're not even debating you're just trying and failing to insult her.
JustineCredible said:
Well yes, in fact it is, but I believe the term "discriminate" was being used in a broader sense.
GottaHurt said:
Superb, another interpretation of someone else's words.
Actually I did mean it in a broader sense. so it's not another interpretation it is the interpretation.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
crimson372 said:
Now, you're not even debating you're just trying and failing to insult her.
No, I was answering her questions.And where is it written that a post must contain a debate?

How come gay people are so intolerent of other peoples words?

Webster has this to say about lifestyle:

Main Entry: life·style
Pronunciation: 'lIf-'stI(&)l, -"stI(&)l
Function: noun
: the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture

You think the gay community would embrace the phrase, "gay lifestyle" as it would define it as being typical.

When someone refers to me as a homophobe, Im not offended, I find it to be quite humorous. I don't fear gay people, I just don't believe in, or support their political agenda, and that doesn't mean I'm discriminating against them.

I don't believe in, or support certain other political agendas either.


crimson372 said:
Actually I did mean it in a broader sense. so it's not another interpretation it is the interpretation.
I appreciate you taking the time to clear that up, Thank You.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GottaHurt said:
You don't have to be sorry. I can understand and respect the fact that your support groups take precedent over your education.

:rofl WOW so now there's a class for gay-bahsing :2nobashin and hate mongering? Is that a credit course or just personal enrichment?

But, seriously: You attempt to ignore the actual MEAT of the question doesn't really suprise me, it's a typical troll thing to do.
So, if you don't mind, try answering it insted of lampooning.
what again is a gay life-styler let alone a gay lifestyle?

GottaHurt said:
Confused about your own lifestyle? Seems to be par for the course.

Trying to equate my confussion of your misrepresentation of the term "lifestyle" and my own actual LIFE is only in your mind.

Care to actually asnwer it?



GottaHurt said:
You see it your way, I see it mine.

Indeed, and I will continue to do so, no matter what :spin: you attempt to put on it. You try to justify denying citizens their rights with your hate and fear...all the while in an attempt to dehumanize and denegrate homosexuals.
Honey, time to take what you give. If you're going to insist gays are so bad, you must be prepaired for the comparrisons.


GottaHurt said:
Superb, another interpretation of someone else's words.

Smashing, yet another attempt to distract through your ignorance.
*hint* crimson admitted his usage of the word to have been the broader definition. Just deal with it.
 

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
790
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustineCredible said:
:rofl WOW so now there's a class for gay-bahsing :2nobashin and hate mongering? Is that a credit course or just personal enrichment?

But, seriously: You attempt to ignore the actual MEAT of the question doesn't really suprise me, it's a typical troll thing to do.
So, if you don't mind, try answering it insted of lampooning.

I'm not sure what post of mine that you derived all of this from.

JustineCredible said:
:What again is a gay life-styler let alone a gay lifestyle?
Post #89


JustineCredible said:
:Trying to equate my confussion of your misrepresentation of the term "lifestyle" and my own actual LIFE is only in your mind.

Care to actually asnwer it?

Again, post #89

Lifestyle is a word, not a term, and I gave Merriam-Websters definition, so there'd be no confusion.

Then I went on to explain "gay lifestyle" and how it actually could benefit the gay life-stylers.








JustineCredible said:
:You try to justify denying citizens their rights with your hate and fear...all the while in an attempt to dehumanize and denegrate homosexuals.
AGAIN, show me where I've said any of these things.


JustineCredible said:
:If you're going to insist gays are so bad, you must be prepaired for the comparrisons.
See above response^^^^




JustineCredible said:
:Smashing, yet another attempt to distract through your ignorance.
*hint* crimson admitted his usage of the word to have been the broader definition. Just deal with it.
*Hint* I already thanked him for responding and clearing it up :2wave:
 

Libertarian

Banned
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
WOW so now there's a class for gay-bahsing and hate mongering? Is that a credit course or just personal enrichment?

Ah, the Homosexual agenda victim tactic #2:

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Libertarian said:
Ah, the Homosexual agenda victim tactic #2:

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Moderator Gavel
:smash:

You have copied information without giving a cite.
8. Copyrighted Material -All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the relivant quote and then link to the article for the rest. Please do not post entire articles.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

This is a warning.

Moderator Gavel
 
Last edited:

Libertarian

Banned
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Since your demand seems highly partisan and suspect, especially since I have previously alluded to the author names who wrote the homosexual agenda playbook, here's your link.....make sure you demand the same EVERY time homosexual political extremists quote any source, lest the partisanship becomes obvious.

I will make sure I post a photo every time too, it's your server space

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452264987/104-2840696-5359943?v=glance
 

Attachments

  • aftertheball.jpg
    aftertheball.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 6

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Libertarian said:
Since your demand seems highly partisan and suspect, especially since I have previously alluded to the author names who wrote the homosexual agenda playbook, here's your link.....make sure you demand the same EVERY time homosexual political extremists quote any source, lest the partisanship becomes obvious.

I will make sure I post a photo every time too, it's your server space

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452264987/104-2840696-5359943?v=glance
If you can spot a thread that i've participated in that i haven't demanding sources to be cited then show me. I apply the rules fairly and you've been warned about this behavior before.
 

crimson372

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Libertarian said:
Ah, the Homosexual agenda victim tactic #2:

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)
He did it again. Read post #83. I was really looking forward to your response to that.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Re: 16yr old teen was not homosexual

In trying to excuse the frequent homosexual pedohile behaviors they statistically are far more likely to engage in, homophiles try to redefine homosexual behavior as sex bewtween two consenting adults, their argument that an adult male having sex with an underage boy is not engaging in same sex sex, the very definition of homosexuality.


Since that is a frequent homosexual pedophile protection term, I submit that this 16 year old girl could not have been a 16 year old homosexual, because she can't consent, since "homosexuality is about two consenting adults" as the homosexual pedophile apologists claim.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: 16yr old teen was not homosexual

HeteroDefenseLeague said:
In trying to excuse the frequent homosexual pedohile behaviors they statistically are far more likely to engage in, homophiles try to redefine homosexual behavior as sex bewtween two consenting adults, their argument that an adult male having sex with an underage boy is not engaging in same sex sex, the very definition of homosexuality.


Since that is a frequent homosexual pedophile protection term, I submit that this 16 year old girl could not have been a 16 year old homosexual, because she can't consent, since "homosexuality is about two consenting adults" as the homosexual pedophile apologists claim.
What 16 year old girl?
 
Top Bottom