Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When the pro homosexual American Psychiatric Association was caught by conservative watchdogs attempting to make pedophilia a "sexual orientation", they reneged by saying it was a mistake and that they meant "interest" instead of "orientation". This is the same organization that was harassed by homosexual activists into making homosexuality a legitimate sexual orientation, so they know what constitutes orientation versus interest.
So an organization that you complain about being politically motivated did something you want them to do due to political motivation.
The APA's actions can be compared to when LGBT activists threw NAMBLA out of 'gay' pride parades because of the bad (really bad) PR. Just because the fox scoping out the hen house changed his tactics because the farmer caught on to him, doesn't mean that the fox still isn't drooling over the idea of a chicken dinner that night.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Consent. "Desmond the Amazing" gave his consent to get dressed up like a little girl and parade in front of perverts on national television and at gay pride parades, in fact he even has his own website.
No one has been arrested for breaking the numerous laws that are still on the legislative books that are meant to protect children, in fact his
pimps parents are applauded for their child molestation.
Which is irrelevant to the question. It is not illegal for young people to dress up in costumes and role play.
Is that what little Desmond is doing, "role playing"? Is that what all LGBT activists are: "role players"?
Nor has any laws related to consent been changed by homosexuality being legalized.
Homosexuality in and of itself is not legal without consent being used (i.e. homosexual rape is still illegal).
And now for yet another LGBT disclaimer:
I would agree that his parent's judgment in allowing him to engage in this activity is questionable but there are a lot of things parents do that is questionable but not illegal. Anti-vaxxers for example.
Hence the purpose of this 5 part thread: To once again make homosexuality illegal and protect innocent children from the child indoctrinating (i.e. molesting) secular humanist homosexual movement.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
What's the big deal if little Desmond has sex with another 12 year old boy, i.e. whose hurt? What are you going to do, throw them both in jail? Whose hurt if Desmond has sex with a 15 year old boy? What if Desmond's 'thing' is older guys, like 70 year old HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean? If the child desires the sex and is the one that initiates it, what's the big deal, i.e. who is hurt?
If you do not understand the problems with young people engaging in sex at too young an age, I will not be able to explain it to you here. I would suggest taking some college courses on the subject. There is a reason why we have age of consent laws and there is no realistic movement to change those laws.
Oh I do understand very well what "problems" indoctrinating innocent children to the ways of sexual perversion bring, hence it being one of the major themes of this 5 part thread.
Remember people that we're dealing with pathological liars when we're dealing with the LGBT movement (I'm not addressing you Kit, I'm speaking to the people out there that are following this thread who aren't LGBT activists).
*They lie about what causes their homosexual desires and lie that they can't be changed.
*They lied about wanting to permeate and hence destroy our society's invaluable institutions by saying "We don't want to be able to marry, adopt children or serve in the military, we just want to have the ability to visit our partner dying of AIDS in the hospital".
Never forget that the LGBT movement is built on a lie, and they are the biggest con artists in American history.
Gullibility is the Con Artists Best Friend