Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Legalizing "pedophilia"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legalizing "pedophilia"

    Where has our acceptance and promotion of sexual perversities taken us ?

    It's taking us to soon considering pedophilia as something acceptable.

    Some of us were saying it would lead us down this road long ago.

    We were dismissed as crazies.

    The slippery slope is real, better accept and get used to it !

    Don't like or agree with pedophilia ?

    So what ?? Most people didn't like or agree with homosexuality either, now we have "gay marriage" equaling marriage !

    Now we have "
    transgenders" going into whatever restroom they care to - AND IT'S A "RIGHT" !

    Think it won't happen ? It WILL, and you're fooling yourself if you think it won't...

    ..just as we fooled ourselves on so many other things in the past.

    Read the entire article and think. Think about what has happened in recent years.

    Think about how sexuality is discussed in America now. It is coming.

    Ahhhh, equality ...

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    'Equality Act' opens back door to pedophilia

    Jason is 13 and wants to date his male 21-year-old student teacher. If the “LGBT” Equality Act passes through Congress, the age of consent barrier may fall and allow him to do so.

    Perhaps by now you’ve heard of the so-called Equality Act, a sweeping bill that would declare homosexuality and gender confusion to be federal civil rights equivalent to race, religion, national origin, biological sex and so on.

    This wicked bill, H.R. 5, right now has 240 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi has pledged to bring it up for a vote in late spring or early summer.

    The way the bill is written prompts many concerns. H.R. 5 lacks any religious exemption, for one. So watch for announcement of a “compromise” to add accommodation for religious faith. This “deal” is already supported by misinformed Christian groups like the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals). Weak Republicans, though, will welcome the exemption cover and jump on board. These exemptions would be ignored as “LGBT” bullies continue to steamroll over any attempt to obstruct their agenda.


    But we cannot let this bill go forward, because it may enable pederasty/pedophilia.

    How? This horrific result won’t come through a new definition of “sexual orientation.” The bill now defines sexual orientation as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality.” An atrocious revision that includes alleged “born-that-way” pedophilia is probably coming, but not in this bill, and not right away.

    No, the way this could happen pretty quickly is through the sexual civil rights accorded to children and all the many new ways adults will find to “support” them – what saner heads would call “grooming.” All that has to happen for pedophiles to gain access is for minors to acquire newly minted sexual identity “protections,” and then their carefully manipulated “choices” will pave the way.

    So Tyler at age 10 can declare his girl identity and even how he wants to express it. Be assured, there are “LGBT” lawyers ready to defend him pro bono. And parents will become irrelevant. How does that happen?

    In Cincinnati last year, a teen girl was removed from the custody of her parents and held at Children’s Hospital for a month because the parents withheld consent for her cross-sex hormone treatment.


    So, think about this – if a child can now legally consent to life- and body-altering drugs, why not homosexual sex with whomever they please, including adults?

    There will certainly be judges willing to lower the age of consent if H.R. 5 becomes law.

    After all, if consent can be given by minors for dangerous, life-changing hormones (permissible now in Oregon, e.g.) there’s no reason (using radical, liberal logic) a middle schooler can’t have “safe” anal sex. Sex education programs promoted by Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and GLSEN maintain anal intercourse is a normal, manageable sexual activity.

    Remember hearing the slogan, “No one can choose who they love!” What happens when 13- year-old Jason “likes” his 21-year-old male student teacher? Who just happens to “like” him back?

    You may be thinking, “But civil protections barring adult-child sex will still be securely in place.” Really?

    Think again.

    The young boys now parading before cameras on “Good Morning America,” at “pride” parades, even at a bar in Lancaster, Ohio, dressing as females and giving paid performances for adults – this is all a warm-up, calculated or not.
    There’s no specific law banning this behavior, although a case can probably be made for child corruption by lawmakers who care enough to do so. I’m hoping in my home state of Ohio that happens soon.

    Under H.R. 5, boys who are 11 likely will be given the “right” to say, “I can interact with adults however I want because I identify as a female performer.” All it will take to morph this into a “right” for a minor child to have sex with an adult is a carefully chosen court case, and a challenge to age of consent will be launched.

    The chosen “partner” may be a teacher. Will the NEA mount a defense of their union member’s right to date a child? Probably.

    Several key components might be that no assault is involved, no pregnancy is possible, and sodomy is no longer illegal – so how can it be corrupting? Obscenity laws are so weakly applied in many states that these won’t aid in a defense. Many academics now write papers insisting adult-child sex does no harm to children when they give “consent.”

    Law has traditionally held that minors are unable to give such consent. But that’s another barrier being smashed daily in many schools, with well-intentioned but age-inappropriate new state laws mandating “consent” lessons in the era of #MeToo. Administrators already routinely go behind parents’ backs to “support” gender-confused students in their emotional disturbance.

    Any school teaching “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) also teaches middle schoolers about consent, usually dwelling on saying “no.” But these kids simultaneously learn they have a right to say “yes,” even though this contradicts existing age of consent laws, which hold that minors cannot give consent to sex.

    So back to the potential court case. Whether the parents are on board may not matter, which brings up the other huge boundary H.R. 5 would smash – parental rights. You as a parent will have no right to influence your child’s new sexual identity, in view of this bill ( if it becomes law) that treats “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as immutable.

    Which is a huge lie.


    Age of consent for homosexual behavior is poised to fall. All the chess pieces are in place, and all “LGBT” activists need is for H.R. 5 to pass the House and then the weak-willed Senate to go along – for “compassion” – and certainly we can expect Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to do their part to aid depravity.

    And then what if Trump, in a moment of compromise (possibly encouraged by his ill-informed daughter), signs it?

    We cannot let this happen. If you think this can’t happen, then sit back and do nothing.

    But I am hoping that, like me, you are gravely concerned, and that you call every congressional representative in your state, including the Democrats. Tell them you will remember if they allow this deviant behavior to be legalized as a civil right.


    See the bill and its co-sponsors - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...se-bill/5/text

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/how-equa...to-pedophilia/

  • #2
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    Where has our acceptance and promotion of sexual perversities taken us ?

    It's taking us to soon considering pedophilia as something acceptable.

    Some of us were saying it would lead us down this road long ago.

    We were dismissed as crazies.

    The slippery slope is real, better accept and get used to it !

    Don't like or agree with pedophilia ?

    So what ?? Most people didn't like or agree with homosexuality either, now we have "gay marriage" equaling marriage !

    Now we have "
    transgenders" going into whatever restroom they care to - AND IT'S A "RIGHT" !

    Think it won't happen ? It WILL, and you're fooling yourself if you think it won't...

    ..just as we fooled ourselves on so many other things in the past.

    Read the entire article and think. Think about what has happened in recent years.

    Think about how sexuality is discussed in America now. It is coming.

    Ahhhh, equality ...

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    'Equality Act' opens back door to pedophilia

    Jason is 13 and wants to date his male 21-year-old student teacher. If the “LGBT” Equality Act passes through Congress, the age of consent barrier may fall and allow him to do so.

    Perhaps by now you’ve heard of the so-called Equality Act, a sweeping bill that would declare homosexuality and gender confusion to be federal civil rights equivalent to race, religion, national origin, biological sex and so on.

    This wicked bill, H.R. 5, right now has 240 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi has pledged to bring it up for a vote in late spring or early summer.

    The way the bill is written prompts many concerns. H.R. 5 lacks any religious exemption, for one. So watch for announcement of a “compromise” to add accommodation for religious faith. This “deal” is already supported by misinformed Christian groups like the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals). Weak Republicans, though, will welcome the exemption cover and jump on board. These exemptions would be ignored as “LGBT” bullies continue to steamroll over any attempt to obstruct their agenda.


    But we cannot let this bill go forward, because it may enable pederasty/pedophilia.

    How? This horrific result won’t come through a new definition of “sexual orientation.” The bill now defines sexual orientation as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality.” An atrocious revision that includes alleged “born-that-way” pedophilia is probably coming, but not in this bill, and not right away.

    No, the way this could happen pretty quickly is through the sexual civil rights accorded to children and all the many new ways adults will find to “support” them – what saner heads would call “grooming.” All that has to happen for pedophiles to gain access is for minors to acquire newly minted sexual identity “protections,” and then their carefully manipulated “choices” will pave the way.

    So Tyler at age 10 can declare his girl identity and even how he wants to express it. Be assured, there are “LGBT” lawyers ready to defend him pro bono. And parents will become irrelevant. How does that happen?

    In Cincinnati last year, a teen girl was removed from the custody of her parents and held at Children’s Hospital for a month because the parents withheld consent for her cross-sex hormone treatment.


    So, think about this – if a child can now legally consent to life- and body-altering drugs, why not homosexual sex with whomever they please, including adults?

    There will certainly be judges willing to lower the age of consent if H.R. 5 becomes law.

    After all, if consent can be given by minors for dangerous, life-changing hormones (permissible now in Oregon, e.g.) there’s no reason (using radical, liberal logic) a middle schooler can’t have “safe” anal sex. Sex education programs promoted by Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and GLSEN maintain anal intercourse is a normal, manageable sexual activity.

    Remember hearing the slogan, “No one can choose who they love!” What happens when 13- year-old Jason “likes” his 21-year-old male student teacher? Who just happens to “like” him back?

    You may be thinking, “But civil protections barring adult-child sex will still be securely in place.” Really?

    Think again.

    The young boys now parading before cameras on “Good Morning America,” at “pride” parades, even at a bar in Lancaster, Ohio, dressing as females and giving paid performances for adults – this is all a warm-up, calculated or not.
    There’s no specific law banning this behavior, although a case can probably be made for child corruption by lawmakers who care enough to do so. I’m hoping in my home state of Ohio that happens soon.

    Under H.R. 5, boys who are 11 likely will be given the “right” to say, “I can interact with adults however I want because I identify as a female performer.” All it will take to morph this into a “right” for a minor child to have sex with an adult is a carefully chosen court case, and a challenge to age of consent will be launched.

    The chosen “partner” may be a teacher. Will the NEA mount a defense of their union member’s right to date a child? Probably.

    Several key components might be that no assault is involved, no pregnancy is possible, and sodomy is no longer illegal – so how can it be corrupting? Obscenity laws are so weakly applied in many states that these won’t aid in a defense. Many academics now write papers insisting adult-child sex does no harm to children when they give “consent.”

    Law has traditionally held that minors are unable to give such consent. But that’s another barrier being smashed daily in many schools, with well-intentioned but age-inappropriate new state laws mandating “consent” lessons in the era of #MeToo. Administrators already routinely go behind parents’ backs to “support” gender-confused students in their emotional disturbance.

    Any school teaching “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) also teaches middle schoolers about consent, usually dwelling on saying “no.” But these kids simultaneously learn they have a right to say “yes,” even though this contradicts existing age of consent laws, which hold that minors cannot give consent to sex.

    So back to the potential court case. Whether the parents are on board may not matter, which brings up the other huge boundary H.R. 5 would smash – parental rights. You as a parent will have no right to influence your child’s new sexual identity, in view of this bill ( if it becomes law) that treats “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as immutable.

    Which is a huge lie.


    Age of consent for homosexual behavior is poised to fall. All the chess pieces are in place, and all “LGBT” activists need is for H.R. 5 to pass the House and then the weak-willed Senate to go along – for “compassion” – and certainly we can expect Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to do their part to aid depravity.

    And then what if Trump, in a moment of compromise (possibly encouraged by his ill-informed daughter), signs it?

    We cannot let this happen. If you think this can’t happen, then sit back and do nothing.

    But I am hoping that, like me, you are gravely concerned, and that you call every congressional representative in your state, including the Democrats. Tell them you will remember if they allow this deviant behavior to be legalized as a civil right.


    See the bill and its co-sponsors - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...se-bill/5/text

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/how-equa...to-pedophilia/
    Then of course we have Trump's buddy. https://nypost.com/2016/10/09/the-se...ffrey-epstein/

    îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


    • #3
      Originally posted by redrover View Post

      Then of course we have Trump's buddy. https://nypost.com/2016/10/09/the-se...ffrey-epstein/
      Looks like another Michael Jackson doesn't it ?

      Another rich creep with ... well, he preferred kids !

      Gays prefer members of the same sex, pedophiles prefer kids !

      Who are WE to tell others "who to love" ??

      îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Looks like another Michael Jackson doesn't it ?

        Another rich creep with ... well, he preferred kids !

        Gays prefer members of the same sex, pedophiles prefer kids !

        Who are WE to tell others "who to love" ??
        Not telling anyone whom they should and shouldn't love.
        Telling them that they can't physically express this 'love' of children.
        Period.
        No exceptions.

        I also think that therapy and castration (chemical or otherwise) should be within acceptable punishments, though perhaps on repeated offenses.

        îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


        • #5
          In many states, it's already "legal" to marry children - early teens.

          This is state sanctioned pedophilia under the protection of "marriage."

          Another part of opening post...

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Many academics now write papers insisting adult-child sex does no harm to children when they give “consent.”

          Law has traditionally held that minors are unable to give such consent. But that’s another barrier being smashed daily in many schools, with well-intentioned but age-inappropriate new state laws mandating “consent” lessons in the era of #MeToo. Administrators already routinely go behind parents’ backs to “support” gender-confused students in their emotional disturbance.

          Any school teaching “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) also teaches middle schoolers about consent, usually dwelling on saying “no.” But these kids simultaneously learn they have a right to say “yes,” even though this contradicts existing age of consent laws..


          https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...lia#post561311


          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          It sounds crazy and outrageous that legalizing sex with kids will be attempted.

          But it will, just like all the other things that we thought were crazy and outrageous that are now accepted as normal.

          îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
            In many states, it's already "legal" to marry children - early teens.

            This is state sanctioned pedophilia under the protection of "marriage."

            Another part of opening post...
            ...

            It sounds crazy and outrageous that legalizing sex with kids will be attempted.

            But it will, just like all the other things that we thought were crazy and outrageous that are now accepted as normal.
            What do you mean, "will be attempted"? Pedophilia was common practice back in the bad old days. Arranged marriages of 14 year old girls with a 30 year old farmer, remember?

            By all means, condemn any lefty bill that attempts to legalize sexual relationships between minors and adults. I'm just including the historical record, to illustrate the same defects within right wing politics. Unless you're going to proceed with "times were different then..." or some other argument. We'll get the popcorn out, to add to the entertainment.

            îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


            • #7
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              What do you mean, "will be attempted"? Pedophilia was common practice back in the bad old days. Arranged marriages of 14 year old girls with a 30 year old farmer, remember?
              Yes, these arranged marriages have gone on for much of our history. In Old England/Wales it was a regular part of the process of ties & alliances between rulers.

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              By all means, condemn any lefty bill that attempts to legalize sexual relationships between minors and adults. I'm just including the historical record, to illustrate the same defects within right wing politics. Unless you're going to proceed with "times were different then..." or some other argument. We'll get the popcorn out, to add to the entertainment.
              Popcorn cold yet ? LOL

              It's a strange thing that happens when "law" & lawmakers get involved with relationships and sex isn't it ?

              Look at where it has taken us !

              I'm not sure I'm arguing for getting more "laws" made or passed about who can do what with who or when, it may be that the more that law gets involved, the worse these things get.

              That seems to be what we're seeing happening.

              The "state" should never have been allowed in our beds I think.

              I suspect gays who decided to try out their new right to marriage will agree LOL

              îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Yes, these arranged marriages have gone on for much of our history. In Old England/Wales it was a regular part of the process of ties & alliances between rulers.



                Popcorn cold yet ? LOL

                It's a strange thing that happens when "law" & lawmakers get involved with relationships and sex isn't it ?

                Look at where it has taken us !

                I'm not sure I'm arguing for getting more "laws" made or passed about who can do what with who or when, it may be that the more that law gets involved, the worse these things get.

                That seems to be what we're seeing happening.

                The "state" should never have been allowed in our beds I think.

                I suspect gays who decided to try out their new right to marriage will agree LOL
                I just saw that the govorner of Kentucky has just out lawed sex with animals. Don't despair the Kavanaugh court will probably find the law unconstitutional.Too bad Trump can't veto it.

                îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  I just saw that the govorner of Kentucky has just out lawed sex with animals. Don't despair the Kavanaugh court will probably find the law unconstitutional.Too bad Trump can't veto it.
                  It is.

                  It's not the governments job to mandate who or what we can and can't love.

                  They've a great record of making these 'issues' worse by trying to do so.

                  îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    Yes, these arranged marriages have gone on for much of our history. In Old England/Wales it was a regular part of the process of ties & alliances between rulers.



                    Popcorn cold yet ? LOL

                    It's a strange thing that happens when "law" & lawmakers get involved with relationships and sex isn't it ?

                    Look at where it has taken us !

                    I'm not sure I'm arguing for getting more "laws" made or passed about who can do what with who or when, it may be that the more that law gets involved, the worse these things get.

                    That seems to be what we're seeing happening.

                    The "state" should never have been allowed in our beds I think.

                    I suspect gays who decided to try out their new right to marriage will agree LOL
                    It's a matter of using current law, basically. Contracts and other legal agreements (marriage/civil union included) get very touchy with arrangements between minors and adults. As it should be. We need ways to allow certain relationships involving minors (fe child actors) that are legally protected, of course. Other relationships that fall into categories like mass labor and sex set off law enforcement alarms and must land in court.

                    îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      It's a matter of using current law, basically. Contracts and other legal agreements (marriage/civil union included) get very touchy with arrangements between minors and adults. As it should be. We need ways to allow certain relationships involving minors (fe child actors) that are legally protected, of course. Other relationships that fall into categories like mass labor and sex set off law enforcement alarms and must land in court.
                      Where some judge can decide right ?

                      Ok well and good, but we see judges having an awfully wide range of differing opinions from day to day about "law" and what it is, or should be.

                      Everyone gets to make up their own "law" these days, and I hate to bring it up again, but law means little today. We still can't get the half-wits in D.C. to define what our immigration laws are, or even if we have any .. and they certainly don't like to enforce the ones we HAVE. No, it's Americas job to care for the poor of the world - those who can find a way into our country somehow.

                      We're all supposed to cry and whine because some illegal immigrants kids got killed or somehow died while trying to get into America, it's disgusting. Lay the fault where it belongs; At the feet of the incompetent iceholes in Washington D.C.

                      "Law enforcement" & "court" - jokes

                      An interesting read on the subject of kids being allowed to get "married"....

                      It's a long but worthwhile read. Here's some of it...

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Idaho prides itself on personal freedoms, but one child bride explains how her parents' freedom cost her dearly


                      Angel Dwyer's family came to North Idaho for the beautiful log cabin home they were able to buy in the middle of nowhere, not too far from the pristine waters of Priest Lake. They came because Idaho is a place known for respecting personal freedoms. They came because they knew people wouldn't ask questions.

                      Questions like: How old is Angel? And how old is her husband?

                      .....

                      Idaho Rep. Melissa Wintrow, a Democrat representing the north Boise area, first considered changing the state's marriage rules while serving on a human trafficking subcommittee. One of the things that came up was the possibility that people travel to other states to marry because the rules are more lax.

                      "So I start asking more questions and realize we don't even have a floor for the minimum age of marriage," Wintrow says. "To think that somebody 30 could marry somebody 13 didn't seem appropriate, especially such as that our consent laws say that you can't consent. ... We're defining statutory rape, but then we have a loophole for some people to get around it."

                      In Idaho, those who marry under the age of 18 are almost always girls, and in recent years they've legally married men in their 20s, 30s, 40s or even older.

                      Idaho allowed a 20-year-old man to marry a 13-year-old girl in 2001, which would have been considered statutory rape outside of that institution getting approved by a parent and a judge. It also allowed a 46-year-old man to marry a 16-year-old girl in 2006, and in 2010, a 65-year-old man married a 17-year-old girl, according to state health data.

                      To prevent Idaho from becoming complicit in child abuse, Wintrow suggested aligning the state's marriage law with its statutory rape laws. That means no one under the age of 16 could marry, and those who are 16 or 17 would need to get parental permission as well as judicial permission, and they could not marry anyone more than three years older than them.

                      Currently in Idaho, those who are 16 and 17 just need parental permission, and those under 16 need a judge to agree that a medical professional has signed off on the child being mature enough for marriage and that the union would be in the "best interest of society." (In Washington state, those who are 17 can get married with parental consent, and under that age, court permission is also needed.)

                      Wintrow also proposed that the judge would need to find the marriage is in the best interest of that child.

                      "We've come a long way, but girls are still kind of fed different cultural messages about being rescued and the importance of a man in your life," Wintrow says. "I remember what it was like to be 14, 15, you've seen all those Disney movies and it's before you've had the chance to experience the world. You're easily coerced or persuaded. We need to safeguard them."


                      .................

                      https://www.inlander.com/spokane/ida...t?oid=17087821

                      îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                      • #12
                        Good link, thanks. Hopefully Idaho will remove the loophole and align minor/adult laws with the one they have on the books regarding statutory rape. Judges will have a little discretion in most cases, but a conviction for statutory rape with no sanction imposed by a judge will usually get that judge removed. In reform efforts, I would like to see states that fail to protect minors in such cases, receive scrutiny and possible sanctions at the federal level. Civil rights.

                        îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Good link, thanks. Hopefully Idaho will remove the loophole and align minor/adult laws with the one they have on the books regarding statutory rape. Judges will have a little discretion in most cases, but a conviction for statutory rape with no sanction imposed by a judge will usually get that judge removed. In reform efforts, I would like to see states that fail to protect minors in such cases, receive scrutiny and possible sanctions at the federal level. Civil rights.
                          I don't think it's only Idaho either.

                          Other states have different items as well. In some states you can marry your cousin for instance. In others you can't. Not that I'M arguing pro or con for any of this, MY main problem is how obvious it is that "the state" has little or no business in these things. They only manage to confuse and/or make things much worse. Which we're seeing happen at an even faster pace today.

                          îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            I don't think it's only Idaho either.

                            Other states have different items as well. In some states you can marry your cousin for instance. In others you can't. Not that I'M arguing pro or con for any of this, MY main problem is how obvious it is that "the state" has little or no business in these things. They only manage to confuse and/or make things much worse. Which we're seeing happen at an even faster pace today.
                            I think we have to leave it to guys like judge Roy Moore who has a strong Christian belief in pedophilia, but wants to outlaw homosexuality. It's nice to see all Christians, Catholics and Protestants agree that that homosexuality is bad, but pedophilia is okay. Although I must say that Catholics do come down hard on preists caught dideling little boys say four Hail Mary's.

                            îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post
                              I think we have to leave it to guys like judge Roy Moore who has a strong Christian belief in pedophilia, but wants to outlaw homosexuality. It's nice to see all Christians, Catholics and Protestants agree that that homosexuality is bad, but pedophilia is okay. Although I must say that Catholics do come down hard on preists caught dideling little boys say four Hail Mary's.
                              Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary Hail Mary

                              Thank you for pointing out what I've been saying;

                              ""the state" has little or no business in these things. They only manage to confuse and/or make things much worse."

                              What is Ok what is not Ok ? That depends on which diddlebrain of "the state" you happen to ask LOL

                              îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?

                              Working...
                              X