Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 13 Aug 2018 9:52 pm » wrote:Yet.

The same could have been said, and truthfully, for decriminalizing homosexuality, before we decriminalized homosexuality. Acknowledging an agenda - and opposing it - is not the same as saying the agenda is already accomplished. It is arguing that it ought not to be accomplished.

And by the way, the age of consent is at 14 in more European countries than it is at 17, which is the oldest age of consent in any European country, including Turkey (which is Asian, dammit). And whereas sex with pubescent children is not the strict definition of pedophilia, letting 40 year olds sexually prey on 14 year olds is an agenda that I consider necessary to oppose - and an agenda worming its way inexorably into the LMNOP movement.

Are the tides turning in favor of LMNOP?

http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/ ... 16-12-c-1/

Substitute "gay marriage" with LMNOP and notify me when the numbers reach such a critical mass.

Oppose them as you like, but it's not something I would even think of losing any sleep over. In fact, it hardly registers in my subconscious.

But you DO recall that there once were laws against homosexuality, do you not?

And that those laws were removed from the books?

Yes, and as I pointed out, it's a good thing since we won't have a bunch of "useless eaters" (not my term, I believe this is how the ruling class views the vast majority of people) lined up to be cogs in the capitalist machine. My support for gay marriage/gay rights is purely pragmatic; it has nothing to do with whether or not I prefer traditional over non-traditional marriage.

What makes you believe that other laws - say, Idunno, laws against sex with minors? - could not likewise be struck from the books?

Surely you and I CAN agree on these two facts:

1. That IS the agenda of the "M.A.P." crowd, and
2. They ARE being embraced by the LMNOP movement.

Those are indeed facts, and from those facts, you infer:

3. At some point, the LMNOP movement will successfully strike down laws against pedophilia.

I do not think this to be the case, and like I said, there are no polls I am aware of suggesting otherwise. In order for ANY movement to succeed, it must gain traction, or die.

I do not believe it will gain any traction.

Obama issued a title nine decree requiring schools to allow boys into the girls' showers. This isn't some paranoid response to a fringe movement - this is a reaction to reality, on the ground. At this very moment, thousands of prepubescent boys are being fed a chemical castration regime to block their normal sexual development on the preposterous argument that they are actually girls trapped in boys' bodies, and that they are sufficiently mature to make sexual decisions. Under what set of conflicting principles are children old enough to take medicines for sex change, yet too young to consent to sexual activity?

Obama was wrong, and so are those (worthless) parents, and this has already sparked a backlash.

I have a few theories as to why laws allowing gay marriage eventually passed. The first is that the unity of social libertarians and liberals overwhelmed social conservatives, who eventually caved. The second is that corporations love virtue signalling as a way to boost profits (Target and Starbucks seem to have this "science" down to a T), and once they realized how much money they could make painting rainbows over their advertisements, they fully backed gay marriage.

For the LMNOPs, there is hardly a "united front" pushing for this initiative; there are fringe elements who have completely lost their minds, but nobody cares about them anyway.

I don't see how corporate America stands to benefit, so I doubt they'll support any of this.

Go ask any liberal or libertarian, and I bet 99/100 will say, "No, I don't support pedophilia or allowing 40 year olds make sex with 16 yr olds. What kind of silly question is that anyway?" followed with a scowl.

Finally, I want to point out that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, because the US already allowed same sex unions/cohabitation. It was really just a ploy to gain tax benefits by redefining the term "marriage," and a cynical one at that.