If you argued that this would never happen ...

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
then you were wrong.

Not only are the pedophiles seeking legitimization through "sexual orientation" status, the polygamists and zoophiles are doing likewise after the DOMA and gay marriage SCotUS rulings.

SOURCE

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals
Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation

by Jack Minor –
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

...

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

<MORE>
Click to expand...

SOURCE

Zoophiles March On Berlin To Demand Equal Rights



By Zach Walton · February 18, 2013

Since 1969, zoophiles have enjoyed protection under German law as the practice of bestiality was completely legal. Fast forward to last year, Germany was looking into getting rid of the law and replacing it with a ban on bestiality. The zoophile community didn’t like it one bit, and filed a suit against the government saying the law violated their rights.

<MORE>
Click to expand...

SOURCE

Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions

Molly Vorwerck, USATODAY 4:49 p.m. EDT June 28, 2013
Polygamists view the Supreme Court's repeal of DOMA and Prop 8 as a step towards wider social -- and in turn, legal -- acceptance of polygamy. Legal scholars, on the other hand, are not as optimistic.

Wednesday's landmark Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage have ushered in optimism for more than just the gay and lesbian community: Polygamists are also reading hope into the fine print.

<MORE>
Click to expand...
 
fringe idiots coming out of the woodwork. who cares? their efforts won't get very far.

you seem preoccupied with this kind of thing. i don't think i would trust you with dog sitting my beagle puppy.
 
Fringe idiots changed the social climate over 25+ years. One step in the beginning is all it takes
 
643wuw.jpg
 
jim thinks if something is on the internet, it is real.

i guess gonz does too. "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." kinda like other regrettable things, like civil rights. golly just look at 'em now. doing their thing all over the place and whatnot. not like my day, when men were men and those boys knew when to just shut up and do what they was told.

so now there's a few goat fuckers getting uppity. no one else cares. my state recently made gay marriage legal. not too long before that it made bestiality illegal.

personally i couldn't give a fuck about polygamy as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

i would of course be in favor of doing some total cost studies on what it takes to run a court system, and bill all those divorcing for actual costs in sorting their shit out if they can't do it themselves, like adults. i.e. i don't want my tax dollars sorting out some giant fucking mess with three chicks, a dude, and a ladyboy.

i'll let jim and dave lobby for their own interests in the younger crowd.

Warren_Jeffs_wives.jpg
 
jim thinks if something is on the internet, it is real.
Click to expand...

Reprints of actual newspaper articles you can hold in your hand and read that are on the Internet are not real in your world. Hell, if I actually handed you the newspaper to read you would claim it was a figment.

You are so predictable. I knew from the outset, when I posted this, that you would take it to some wild extreme. You never fail to come through.

i guess gonz does too. "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." kinda like other regrettable things, like civil rights.
Click to expand...

Tell me that twenty years ago you foresaw bisexuals and transsexuals being declared a "gender." They started small and became "legit" over time. We shall see what happens with pedophiles, zoophiles, and polygamists. They will take the "civil rights" argument to the same vast extremes that you do.
 
2minkey said:
you are right jim.

always have been.

always will be.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

SOURCE

AP December 15, 2013, 7: 22 AM
Federal judge rules parts of Utah anti-polygamy law unconstitutional

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge's ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees basic rights, including freedom of religion.
The ruling was a victory for Kody Brown and his four wives who star in the hit TLC cable TV reality show "Sister Wives" and other fundamentalist Mormons who believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.
The Brown family filed their lawsuit in July 2011 and fled Utah for Las Vegas last year under the threat of prosecution.
Anne Wilde of Salt Lake City, co-founder of the polygamy advocacy group Principle Voices, said polygamous families have lived under the threat of arrest for decades and no longer have to worry about being charged with a felony.
There are an estimated 38,000 fundamentalist Mormons who practice or believe in polygamy, most living in Utah and other Western states, said Wilde, who was a plural wife for 33 years until her husband died.
"Now that we're no longer felons, that's a huge relief," she told The Associated Press. "They no longer have to be afraid that someone will knock at their door and take away their kids. This decision will hopefully take away the stigma of living a principle that's a strongly held religious belief."
The Utah Attorney General's Office has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling. Calls to the office were not immediately returned Saturday.
Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute, which defends the cause of individual liberty in Utah, issued a statement Saturday saying the ruling represents "a new beginning and an important invalidation of an unjust law."
He said that while child brides and abuse must be appropriately prosecuted, consenting adults in a plural relationship should not face penalties.
The "ruling will help integrate these communities into society so that when abuse does occur, it will be more willingly reported and investigated," he said.
The practice of polygamy is a legacy of the early teachings of the Mormon church. The mainstream church abandoned polygamy in 1890 as Utah moved toward U.S. statehood. Today, it strictly prohibits the practice.
"The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term 'Mormon' - widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints - is sometimes misleadingly applied to them," Mormon church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement Saturday.
The two largest organized polygamist churches are Warren Jeff's Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the Utah-Arizona border and the Apostolic United Brethren in northern Utah. About 15,000 fundamentalists don't belong to any church.
Utah's bigamy law is stricter than the laws in 49 other states - most of the other states prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.
Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.
Utah officials had sought to have the lawsuit thrown out. They first argued that the Browns couldn't challenge the bigamy law because they hadn't been charged. State attorneys later argued for dismissal because a prosecutor had pledged not to prosecute them for bigamy.
Kody Brown said in a statement Friday that the family was "humbled and grateful" for the ruling.
© 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...
 
utah's anti-polygamy laws are TOTALLY FUCKED UP.

they can arrest you for cohabitating with a couple different chicks, unmarried.

shit, good thing i would never live in utah.

i'm sorry jim but how am i taking civil rights 'to extremes?' not seeking to prevent homos from getting married, allowing them to pursue their own happiness? yeah, that's extreme. hey, how about a nice shirtless pic of putin to toss off to? lots of steely man meat for you there.

who is more fucked up, the deviant or the person who is unusually fascinated by deviants?
 
Try your post #5.

I predicted this and you dissented. It has now come to pass.

Other groups will use the gay marriage rulings to advance their agendas. It is a simple extrapolation.
 
what about my post #5? you mean where i acknowledged that some freaks would come out of the woodwork?

the shit in utah has nothing to do with your 'prediction.' it has everything to do with getting rid of archaic laws. again, you can go to jail for living with someone you aren't married to.

why are you so interested in regulating other people's lives?
 
I want to deregulate their lives and, along with theirs, mine as well. Too many laws are the problem, not the solution.
 
okay so you are one of those 'no federal in marriage' types who would prefer to see your social preferences encoded into law more locally?
 
jimpeel said:
There are many things that the feds should not be involved with, not the least of which is marriage.
Click to expand...


LOL. i sure left you an easy out.

let's try direct questions.
  1. should people in your state be able to prevent gays from getting married?
  2. would you prefer that they did prevent gays from getting married in your state?
  3. do you personally think gays should be prevented from marrying?
 
2minkey said:
LOL. i sure left you an easy out.

let's try direct questions.

  1. should people in your state be able to make circles to be square?
  2. would you prefer that they did prevent circles from being called square in your state?
  3. do you personally think circles should be prevented from being called square?
Click to expand...

I fixed it for you.

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. It goes against the very foundation of the institution. "Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is irrelevant and not needed". The federal and state governments ought not to be involved in marriage at all. It used to be that way. The very first laws prohibiting marriage was against certain races from marrying each other. This happened around the time slavery ended. Now, before that we had common law marriage. This is how it ought to still be.

But even when you didn't need the government's permission to marry, there was never a "gay marriage". Marriage has always been understood with the procreation principle. In fact, aside from a few fringe, deranged, and isolated occurrences, you cannot find a societal acceptance among any civilizations to gay marriages before the 20th century. Not one. You will find differences in how many spouses you can have but never the same gender.

If you call a tail on a dog a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? It will always be 4. Calling a tail a leg, does not make it one. That's what people are trying to do with "gay marriage", they want to call a leg a tail when it goes against what a tail is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top