Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's societies...

[lee11]

Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's socieites...

Now, in my mind, it almost and maybe does seem "right" that people should be free to be gay... To be attracted sexually to the same sex, and have relationships with them, even get married if they wish...

But... That being said, I think that this is how it starts out innocently enough, but, ends up with almost any kind of sexual perversion being acceptable and not wrong, things like rape, child molestation, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, very sick stuff, ending up being acceptable and not considered wrong at all...

This is what happened in Sodom and Gommorah...

Probably started out with gay rights, and ended up in, almost nothing sexually being "wrong"...

To avoid this, we need to and must "draw the line" now, somewhere... And not let those lines be questioned to the point of being able to find no reason for them to be considered "wrong"...

This is the fear I have that society will go down the same road that Sodom and Gommorah did... To the point of people, men and women and children being afraid to even go outside due to there being rape gangs everywhere, who are pretty indescriminate about their targets...

Sex with animals, sex with children, raping animals and children, incest, none of it really considered "wrong" anymore, this is where I fear our society is heading in the future...

We need to draw the lines now... And back these lines up with very good, very solid reasons, why it is wrong now, or else... Or else they might all become blurred in the future...

All beginning, innocently enough, with gay rights, which as I said, even seems right to me, if that's where it stops that is...

So, it is our job to stop it from going any further than that NOW, or else...

Comments...?

God Bless!

Hi

the gay community make up about 10 percent of the worlds population, and the other 90 percent are adulterers or fornicators.

all sexual immorality is unacceptable before God, except the covenant of marriage between men and women.

i notice that many people always point out the lifestyle of homosexuals, but rarely mention adultery or fornication which is 90 percent higher and practiced everywhere everyday.

how many gay people do we actually know?

how many fornicators do we meet or mix with on a daily basis every time we go out in public?

when you use public transport are at work or attend a social event etc, we are surrounded by people that believe fornication or causal sex is normal and acceptable.

do we point out there sexual immoralities? or do we only reserve that for the gay community?

another words we cant discriminate, against just one sexual practice, we must use the same standard and perspective for all sexual immortally.

Peace

 

[redleghunter]

The constitution also has a clause about the separation between Church and State. If a civil servant wants to discriminate off the clock, they are allowed to. But while on the clock, they are a part of the government, and therefore should not discriminate nor show preference for a particular religion.

Not true. There is no such separation of church and state clause regarding personal liberties as in the free exercise of religion. You don't check your personal liberties at the door when going to work. Not even the government.

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a church or state religion.

Also, "separation of church and state" is not to be seen in the US Constitution. That is what Jefferson wrote in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist church. They were concerned their state would establish a church and they would have to support by taxation that church.

 

[SilverBear]

This is where I disagree with the op. Yes gay marriage and the cultural celebration and acceptance of it is continuing to lead us down a dark path (which wasn't started with gay marriage but before it) we can't stop it and we can't make it illegal.

can you provide some concrete examples of this dark path caused by marriage equality?

No, rape, pedophilia, polyamory, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc is not cause by an individual being gay. It is caused by a society that tells us that nothing really matters so you can do whatever you want.

Except no one other than evangelicals are saying this.

A gay marriage is valid because why not? No reason for it not to be, two people love each other. So why not a group of people? They can marry, too right? They aren't hurting anyone. What about a man and his dog? They love each other. And on it goes.

same gendered marriage is valid for exactly the same reasons any other marriage is valid.

It's not because someone is gay. It's because we're having a moral breakdown of society where our actions have no meaning and everything is ok as long as you aren't "hurting anyone", which is the only thing that is wrong. And if we want something that's wrong? Well, let's just change the definition of right.

you mean like how you are changing the definition of right to justify discrimination?

I have actually seen people arguing for pedophilia to be made part of the lgbt acronym, and, yes, even defending pedophiles as victims.

who exactly did this?

It's only rumblings on the Internet for now, but it may be the beginning of something scary. This is going to happen if society doesn't wake up and realize that we're destroying ourselves.

Gingerbeer said it so well i can't improve on his post.

 

[Ringo84]

Not true. There is no such separation of church and state clause regarding personal liberties as in the free exercise of religion. You don't check your personal liberties at the door when going to work. Not even the government.

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a church or state religion.

Also, "separation of church and state" is not to be seen in the US Constitution. That is what Jefferson wrote in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist church. They were concerned their state would establish a church and they would have to support by taxation that church.

I beg your pardon. The Separation of Church and State does not ask you to "check your personal liberties at the door". It says that the government is required to remain religiously neutral. The way that is enacted as a policy is to prevent teachers and administrators - employees of state-run schools - from infringing on that neutrality.

"Separation of church and state" is

1. The guiding principle upon which the founders built the Bill of Rights, and
2. Is implicit in the wording: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This does three things: prevents the establishment of a national religion and prohibits the government from restricting your freedom of religion. The former guarantees the latter by preventing the government from dictating matters of faith to you or requiring belief in a god - whether it's the Christian God, Allah, Buddha, or any other one.

It's true that Jefferson's "wall of separation" prevents tax dollars from going to support churches. That's the point: it's not the government's business to either require or prevent you from worshiping a god - or not worshiping one, if you so choose.

You need to educate yourself on this issue before you start blathering about things you clearly have no understanding of.
Ringo

 

[MournfulWatcher]

can you provide some concrete examples of this dark path caused by marriage equality?

Except no one other than evangelicals are saying this.


same gendered marriage is valid for exactly the same reasons any other marriage is valid.

you mean like how you are changing the definition of right to justify discrimination?

who exactly did this?


Gingerbeer said it so well i can't improve on his post.

I did not claim that this "dark path" was started by gay marriage. In fact I said the opposite, that it started before the movement, which is simply a symptom of a nihilistic culture.

Why is it wrong just because an evangelical says it? And actually people beside evangelicals are saying this, christians outside of the movement like myself. Look up jordan peterson, if you aren't already familiar with him. He isn't even a christian and is recognizing these problems we're seeing in society.

Why did you ignore the other examples of "marriage" I gave using the exact same logic you are using for gay marriage? Why should those example be any different?

I did not change the definition of right to justify discrimination. I'm not trying to justify discrimination. I specifically said society can't do anything to stop gay marriage or make it illegal, and Christians certainly shouldn't try to take away freedom. I believe discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation is wrong. But what I'm talking about isn't on a personal level of someone being gay, I'm talking about society's acceptance of behaviors that come out of a nihilistic viewpoint is not healthy for a culture. I personally think that's why we're seeing more mass shootings, but that's a different conversation.

I'll try to find links to what I was reading in the morning when I can get at a computer. Like I said, it's rumblings on the internet, it's not like some celebrity or political figure is talking about this. But even though you may think that it's just random people saying whatever on the internet, these people are really into the lgbt movement and actually believe that there's nothing wrong with pedophiles. If you want a concrete example of how we're seeing this play out, there you go. Not to mention what I hear about polyamory and other such things, being on a college campus.

And as for Ginger beer's post, just because one extreme end does terrible things doesn't mean the other extreme is morally good.

 

[redleghunter]

No, rape, pedophilia, polyamory, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc is not cause by an individual being gay. It is caused by a society that tells us that nothing really matters so you can do whatever you want.

I agree. Our postmodern society is quite unique in the history of human civilization. It is both nihilistic and hedonistic. The former the catalyst for the latter.

 

[redleghunter]

the Hebrew word for carnal is mishkab (חוּשָׁנִי) this word or any dirrivitive of this word does not appear in Genesis 19:5 or anywhere else in Genesis for that matter.

However, Jude 1:7 pretty much gives us the understanding from the NT church.

 

[redleghunter]

i notice that many people always point out the lifestyle of homosexuals, but rarely mention adultery or fornication which is 90 percent higher and practiced everywhere everyday.

That's a good point. Can you show me where, other than Hollywood, where adulterers and fornicators are suing business owners for refusing to celebrate their lifestyle choices?

 

[Zoii]

Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's socieites...

Now, in my mind, it almost and maybe does seem "right" that people should be free to be gay... To be attracted sexually to the same sex, and have relationships with them, even get married if they wish...

But... That being said, I think that this is how it starts out innocently enough, but, ends up with almost any kind of sexual perversion being acceptable and not wrong, things like rape, child molestation, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, very sick stuff, ending up being acceptable and not considered wrong at all...

This is what happened in Sodom and Gommorah...

Probably started out with gay rights, and ended up in, almost nothing sexually being "wrong"...

To avoid this, we need to and must "draw the line" now, somewhere... And not let those lines be questioned to the point of being able to find no reason for them to be considered "wrong"...

This is the fear I have that society will go down the same road that Sodom and Gommorah did... To the point of people, men and women and children being afraid to even go outside due to there being rape gangs everywhere, who are pretty indescriminate about their targets...

Sex with animals, sex with children, raping animals and children, incest, none of it really considered "wrong" anymore, this is where I fear our society is heading in the future...

We need to draw the lines now... And back these lines up with very good, very solid reasons, why it is wrong now, or else... Or else they might all become blurred in the future...

All beginning, innocently enough, with gay rights, which as I said, even seems right to me, if that's where it stops that is...

So, it is our job to stop it from going any further than that NOW, or else...

Comments...?

God Bless!

wow you have made some remarks that are unbecoming - that is such an outrageous comment to suggest that being gay is a road to inappropriate behavior with animals and paedophilia. I feel so outraged that this site would condone such a suggestion

 

[redleghunter]

"Separation of church and state" is

1. The guiding principle upon which the founders built the Bill of Rights, and
2. Is implicit in the wording: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This does three things: prevents the establishment of a national religion and prohibits the government from restricting your freedom of religion. The former guarantees the latter by preventing the government from dictating matters of faith to you or requiring belief in a god - whether it's the Christian God, Allah, Buddha, or any other one.

It's true that Jefferson's "wall of separation" prevents tax dollars from going to support churches. That's the point: it's not the government's business to either require or prevent you from worshiping a god - or not worshiping one, if you so choose.

You need to educate yourself on this issue before you start blathering about things you clearly have no understanding of.

Hi Ringo. Show me where the Constitution states there is "a wall of separation" between state and religion. Thanks.

I already pointed out the Congress is prohibited to establish a state religion or church . The Founders did not want a Church of the USA as our forebears came here seeking religious freedom. Most also remembered the fiasco of the state established church in Virginia in the Colonial period.

What you had at the founding of our nation were several Christian denominations and churches and the Founders did not want one ring to rule them all. Thus the concern of the Danbury Baptists who were a minority in their state.

It was never about keeping faith or religion out of the public schools or public in general. Or even holding Bible studies and prayer meetings on government property. All things liberal groups like the FFRA argue is unconstitutional. Like everything in our nation's history it was about taxes:

What makes this case in particular interesting is that despite the natural incredulous reaction this ploy may incite, it's not as unprecedented as it seems. Prior to independence, the Church of England was the established church in the colonies. After the Revolutionary War and prior to the writing and ratification of the Constitution, states were suddenly left to their own devices, and many responded by considering the establishment of official churches. One of Thomas Jefferson's proudest achievements (one of three he included in his epitaph; his presidency wasn't one) was writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute represented his victory in a battle with Patrick Henry over establishing a state church. Henry, while advocating tolerance, also wanted Richmond to collect taxes that would subsidize several Protestant denominations.

But not every state had a Jefferson. South Carolina went the Henry route, giving state funding to multiple denominations for a time. North Carolina disestablished the Anglican Church in 1776, although the state constitution still contains a now-unenforceable prohibition on non-believers holding office. Ironically, it was today's more liberal states that were likely to keep established churches longest, as Michael McConnell noted in the William and Mary Law Review:

Establishment survived in New England well into the nineteenth century. Disestablishment came to Connecticut in 1818, but not until 1833 in Massachusetts. New Hampshire enacted a toleration act in 1819, but authorization for towns to support Protestant ministers remained on the books, unenforced, for the rest of the century.​

The demise of these established churches had nothing to do with the long arm of the federal government reaching where it oughtn't be -- it had everything to do with voters deciding it just didn't work to keep handing money to ministers. "Tellingly, these establishments fell in large measure because citizens of both states tired of the incessant bickering about church taxes, especially as they watched tax-supported congregations split over the doctrine of Unitarianism and lawsuits over the tax revenues belonging to the now divided congregations increase," explains James Hutson in his book Religion and the New Republic.
North Carolina's Proposed State Religion Isn't as Unprecedented as It Sounds

And as John Adams opined

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by [. . .], morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
​

From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798
Founders Online: From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798
Why John Adams – John Adams Center

I won't charge you for this lesson Ringo.

 

[frater_domus]

Dunno man. I think we may be blowing this whole gay thing out of proportion. We are all sinners and we all miss the mark. We all did things that are abominable in God’s eyes. However, if we start condemning gay people, how are we better than the hypocritical pharisees Jesus was having a go at? Remove the beam from thine own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the speck from thy brother’s eye.
Besides, we are to love our neighbour.

 

[Ringo84]

Hi Ringo. Show me where the Constitution states there is "a wall of separation" between state and religion. Thanks.

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I already pointed out the Congress is prohibited to establish a state religion or church . The Founders did not want a Church of the USA as our forebears came here seeking religious freedom. Most also remembered the fiasco of the state established church in Virginia in the Colonial period.

OK, cool. We agree.

What you had at the founding of our nation were several Christian denominations and churches and the Founders did not want one ring to rule them all. Thus the concern of the Danbury Baptists who were a minority in their state.

All of which were gradually de-established when the Fourteenth Amendment applied national separation to the states.

It was never about keeping faith or religion out of the public schools or public in general. Or even holding Bible studies and prayer meetings on government property/

You're right, since that's never what has been argued by adherents of separation.

What makes this case in particular interesting is that despite the natural incredulous reaction this ploy may incite, it's not as unprecedented as it seems. Prior to independence, the Church of England was the established church in the colonies. After the Revolutionary War and prior to the writing and ratification of the Constitution, states were suddenly left to their own devices, and many responded by considering the establishment of official churches. One of Thomas Jefferson's proudest achievements (one of three he included in his epitaph; his presidency wasn't one) was writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute represented his victory in a battle with Patrick Henry over establishing a state church. Henry, while advocating tolerance, also wanted Richmond to collect taxes that would subsidize several Protestant denominations.

But not every state had a Jefferson. South Carolina went the Henry route, giving state funding to multiple denominations for a time. North Carolina disestablished the Anglican Church in 1776, although the state constitution still contains a now-unenforceable prohibition on non-believers holding office. Ironically, it was today's more liberal states that were likely to keep established churches longest, as Michael McConnell noted in the William and Mary Law Review:

Establishment survived in New England well into the nineteenth century. Disestablishment came to Connecticut in 1818, but not until 1833 in Massachusetts. New Hampshire enacted a toleration act in 1819, but authorization for towns to support Protestant ministers remained on the books, unenforced, for the rest of the century.​

The demise of these established churches had nothing to do with the long arm of the federal government reaching where it oughtn't be -- it had everything to do with voters deciding it just didn't work to keep handing money to ministers. "Tellingly, these establishments fell in large measure because citizens of both states tired of the incessant bickering about church taxes, especially as they watched tax-supported congregations split over the doctrine of Unitarianism and lawsuits over the tax revenues belonging to the now divided congregations increase," explains James Hutson in his book Religion and the New Republic.
North Carolina's Proposed State Religion Isn't as Unprecedented as It Sounds

And as John Adams opined

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by [. . .], morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
​

From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798
Founders Online: From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798
Why John Adams – John Adams Center

I won't charge you for this lesson Ringo.

That's fine. I wouldn't pay anyway because this "lesson" was misleading and awful.

What you failed to read in your zeal to post this article was this:

Of course, these churches were established and then disestablished in the context of a homogeneous society in which Protestant Christians were completely dominant. So let's keep two things in mind when we look at a bill like North Carolina's: First, the Founders, despite being overwhelmingly Protestant men in an era kind to them, intentionally avoided state religion in most cases, and wrote protections against it. And second, even in that homogeneous society, American churches proved too fractious to justify even broadly distributed state support. Now, imagine the difficulties that might erupt in an era when evangelical Christians, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, secular humanists, and atheists all share the culture. How likely is it that such a venture would succeed?

A couple of take-aways from the highlighted parts (emphasis mine, of course):

1. Established churches may - note the emphasis on the may - have been workable in an era where there was less religious pluralism (though I would not concede that point to you, since establishment is unconstitutional and unethical), but it would not be workable today.
2. The founders were themselves Protestants and still fought for protections against establishment of religion. They did this because they - and their ancestors - had fled from a country with established religion that had persecuted them because they did not belong to the state church, and they knew better than anyone the dangers of mingling church and state.

Like so many people who attempt to debate this issue, you're so close to the truth but you cling to these notions about ""persecution"" based on lies that have been told you (e.g: prayer being "taken out" of public school). To be fair, though, this has less to do with you than it does a larger issue of lack of education (and I would argue outright lying - not on your part but "Christian" "leaders") on the issue.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

For follow-up reading - and I'm not trying to be smart here; I honestly recommend this - I suggest the Baptist Joint Committee, an invaluable resource on church/state matters:

Top 5 myths of separation of church and state
Ringo

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's socieites...

Doesn't mean anything -- Satan destroys the societies. Jesus would not be into politics, nor into running about looking for new sinners to attack.

Church you can judge IF you have the Spirit, otherwise just mistaking your own spirit for the Spirit of God.

Outside the church, not your place to judge, that is God's place.

Persecuting a minority who is already ostracized by society and saying Jesus would do this is absurd and cruel.

Why be bothered about other people's sex lives?

Good, bad... not even your business.

False argument of "it is bad, every society says so", is irrelevant to this.

 

[lee11]

That's a good point. Can you show me where, other than Hollywood, where adulterers and fornicators are suing business owners for refusing to celebrate their lifestyle choices?

hi

gee im not sure, may be fornicators and adulterers should jump on the band wagon and sue the businesses as well, and forget the other 101 different sins they commit besides sexual immorality.

Next time your sharing the good news with fornicators and adulterers, don’t forget to suggest it, that should excuse them from wilfully sinning like everyone else.

 

[thesunisout]

Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's socieites...

Now, in my mind, it almost and maybe does seem "right" that people should be free to be gay... To be attracted sexually to the same sex, and have relationships with them, even get married if they wish...

But... That being said, I think that this is how it starts out innocently enough, but, ends up with almost any kind of sexual perversion being acceptable and not wrong, things like rape, child molestation, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, very sick stuff, ending up being acceptable and not considered wrong at all...

This is what happened in Sodom and Gommorah...

Probably started out with gay rights, and ended up in, almost nothing sexually being "wrong"...

To avoid this, we need to and must "draw the line" now, somewhere... And not let those lines be questioned to the point of being able to find no reason for them to be considered "wrong"...

This is the fear I have that society will go down the same road that Sodom and Gommorah did... To the point of people, men and women and children being afraid to even go outside due to there being rape gangs everywhere, who are pretty indescriminate about their targets...

Sex with animals, sex with children, raping animals and children, incest, none of it really considered "wrong" anymore, this is where I fear our society is heading in the future...

We need to draw the lines now... And back these lines up with very good, very solid reasons, why it is wrong now, or else... Or else they might all become blurred in the future...

All beginning, innocently enough, with gay rights, which as I said, even seems right to me, if that's where it stops that is...

So, it is our job to stop it from going any further than that NOW, or else...

Comments...?

God Bless!

I agree that gay rights are a slippery slope. The gay rights legislation paved the way for transgender rights legislation. Now our society is to the point that it has accepted that it is okay to choose your own gender. It's socially acceptable to be a man dressed as a woman and use a womans bathroom. Where it goes from there is anyones guess but as you said, we have biblical evidence of what it can become.

What I would disagree with is that it is our job to stop this from happening. What I would say is that this is happening because we haven't done our job. Here is the job I think we as a church haven't been doing:

2 Chronicles 7:14

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land

According to this scripture, God is looking for the church to repent when it comes to judging or healing the land. So, it is saying the problem is with the church.

The problem is that the church is lukewarm and doesn't preach the gospel. I grew up secular with no idea about Christianity at all. I never had one person come up to me and explain the gospel to me. I am sure there are millions of people out there in America who are in the same situation.

So while America has drifted from God I believe the fault lay with an unrepentant lukewarm church. I am not pointing fingers. We all have to start with our own personal repentance before we can even begin.

 

[dysert]

The slippery slope described:

1. We just don't want to feel like lesser people simply because we're gay.
2. We just want to be accepted into society even though we're gay.
3. We just don't want to be discriminated against because we're gay.
4. We want to be celebrated because we're gay.
5. We want the same rights as everyone else despite the fact that we're gay.
6. We want to be allowed to enjoy the same marital rights as heterosexual couples.

What comes next is anyone's guess.

 

[Tom 1]

Gay rights... The slippery slope that destroy's socieites...

Now, in my mind, it almost and maybe does seem "right" that people should be free to be gay... To be attracted sexually to the same sex, and have relationships with them, even get married if they wish...

But... That being said, I think that this is how it starts out innocently enough, but, ends up with almost any kind of sexual perversion being acceptable and not wrong, things like rape, child molestation, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, very sick stuff, ending up being acceptable and not considered wrong at all...

This is what happened in Sodom and Gommorah...

Probably started out with gay rights, and ended up in, almost nothing sexually being "wrong"...

To avoid this, we need to and must "draw the line" now, somewhere... And not let those lines be questioned to the point of being able to find no reason for them to be considered "wrong"...

This is the fear I have that society will go down the same road that Sodom and Gommorah did... To the point of people, men and women and children being afraid to even go outside due to there being rape gangs everywhere, who are pretty indescriminate about their targets...

Sex with animals, sex with children, raping animals and children, incest, none of it really considered "wrong" anymore, this is where I fear our society is heading in the future...

We need to draw the lines now... And back these lines up with very good, very solid reasons, why it is wrong now, or else... Or else they might all become blurred in the future...

All beginning, innocently enough, with gay rights, which as I said, even seems right to me, if that's where it stops that is...

So, it is our job to stop it from going any further than that NOW, or else...

Comments...?

God Bless!

I think the 'slippery slope' in Sodom and maybe in any such case is more about irresponsible, self-seeking, leadership. The rulers of Sodom were living it up, enjoying their wealth and privilege and ignoring the needs of their subjects, not practicing justice or showing humility towards God. Sexual deviance is just one symptom of this kind of society.

 

[salt-n-light]

This is where I disagree with the op. Yes gay marriage and the cultural celebration and acceptance of it is continuing to lead us down a dark path (which wasn't started with gay marriage but before it) we can't stop it and we can't make it illegal.

No, rape, pedophilia, polyamory, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc is not cause by an individual being gay. It is caused by a society that tells us that nothing really matters so you can do whatever you want. A gay marriage is valid because why not? No reason for it not to be, two people love each other. So why not a group of people? They can marry, too right? They aren't hurting anyone. What about a man and his dog? They love each other. And on it goes.

It's not because someone is gay. It's because we're having a moral breakdown of society where our actions have no meaning and everything is ok as long as you aren't "hurting anyone", which is the only thing that is wrong. And if we want something that's wrong? Well, let's just change the definition of right.

I have actually seen people arguing for pedophilia to be made part of the lgbt acronym, and, yes, even defending pedophiles as victims. It's only rumblings on the Internet for now, but it may be the beginning of something scary. This is going to happen if society doesn't wake up and realize that we're destroying ourselves.

Truth!

They already started their conditioning with a few movies thats been out recently within the last 2-3 years, one of them being funded by man boy love association (NAMBLA). Im looking at this world like ">_>...you guys just WANT to crash and burn man"

 

[Tom 1]

I have actually seen people arguing for pedophilia to be made part of the lgbt acronym, and, yes, even defending pedophiles as victims. It's only rumblings on the Internet for now, but it may be the beginning of something scary. This is going to happen if society doesn't wake up and realize that we're destroying ourselves.

Yes that is a really disturbing trend. The use of 'minor attracted individuals' as opposed to pedophiles has gained ground, to remove the 'negative connotations'. This kind of seemingly benign move has far reaching effects on how this kind of perversion is viewed over time.