Head of LGBTQ Dems of Maryland busted going after a 14-year-old.

Why do you post a picture to accuse Trump of being affiliated with pedos, even though if he were a pedo supporter, your type would all vote for him in a minute. Everyone knows a sexual predator. The difference is, your type of people have them on speed dial while good people destroy the number. (Kinda like when Trump threw Epstein out of Mar A Lago) Pedos are selfish and indecent, and yes, they're mentally sick. They say it's a hard thing to cure and judging by the people on here who defend the CRIMINAL practice, they're probably right. MAGA

Trump hung around with Epstein for 15 years before dumping him AFTER he'd already done time as a pedo. Trump is no different than Epstein.
 
Trump hung around with Epstein for 15 years before dumping him AFTER he'd already done time as a pedo. Trump is no different than Epstein.
Yeah, and I suppose you expect me to believe that Trump is guilty of 34 felonies and Epstein hung himself from the lower level of a bunkbed. Justice isn't what it used to be. It can't be trusted. MAGA
 
Yeah, and I suppose you expect me to believe that Trump is guilty of 34 felonies and Epstein hung himself from the lower level of a bunkbed. Justice isn't what it used to be. It can't be trusted. MAGA

If you don't believe that Trump is guilty of 34 felonies and a WHOLE lot more, you're being wilfully deaf, dumb and blind.

Donald Trump is a life-long criminal who has gotten away with more crimes than you can name here. I believe Trump is guilty of a WHOLE lot more than 34 felonies. Fraud, rape, and "pay for play" have been his life's work.

He was in the middle of the Trump University fraud trial when he was elected President. Trump was bragging about "deal" he made to cut his taxes on his upstate New York property that figured so prominently in his New York fraud trial, and I wondered then how he kept getting away with this shit.
 
I'm going to ignore your people's continued ignorance about the difference between sex and gender for the sake of moving the argument along and ask you who cares? We can't make women naturally grow larger breasts than nature intended but women have gotten boob jobs for decades now without controversy and typically with fan fair from men. We can't naturally make your eyes see any better but we don't admonish people for wearing glasses or getting corrective surgery so why do you all cry so much about this?
We don't care if an adult wants to alter their own body's appearance, that's on them. There are, after all, people who alter their bodies to look like animals. We don't, however, have to agree that it's normal or a positive thing to do. Why the angst and demands that everyone has to accept behavior as normal that is clearly abnormal?

Now if children are too immature to get tattoos, they're too immature to have their bodies surgically or chemically altered to appear more feminine or masculine. Opposing such things as abnormal is, well, normal.
What? Sexual identity? Do you mean sexual preference? That can and does change over time. Its not something that you can change purposefully but who are attracted to can change over time just like your taste in food can.
Your taste in food can be changed by exposure and conditioning. People do it all the time, hating food as children that they later learn to enjoy. Yet we're supposed to believe someone can switch from homosexuality to heterosexuality just by switching genders. Think of what you are saying. You are saying that a man literally becomes a woman, but is still a gay man because he's still attracted to men? Bit of a double standard there. If he literally becomes a woman that is attracted to men, he is then a heterosexual woman, not a gay man.
It's amazing you manage to breath in and out without getting confused and choking to death.
It's amazing you didn't think of this problem sooner, but now you won't be able to stop.
 
1719235203874.jpeg
 
We don't care if an adult wants to alter their own body's appearance, that's on them. There are, after all, people who alter their bodies to look like animals. We don't, however, have to agree that it's normal or a positive thing to do. Why the angst and demands that everyone has to accept behavior as normal that is clearly abnormal?
No one cares how you feel individually. Want trans people want is legal protection, not your love and affection.
Now if children are too immature to get tattoos, they're too immature to have their bodies surgically or chemically altered to appear more feminine or masculine. Opposing such things as abnormal is, well, normal.
What I'm not going to respect is you pretending to understand healthcare. You don't. You didn't go to college for it. You don't practice it professionally. You're just some clown online who thinks their claims, made out of literal ignorance on that matter, means something.
Your taste in food can be changed by exposure and conditioning. People do it all the time, hating food as children that they later learn to enjoy.
That's not an example of people choosing consciously to change their taste in food.
Yet we're supposed to believe someone can switch from homosexuality to heterosexuality just by switching genders.
I don't know why you would believe that. No one suggested it.
Think of what you are saying. You are saying that a man literally becomes a woman, but is still a gay man because he's still attracted to men? Bit of a double standard there. If he literally becomes a woman that is attracted to men, he is then a heterosexual woman, not a gay man.
What? I don't even know what you're trying to say I'm trying to say, but that ain't it.
It's amazing you didn't think of this problem sooner, but now you won't be able to stop.
What? :dunno: :laugh:
 
No one cares how you feel individually. Want trans people want is legal protection, not your love and affection.
What legal protection are they missing? IOW, what are you free to legally do to a trans person that you should not be able to do?
What I'm not going to respect is you pretending to understand healthcare. You don't. You didn't go to college for it. You don't practice it professionally. You're just some clown online who thinks their claims, made out of literal ignorance on that matter, means something.
It was not very long ago that the height of psychiatric care was to pound a metal spike into a patient's brain with a hammer and hope the patient didn't die on the spot. I predict that, in another 100 years of so, psychiatrists will look back at how we are treating confused children today and shudder.
That's not an example of people choosing consciously to change their taste in food.
Knowing that we can indeed do that, yes, it actually does.
I don't know why you would believe that. No one suggested it.
We're told that we can switch genders, are we not, and attraction to a gender defines one's hetero or homosexuality, right? Are you therefore saying that a gay man who becomes a woman remains gay? I thought you were trying to tell us that he actually becomes a woman, and if he is now a woman attracted to men, is he not now a heterosexual woman? That is the logical progression. Perhaps you didn't think it all the way through.
What? I don't even know what you're trying to say I'm trying to say, but that ain't it.

What? :dunno: :laugh:
The question is, does a gay man who transitions to become a woman actually become a real woman? If so, and the now woman is attracted to men, doesn't that make him/her a heterosexual woman? If not, then he's not really a woman, is he? He's a gay man trying to look like a woman. Let's get our terminology straight (see what I did there?).
 
Who would have ever thought that we would ever arrive at the point in society where people support pederasty because they claim it is bigoted not to?
We've left tolerance far in the rear-view mirror and are now firmly in the land of coerced support. It's no longer acceptable to say, "If that's what you want to do with your life, go ahead, but don't expect me to celebrate it or think it's normal". No, if you don't actively express support of the idea, you are, as you noted, labeled a bigot.
 
If you don't believe that Trump is guilty of 34 felonies and a WHOLE lot more, you're being wilfully deaf, dumb and blind.

Donald Trump is a life-long criminal who has gotten away with more crimes than you can name here. I believe Trump is guilty of a WHOLE lot more than 34 felonies. Fraud, rape, and "pay for play" have been his life's work.

He was in the middle of the Trump University fraud trial when he was elected President. Trump was bragging about "deal" he made to cut his taxes on his upstate New York property that figured so prominently in his New York fraud trial, and I wondered then how he kept getting away with this shit.
Do you realize that they wouldn't put all that fake news out there if it wasn't for people like you who are so eager to gobble it up. MAGA
 
What legal protection are they missing? IOW, what are you free to legally do to a trans person that you should not be able to do?
Republican legislatures are trying to make it illegal for trans children to receive the care they need and even for teachers to teach about LGTBQ issues.
It was not very long ago that the height of psychiatric care was to pound a metal spike into a patient's brain with a hammer and hope the patient didn't die on the spot. I predict that, in another 100 years of so, psychiatrists will look back at how we are treating confused children today and shudder.
That red herring isn't a very convincing argument against trans care. Those procedures were performed by people who knew basically nothing about the human brain and how it functions.
Knowing that we can indeed do that, yes, it actually does.
It doesn't because we can't do that. Just because your tastes buds can change doesn't mean you can will them to change. My love changed for cornmeal porridge because my mother force fed it to me for breakfast everyday for like two years. What started out as something I enjoyed is now something that makes feel slightly sick when I smell it. I didn't do that on purpose. I love me some churrasco and I can't close my eyes and will myself to dislike it. That's not how that works.
We're told that we can switch genders, are we not, and attraction to a gender defines one's hetero or homosexuality, right? Are you therefore saying that a gay man who becomes a woman remains gay? I thought you were trying to tell us that he actually becomes a woman, and if he is now a woman attracted to men, is he not now a heterosexual woman? That is the logical progression. Perhaps you didn't think it all the way through.
Let's think this through together if you're even capable, Bingo.

In your scenario above the the gay man is attracted to men and at some later point transitions and starts identifying as a woman. Did their attraction to men change in the scenario? No. What changed is how they identify. Therefore what you should conclude is that these terms, heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, aren't themselves immutable, they exist in relationship to how you identify, that doesn't mean your sexual attraction itself changed.
The question is, does a gay man who transitions to become a woman actually become a real woman?
Before I can answer that question for you you have to explain to me what you think a real woman is and we have to determine whether that belief is logically consistent with reality.
If so, and the now woman is attracted to men, doesn't that make him/her a heterosexual woman? If not, then he's not really a woman, is he? He's a gay man trying to look like a woman. Let's get our terminology straight (see what I did there?).
I see you relied on supposition before you even clearly defined your argument. What is a real woman to you and is that an accurate reflection of reality?
 
Republican legislatures are trying to make it illegal for trans children to receive the care they need and even for teachers to teach about LGTBQ issues.
As I've pointed out, surgical and chemical intervention in a child's normal development is not necessarily a good thing.
That red herring isn't a very convincing argument against trans care. Those procedures were performed by people who knew basically nothing about the human brain and how it functions.
You're making my point. I believe in 100 years we will understand far more how the brain functions than we do now, and very likely will view what we're currently doing as abhorrent.
It doesn't because we can't do that. Just because your tastes buds can change doesn't mean you can will them to change. My taste bud changed for cornmeal porridge because my mother force fed it to me for breakfast everyday for like two years. What started out as something I enjoyed is now something that makes feel slightly sick when I smell it. I didn't do that on purpose. I love me some churrasco and I can close my eyes and will myself to dislike it. That's not how that works.

Let's think this through together if you're even capable, Bingo.

In your scenario above the the gay man is attracted to men and at some later point transitions and starts identifying as a woman. Did their attraction to men change in the scenario? No. What changed is how they identify. Therefore what you should conclude is that these terms, heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, aren't themselves immutable, they exist in relationship to how you identify, that doesn't mean your sexual attraction itself changed.
It's in the terminology. We're told that men can become women, full stop. Do you agree with that statement? I do NOT believe men can become women. I believe they can FEEL like they are not comfortable being male and may BELIEVE that they want to be what is considered female, but I don't believe they really know what it's like to actually be a human female. Therefore, I do not believe a homosexual man can become a heterosexual woman, but that conclusion is inevitable for someone who insists a man can actually become a real woman with no qualifications. IOW, put "trans" before "woman" and you have a valid description. Drop it, and you have to deal with the issue I've raised.
Before I can answer that question for you you have to explain to me what you think a real woman is and we have to determine whether that belief is logically consistent with reality.
No, you tell me flat out, can a man really become an actual woman, no qualifications needed?

I believe a real woman is one who has the biological cellular makeup that determines she is a female of the human species. There are a few who carry mutations of that DNA makeup, but we're not talking about those. We're talking about a person with the XX chromosomes. That is a real woman. They come in all shapes and sizes, some appear more feminine than others, but they all have those chromosomes.
I see you relied on supposition before you even clearly defined your argument. What is a real woman to you and is that an accurate reflection of reality?
I rely on biological science to tell me what is male and what is female. On what do you rely, and is your belief a better reflection of reality? Why?
 
"Civil Rights" for the Perpetual Enemies of Civilization

"Minor-Attracted Persons" is typical of Marxist distortion of language. Also, "endangered" species for unfit, dangerous, or useless species; "clean" air for germ-saturated natural air: "conservation" for locking out and hoarding resources that are in no danger of running out.
 
Who would have ever thought that we would ever arrive at the point in society where people support pederasty because they claim it is bigoted not to?
Destination Not Revealed


Tolerance for disturbed and dangerous groups is in a direct line from racial tolerance. Liberals always preach that they are only extending those rights and privileges, tracing it back to their 60s propaganda about civil rights for the uncivilized Aframs.

Anyone who objects to today's pet Libersal groups should therefore reject its Original Sin of race-treason. What's more, we should identify the small but dominant group that started this climbing down to the subhuman bottom level of human societies.
 

Forum List

Back
Top