SHOCKING: Did Anyone see Joy Reid defend an LGBTQ book about rape and incest against Mom's For Liberty?

[Frankenstein]

Actually, it doesn't condemn it.

Incest: Abraham was fucking Sarah, who was his half sister. That's when he wasn't pimping her out to Kings to get more goodies.

Human Sacrifice: God clearly endorsed Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter, because he gave him victories before and after the murder.

Genocide - God not only endorsed genocide of the various people's of Canaan, but he demanded complete genocide of the Amalekites. Saul lost favor because even though he happily killed women and children, for some reason, God was upset he didn't kill the Amalekites' cattle.

Slavery - God is down with slavery. Never calls it bad once in the bible

Cannibalism- God is down with Cannibalism.

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Leviticus 26:29

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons andof thy daughters. Deuteronomy 28:53

And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them. Deuteronomy 28:57

I absolutely want kids learning about the Bible, but not in the Sunday School, let's just take the nice passages and Disney them up.

Nope. I want them to see what savages the ancient Hebrews were, so we stop looking to them as a source of morality.

Keep em coming and I will just knock em out of the park!
10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”
In Leviticus 26, God lists various punishments which will come if the Israelites disobey his commands. The chapter lists four forms of punishment for disobedience, and that if the Israelites continue to disobey, the final punishment will be God giving full vent to his hostility, and “then you will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters” (Leviticus 26:29).

Deuteronomy 28 repeats this warning in similar language, describing how God will allow enemies to lay siege to the Israelite cities and the behavior that the Israelites will descend into. Interestingly, this seems to phrase the warning with more emphasis on how the people will be shocked at how barbaric they become, where “the most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion” (Deuteronomy 28:54).
The law allowed for Hebrew men and women to sell themselves into slavery to another Hebrew. They could only serve for six years, however. In the seventh year, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:2). This arrangement amounted to what we might call indentured servanthood. And the slaves were to be treated well: “Do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you” (Leviticus 25:39–40). The law also specified that, “when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:13–14). The freed slave had the option of staying with his master and becoming a “servant for life” (Exodus 21:5–6).
The Canaanite nations were punished because of their extreme wickedness. God did not cast out the Canaanites for being a particular race or ethnic group. God did not send the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy a number of righteous nations. On the contrary, the Canaanite nations were horribly depraved. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, and sorcery. They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).


Their “cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious” (Unger, 1954, p. 175). Their “deities…had no moral character whatever,” which “must have brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time,” including sensuous nudity, orgiastic nature-worship, snake worship, and even child sacrifice (Unger, p. 175; cf. Albright, 1940, p. 214). As Moses wrote, the inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” In truth, “[t]hese Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees” (Unger, 1988). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

 

[struth]

This is absolutely shocking.

Moms for Liberty has a problem with children being exposed to a book about rape and incest, and Joy Reid defends the book saying "Why should YOU get to decide what children should be able to read".

She then aggressively and constantly dissuades the issue while the Moms for Liberty rep continues to ask how rape, dildos, and incest are acceptable in a public school. Joy Reid says its about "context" (Harvard anyone?) and says "I'll answer your question" but then never does and continually interrupts and makes fallicy after fallicy.

You can disagree with people on policy, or even moral issues.. but Joy Reid is truly an evil individual here. She will not denounce a graphic, pornographic book about rape and incest, and instead attacks the people who speak against it and want it out of elementary/high school libraries.

I sadly don’t find this shocking. Joy Reid and the dembots have no morals

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You don't have to explain the world to a teenager that way. I've bolded the word since you keep on using the word kid. This book is listed as young adult. But hey "kid" works better for you in this context right. It avoids the issue of having to acknowledge that this book is meant for people who can legally have consensual sex.

It can mean to do anything, it has pornographic material in it. That’s the problem.

By the time they are reading that book they know the world works that way.

The old “kids are kids and a bunch of horny deviants anyways” line doesn’t hold weight. Just because you may hold the lowest common denominator doesn’t mean all should to accommodate you.

This is the problem I have with someone like you. You pretend that the left is suggesting to teach preteens to have sex so you can set your hair on fire and yell " pervert."

Pornographic material is that of the perverse. Always has been, always will be. It’s unhealthy for youth psychologically and teaches negative transactual sexuality

As an added bonus you can take a dump on gay people.

I’ve not said anything about them. You seem to be making it up in your head. However, your tying of perversion to the gay community doesn’t do them well image-wise

 

[OldFlame]

Me sexualizing kids to spite you? My, my, don't we have an ego. I have news for you. In a bit I'm going home and I'll forget all about the anonymous bigot I've talked to. If you're lucky I might revisit the conversation. I might not. But of all the things life throws at me. Spiting you ranks very low.

As for exposing my kids to porn. My kid is 12. She knows what sex is without me exposing her to anything. She lives in the real world. That book is about real life and real issues.

But since she also knows that I'm honest with her when she asks me questions I have hope she'll come to me when the time does come and I'll give advice without condemnation. Maybe if she ends up being gay, I'll point her to that book, so she knows she doesn't have to feel ashamed.

The point is this. You can stick your head in the sand as deep as you want. You can try to raise your kid(s) to feel ashamed about sex and embarrassed by gayness.

You don't have the right to push that on me or my kid.

Why does a book have to describe gay sex in such a pornographic and explicit manner to explain to 'teenagers' that they don't have to be ashamed? And you think in today's world with gay everything being shoved front and center and celebrated to the point of absurdity, that 'teenagers' don't alreadfy know they don't have to be ashamed? What world are you living in? Some actually want to be gay so they can have the attention and celebration directed at them, that's how celebrated they are today. Sexually explicit books don't belong in a public school library, if you want to buy it for you child you're more than free to do so. Tax dollars should not be spent on anything that is sexually explicit, period.

 

[westwall]

Go right ahead find me anything that supports that premise?

You find the bible in ANY library. Ever read the damn thing?

As I said. It's a book about coming of age of a minority YOU don't like. It deals with subjects you don't like. Like being LGBTQ and the problems that entails.

Saying reading a book sexualizes kids is ridiculous. You guys all act like it takes a book to make teenagers interested in sex and sexuality. Are you guys kidding me?

This whole groomer thing is blatant culture war BS. It marginalizes an already marginalized group of people so you can demonize Democrats.

The Bible has no sexually exicit material, pervert.

Try again.

 

[JoeB131]

Definitely shouts down and won’t address the key topic she’s trying to avoid.. which is a book that has pornography in it. Reid tried multiple fallacies..

1. “It’s an LGBT book, you’re a meanie!”
2. “You don’t know the authors name, so you can’t have an opinion because you’re not an expert”
3. “Your organization is in legal troubles”

Notice, none of those address the pornography in the book

I'd ask how long of a book is it and how much of that is sexually explicit.

 

[JoeB131]

Keep em coming and I will just knock em out of the park!

Not really... the passages don't sound ANY BETTER in context.

 

[Orangecat]

Because they can find much worse shit on line.

That's your excuse? Pathetic.

 

[2aguy]

It’s exactly what Reid did throughout the segment I saw.

Golfing must deep down desire for kids to read smut and be sexualized by the state. It’s disgusting and perverted

It's not smut, it is child porn...beg difference.

 

[theHawk]

The problem you guys have is that you don't want gayness being perceived as normal. But rather deviant

Why is that a “problem”?

Homosexuality isn’t normal. Even if it was, that doesn’t make it moral. It is immoral. It’s an abomination in the eyes of God. It’s disgusting behavior that all cultures rightfully look down on.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This is absolutely shocking.

Moms for Liberty has a problem with children being exposed to a book about rape and incest, and Joy Reid defends the book saying "Why should YOU get to decide what children should be able to read".

She then aggressively and constantly dissuades the issue while the Moms for Liberty rep continues to ask how rape, dildos, and incest are acceptable in a public school. Joy Reid says its about "context" (Harvard anyone?) and says "I'll answer your question" but then never does and continually interrupts and makes fallicy after fallicy.

You can disagree with people on policy, or even moral issues.. but Joy Reid is truly an evil individual here. She will not denounce a graphic, pornographic book about rape and incest, and instead attacks the people who speak against it and want it out of elementary/high school libraries.

Why would anyone want to see Joy Reid?

 

[Frankenstein]

It isn't "porn" it's not meant to excite, he isn't writing it with that purpose. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/pornography.html#:~:text=pornography n,is determined to be obscene.
It's graphic sure. But the point of it is to explain and normalize the act of gay sex. As well as giving first hand accounts of what it means to be gay, black, and abused. And how each of those things impact his life.

The problem you guys have is that you don't want gayness being perceived as normal. But rather deviant.

That is because that is what it is, deviant, unnatural, and perverse!

 

[Frankenstein]

It isn't "porn" it's not meant to excite, he isn't writing it with that purpose. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/pornography.html#:~:text=pornography n,is determined to be obscene.
It's graphic sure. But the point of it is to explain and normalize the act of gay sex. As well as giving first hand accounts of what it means to be gay, black, and abused. And how each of those things impact his life.

The problem you guys have is that you don't want gayness being perceived as normal. But rather deviant.

That is because that is what it is, deviant, unnatural, and perverse!

Not really... the passages don't sound ANY BETTER in context.

Thanks for acknowledging you were taking what it said out of context!

 

[JoeB131]

That's your excuse? Pathetic.

No, it's realistic. This is one passage in a book that is a young man's story.

Compared to what they can find on line, which often has no context other than objectifying the people involved.

Heck, when I was a kid, growing up in the 70s, every kid had a stash of porno mags discarded by the adults. I hate to think what my generation could have done with the internet.

Thanks for acknowledging you were taking what it said out of context!

Hardly out of context if it is still endorsing genocide and incest and racism and pimping out your wife to get goodies.

The Bible is kind of awful, in that it is written by a primitive people with values we can't understand today, because they were barbarians.

 

[Orangecat]

No, it's realistic.

I'll stand by my post.

 

[JoeB131]

I'll stand by my post.

I'm sure you will.

Doesn't take away from the reality that kids are going to find out about sex whether you want them to or not.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm sure you will.

Doesn't take away from the reality that kids are going to find out about sex whether you want them to or not.

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 892543

You didn't have a point. You had your homophobia that you are horrified by the gay sex.

 

[Orangecat]

You didn't have a point. You had your homophobia that you are horrified by the gay sex.

Nice projection there, chump.

 

[22lcidw]

The fact she is a talking head doing what she is paid to do and what brings her ratings.

I do not know a damn thing about the book they are fighting over as I have never read it and do not have any children that are not adults.

She has not ratings. So, if she said to inner city children everyday...go to school. Learn Science, Mathematics and English. And repeat it every day like she does the spiel she throws out, that would be revolutionary and disgusting by Prog standards.