(Originally Posted June, 2017)
(UPDATED CONVERSATION [jump] Nov. 2021)
In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:
- “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)
She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.
See my post for more context to the above last point:
1993 “Homosexual” Platform
- The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
- The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
- The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
- The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
- The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
- Affirmative action for homosexuals.
- The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.
1972 “Homosexual” Platform
- Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
- Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
- Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
- Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
- Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
- Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
- Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:
But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.
Here is the graphic that kicked it off on a friends FB:
MIKE B. said to the above:
- Who cares what one nut may or may not think
To which I Said:
- Many Nuts Mike.
To which MIKE B. responded:
- I can’t see anyone but a pedophile being pro pedophile
And this is the main point. You will see during the conversation that as it becomes apparent that there has been a legal challenge to drop the age of what would be considered “age of consent” (thus changing the legality of “what is” a pedophile) by one Political Party, partisan attacks start to swirl. But here is the meat of the convo… I reproduce some of the above for MIKE:
Here, as usual MIKE B. punts to others to do the thinking for him:
- they are lying to you still. (He links to an AP article)
I then posted the pages 101-105 from the aforementioned book so I would not be accused of “ripping out of context” — but he still wasn’t picking up what I was laying down. (Images are loaded upon clicking the choices above the 1st loaded cover page to the 1977 edition):
- Not only did I post RGB’s “book”…. but this excellent article hits home as well: “The Left Has A Pedophilia Problem, And It’s Out In The Open: The left is continuing its tradition of destroying society’s sexual morality, now campaigning on multiple fronts for the normalization of pedophilia.”
MIKE B. responds thus:
- I read all the legalize stuff you posted. not one mention of any support for lowering the age for consent. these guys continue to lie to you. why do you accept it?
I counter with a post I think needs to be read in full over at AKA CATHOLIC:
I add to the above — the “heres” added for my readers:
- BTW, who are “they”? You always say that [many past conversations which I disprove his contentions: here, here, here – for instance]. Is it the same people that made the Washington Post remove portions and edit others regarding Trump/Russia Collusion?? After indictments fell and the NYT and WaPo and CNN are -[now] all asking “how the media got it so wrong” (here, here, here, here)
After this all that was posted was essentially, “yeah, but look at these Republicans charged or convicted with some sort of underage assault, proposition, etc.” I made a point that Republicans do not give important committee positions and standing Ovations to those caught in sexual relations with underage assistants via my [RPT’s] post:
MIKE B. responded:
- read the republican item I posted. I think you picked the wrong party
I respond thus:
- You miss the point [as usual]. A Supreme Court Justice wanting to change the age of consent. Democrats wanting H.R.5 which would change the course of sexual relations between adults and minors, and take away parental influence in the arena. Standing ovations. Democrats have a legislative means to change this, Republicans do not.
MIKE B. essentially repeated what he said before by saying: you have not shown one document that is from a credible source that shows she said or thinks that – not one. and, in the end, we both are anti-pedophiles. let’s call it a day on this one.
I cannot make people think well, read well, or read at all…. which is why people like MIKE B. will just link to AP news articles and let the MSM (which the bemoan at other times) do their thinking for them. It’s easier.