Yet another anti-LGBT conservative caught out in gay sex scandal

Watch this thread
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I posted a story about another GOP politician resigning the other day, and then we get this. Oklahoma state senator pleads guilty to child sex charges.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-boy-sex.html

Having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the charges and what he did would not be a crime in the UK. He had sex with a 17 year old male, paid him for sex and the lad sent him some naked pictures.

For that, he has been charged with child sex trafficking (he drove him to the motel), manufacturing child pornography and sex with a minor. He will serve a minimum of ten years in prison.

Still, this ******** was a rabidly anti-LGBT legislator so I find it difficult to extend too much sympathy in his direction
0
reply
balmainjeans
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
I posted a story about another GOP politician resigning the other day, and then we get this. Oklahoma state senator pleads guilty to child sex charges.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-boy-sex.html

Having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the charges and what he did would not be a crime in the UK. He had sex with a 17 year old male, paid him for sex and the lad sent him some naked pictures.

For that, he has been charged with child sex trafficking (he drove him to the motel), manufacturing child pornography and sex with a minor. He will serve a minimum of ten years in prison.

Still, this ******** was a rabidly anti-LGBT legislator so I find it difficult to extend too much sympathy in his direction
Maybe the chemicals that turned the frogs gay now works on humans and the democrats poisoned them!

Either way it makes 0 sense how you can be gay and yet suppress the rights of other gay and general LGBT community
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by balmainjeans)
Maybe the chemicals that turned the frogs gay now works on humans and the democrats poisoned them!
Definitely. It's the plastic toxins in the water that turns the frogs gay. Or maybe it was a demon?

1
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the charges and what he did would not be a crime in the UK. He had sex with a 17 year old male, paid him for sex and the lad sent him some naked pictures.
It is illegal to possess and distribute sexual images of people under 18 in the UK. I have no idea why given the age of consent is 16 but that's a genuine thing.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/c...n-and-the-law/

So based on my knowledge he'd have 1 out of 3 over here.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by balmainjeans)
Either way it makes 0 sense how you can be gay and yet suppress the rights of other gay and general LGBT community
It makes no sense logically. Unfortunately that is the sick moral and political world that has been created by American conservatives. That kind of moral/sexual repression always leads to hypocrisy and sexual depravity.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
It is illegal to possess and distribute sexual images of people under 18 in the UK. I have no idea why given the age of consent is 16 but that's a genuine thing.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/c...n-and-the-law/

So based on my knowledge he'd have 1 out of 3 over here.
Ah, interesting. To me I can't understand why you wouldn't equalise it with the age of consent, otherwise you could have two 17 year olds sending each other pics and being prosecuted for it (technically, the CPS could decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute, but still...).

I still think the charge of "child sex trafficking" is ludicrous. It dilutes the meaning and seriousness of the offence when you include things like this
0
reply
balmainjeans
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
It makes no sense logically. Unfortunately that is the sick moral and political world that has been created by American conservatives. That kind of moral/sexual repression always leads to hypocrisy and sexual depravity.
It's just pointless brutalisation of an entire community. I can still remember the banners that said "gays for Trump" lol.

American conservatism has to change in issues like that or it'll eventually fade into irrelevancy.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by balmainjeans)
Maybe the chemicals that turned the frogs gay now works on humans and the democrats poisoned them!

Either way it makes 0 sense how you can be gay and yet suppress the rights of other gay and general LGBT community
Internalised homophobia explains it. It’s pretty common for secret homosexuals to be the loudest anti-LGBT activists etc.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Internalised homophobia explains it. It’s pretty common for secret homosexuals to be the loudest anti-LGBT activists etc.
Absolutely. The more strident someone is, the more of a loudmouth they are, in attacking the LGBT community, the more legitimate suspicion there is that they are in fact in the closet.
0
reply
balmainjeans
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Internalised homophobia explains it. It’s pretty common for secret homosexuals to be the loudest anti-LGBT activists etc.
Hmm true. It's probably due to upbringing or just pure insecurity, not just a political thing.

But it still surprises me how many people are still so iffy about homosexuality.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Ah, interesting. To me I can't understand why you wouldn't equalise it with the age of consent, otherwise you could have two 17 year olds sending each other pics and being prosecuted for it (technically, the CPS could decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute, but still...).

I still think the charge of "child sex trafficking" is ludicrous. It dilutes the meaning and seriousness of the offence when you include things like this
Pretty much all our laws on sex in the UK make very little sense and are horribly inconsistent, you've just gotta roll with it and be careful. As for 'murica, It's definitely ridiculous that this bloke's getting charged with child sex trafficking for meeting a 17 year old on craigslist. I could go and do that right now here, have a great time and be in no legal trouble whatsoever.

Meanwhile, this senator's getting quite a hefty amount of time in prison, probably put on a list, and a completely ruined reputation. It doesn't seem fair in the slightest.

(Original post by balmainjeans)
Maybe the chemicals that turned the frogs gay now works on humans and the democrats poisoned them!

Either way it makes 0 sense how you can be gay and yet suppress the rights of other gay and general LGBT community
American politics is inherently nonsensical.
0
reply
balmainjeans
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)


American politics is inherently nonsensical.
Seems like it's mostly a conservative thing to be so hypocritical and ridiculous.

You won't see classical liberals preaching this sort of crap.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Absolutely. The more strident someone is, the more of a loudmouth they are, in attacking the LGBT community, the more legitimate suspicion there is that they are in fact in the closet.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Haggard%27s_Law
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the charges and what he did would not be a crime in the UK. He had sex with a 17 year old male, paid him for sex and the lad sent him some naked pictures.
I'm pretty sure the laws on sex work in the UK make it illegal to pay someone under 18 for sex. Though of course he could simply say he reasonably believed the boy to be 18, and that would be hard to disprove (iirc you have go past one of those "I verify that I am 18 or over" pages to put up an ad on Craigslist, which would strengthen his case on that front).
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Dirty old codger.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Ah, interesting. To me I can't understand why you wouldn't equalise it with the age of consent, otherwise you could have two 17 year olds sending each other pics and being prosecuted for it (technically, the CPS could decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute, but still...).
I agree it can seem to have absurd consequences, but by equalising it with the age of consent completely you'd also essentially be saying porn can legally feature 16-year-olds (or, if you did it the other way round, that it's illegal to have sex before you're 18).

The only way I can think of to make a distinction would be to make it legal to possess a sexual image of a 16 or 17 year old (as long as you obtained it with the consent of the subject, and without having paid them for it), but illegal to distribute it ("distribute" here meaning intentionally showing it to anyone other than the subject).

Also, maybe add in an "withdrawable consent" clause - i.e. it would be illegal to keep a sexual image of the person after they have asked you to delete it and you have had a reasonable opportunity to do so.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (51)
26.15%
As I expected (64)
32.82%
Harder (72)
36.92%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (8)
4.1%

Watched Threads

View All