Making selling kids for sex a felony would hurt the LGB, black and brown communities

Not sure why libs would think making it a felony to sell kids for sex would harm blacks, browns and LGBs, but that's what they said and you can hear it for yourself below.

I'm not buying the excuses that were given and that's all I'm going to say.

 

I take it you never been to Thailand where kids are sold for sex there, gay and straight. Kids sold for sex here also happen, but it is not the LGBTQ mostly. It is heterosesxual adults. And yes, it is a felony under the various laws we already have on the books.

For instance, many runaways or those who meet questionable people on the internet, then lured to a location, kidnapped, and sold into prostitution under the age of 14, is a heinous crime. But the johns who are having sex with them are not gay, they are heterosexual. yet, most police departments do not have adequate funding or training to handle possible runaway cases of young teenage girls, do they? Maybe you are focusing on the wrong sexual orientation. Just look at former Pastor Robert Morris lol.

https://abc11.com/lee-county-man-jo...sted-charged-with-human-trafficking/14735893/
https://www.wxii12.com/article/nort...t=LEXINGTON, N.C. —,who was taken from Dallas.

 

is this a long winded way of saying you oppose such a law?

 

A. I don't live in California.
B. I think California has such a law on the books already.
C. What this law does is enhance the sex registration requirement, with failure to do so a more serious felony, and longer time period for the registration, if the person is convicted of selling a child under a certain age for sex.
D. You need to ignore any and all comments about said laws or proposed laws by dickheads who want their 15 seconds of fame on X, formerly known as Twitter.

SB1414

 

never go to twitter so I have no idea who these dickheads are

 

The comments were made in a CA Assembly meeting.

 

To me it doesn't matter who the sick people are. The point of this thread is how the people who are against this bill seem to think certain people would be unjustly harmed by it. What do they know about these certain people that we don't?

 

What were the excuses given?

I looked into the bill breifly here: Sen. Grove‘s measure to make purchasing a child for sex a felony passes off Senate Floor, critical amendments left out | Senator Shannon Grove
because I my twitter(X?) seems to have been suspended for inactivity (I signed up, apparently, but never got into it...).

I can't think of any ethnically discriminatory dynamics to this bill, but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment-

Does opposition have anything to do with the tendency for teenage minors to falsely present themselves as older than they really are? Don't get me wrong, aggressive pedos are worse than trash and I don't care what happens to them so long they are removed from normal society as much as possible ...but for every pedo trying to ruin kids, there's a dozen kids that think they shouldn't have to wait to play in adult life, and laws protecting children have been known to ruin the lives of young adults that merely misjudged the age of their perceived peers by a few years. A good law that protects children will not also punish new adults who until very recently were children as permanent 'sex offenders' for merely being unwise.

 

The excuses given, and don't forget that this is in California, is black, brown and LGB people are punished more harshly than those who aren't black, brown or LGB.

 

LOL, that would make ALL laws 'discriminatory.'

 

already a felony

 

exactly

 

The OP did which is where the comment "woke" came from.

The concern about the bill orginally was that it was too broad. So they "narrowed" it down a bit, probably to fit within the State Constituitonal and Federal Constitutional guideliness. That is not "woke." Is it?

 

Except the examples I gave were not LGBTQ as your OP claimed it was. Again, we already have laws on the books in every state, plus the Federal if that person crosses state lines or international boundaries to commit the crime. We have cooperative agreements in places like the Philippines and Thailand that has cracked down on this sort of thing. We have nonprofit organizations who do this, try to find missing teenage girls and boys, and so forth. But this is not about "woke" when it comes to concerns of the bill. Being too broad in scope is a legitimate, state constitutional concern. You are simply trying to minimize hyperbolic political quest to an area that applies to all. Trying to portray all LGBTQ people as pedofiles is like trying to portray middle aged white caucasian men as sexual perverts too. It does not belong, does it?

 

Another right-winger living the confirmation bias life-style.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/

 

Way pass a law that . . . doesn't change anything? Sex trafficking and pedophilia are already illegal.

 

How about that. The original bill, before these stupid changes, passed unanimously. Not a single Dem voted against it.

 

LOL... Do you suppose that democrats aren't racist? Everything they do exudes racism. And is your complaint that republican homosexuals aren't participating in the street marching? Is that your actual complaint?

 

ZOOM....DUCK! What I am saying is my statement was equally FOS.

 

Dude if you are an adult male and having sex with a little boy you are obviously a gay or bi pedophile. Same sex is same sex what ever the age pretending other wise is just stupid. Same if it is female female.

 

If we haven't already figured it out... folks on the left believe they are somehow more "exotic" or "nuanced" which means that only they get to define terms and words for the rest of us. So, when their "straight" men attack young boys or girls, they believe that they are just experiencing their entitled privileges and that the participants they abuse are benefitted because of the nearness to greatness that they've offered to those kids. More, for some reason, the lefties don't like homosexuality, so they've destroyed that term and replaced it with gender fluid which allows them to still reconcile being a beta male with being entitled to abuse minority children which doesn't make them "gay". And if they "choose" that, they can become "trans" somethings which makes it all right again...

 

Like the rapist who after being convicted claimed he identified as a woman who then assault more than a few female inmates while claiming he was a lesbian. None of this crap makes any sense unless you are trying to make reality fit an very peculiar narrative for reason that obviously aren't on the up and up.

 

Show me one law that makes pedophilia illegal.

 

Are they opposing the intent of the law or the wording of it? That's important because there are time when the wording would allow for things not intended, or claimed to be not intended, by the law.

 

Are you trying to do this weird semantics thing where it is only pedophilic activity is illegal, but the desire isn't? Of course you know that actual sexual contact between an adult and a minor is illegal in every state.