TRANS PEOPLE and DRAG QUEENS are BAD for KIDS but ALSO we should be able to MARRY CHILDREN!
-Republicans. All of them!
All school-girls are attracted to gross old men, therefore it’s consensual and perfectly ok. And even if it isn’t, they’re only kids; what do they know? They’ll learn to love their husbands in time. And if they don’t, who cares? They’re only women
I’m at a loss for words. How did this man not get shouted down for saying that out loud and in public?! Those are the thoughts of a predator, which is a position of power.
In the name of honest, good degenerates, I protest these ghouls being lumped in with us. It’s perfectly sane to want to have sexual relations with eg. military aircraft, and it is much more natural and socially beneficial than what these despicables imply.
If god didn’t want me to have sex with a C130 he should have made it so damn sexy
Agreed. I can only get off to pics of dragons fucking cars and i want to be able to hold my head high again
Full context:
If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative
I think this can be interpreted as “young people will inevitably get pregnant”, not “young people should get pregnant”.
Still wrongheaded and cringeworthy, but maybe not as monstrous as it initially looked.
No. That’s even worse.
They’re arguing that children should get married to provide for kids.
Reality: the only people that can afford to support not one but two children…. Are creepy old men.
The argument is that because kids might get preggo, they should be allowed to marry them and make them preggo
That’s fucked up.
I’m not sure he cares if anyone provides for them. Like many in the GOP, he seems to only care about preventing abortions without any thought to what happens next.
If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative
Read as:
If we ban child marriage, then desperate single mothers will want to have abortions instead of getting married like God intended.
Dude’s literally complaining that children getting abortions is easier than getting children married. No, that sounds exactly as ghoulish and monstrous as it appeared.
In my mind there is no generous interpretation of his words as there is a paragraph which makes his statement worse in my opinion.
In a state where 18 is not old enough to drink, Edwards believes girls at 16 are old enough to get married.
He wants marriage to 16 year olds to be legal; I don’t believe this is a good thing, especially if he also then argued for parental consent for marriages to adult men. It’s a huge red flag to me, personally.
Yeah but he skipped adoption and the idea that parents can continue to support their daughter even if she’s not a virgin. Teens getting married because one of them got pregnant is not the first thing I want people to think of. A teen marrying her statutory rapist should be even farther down the list.
Removed from the delicate snowflake Conservative community lol
Any conservative board or sub, will immediately be overtaken by fascist snowflakes. I mean who the hell would want to freely mod a conservative sub in their free time? The job description alone requires someone deeply disturbed
I have to disagree! I freely mod a conservative sub in my spare time.
It has definitely not been taken over by fascist snowflakes.
As proof, you are welcome to come and see for yourself: ☆ kbin conservative community ☆
I was just thinking it would be fun to mod a conservative sub but take a conservative instead of a regressive viewpoint. Like: “people who do crimes should be held accountable regardless of their cult size,” “investing in infrastructure or climate mitigation is huge ROI so we should do a lot of both,” “we need regulations to manifest the invisible hand so the market can price things efficiently.”
It’s worth the remembering that these are the “LGBT = groomers” people. However, I posit that this horrid statement belies the truth, which is that they’re not trying to protect children, at least not individual children from specific ills. The anti-queer vitriol is, and has always been, grounded in eugenics. this is also why conservatives’ eyes glaze over whenever the topic of queer youth suicide rates in restrictive states is broached. Taken with the ever-present conservative fixation on ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’ underage girls, alongside the Great Replacement conspiracy that has become central to their rhetoric, I feel justified in saying OH MY GOD THIS IS FASCISM WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK HOW IS THIS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
It’s grounded in disgust over violations of what they perceive to be natural. They see a 16 year old girl having a husband to be natural, they see a 16 year old AFAB boy as being a violation of the natural order. And since they see queerness as a sexual perversion and marriage as the sacred outlet of sexuality they see queer people as pushing sex on teenagers when they’re just encouraging them to settle down and have a family
Legitimately how do conservatives even try to defend this
Because the GOP have taken Mitch McConnell’s mantra of “if the Democrats are for it, we must speak out against it, no matter what” to ridiculous extremes.
I would make a hyperbolic example about the GOP arguing in favor of murdering puppies and kittens if the Democrats wanted to save them, but they’ve already argued in favor of forcing 10 year old rape victims to give birth, telling those children they should be happy for the “blessing” they received, murdered schoolchildren being nothing more than the price we pay for a ‘free society’, and guns being necessary and more important than the safety of our children because they need to shoot prairie dogs. I don’t think any hyperbole is necessary.
But this is how we get here. When the default is to be against literally anything the Democrats support, and the answer to the “what if…” questions that follow are to either double down on the extremism and/or just say “ban that too!”, this is the only logical outcome.
I think you’re underestimating the extent to which they really want these things, or their donors do. These issues aren’t new, and many of them either trace back to before the founding of the country, or are proxies for other issues which do. They’re just feeling bold these days.
There is a defense for these laws! Which makes it doubly fucked up that I’ve never once heard a Republican utter it.
(Among other issues, marriage wipes out many legal complications of inheritance.)
