by sharing child porn?

by rapeing children, and/or partaking in an industry which rapes children.

gays also partake in an industry that rapes children and spreads deadly disease

okay, you're just an idiot, "gays rape children", yeah, sure bruh

goodbye

lol very mature

"gays rape children", yeah very mature

didn't Milo say that he personally attended parties where underage boys were being molested?

And that somehow means that the entire gay community is responsible for rapeing children

wasn't my argument it was your in relation to pedophiles

"Those who practice homosexual acts are at leas: 12 times more apt to molest a child sexually, and with suitable corrections for bisexuals (who molest both genders), probably at least 16 times more apt to molest a child."

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3f.1227

That doesn't mean you can tread on their civil rights if they don't act on those inclinations, seriously, why are the concepts of civil rights so hard for you to understand.

why do you get to tread on my right to travel based on an arbitrary heuristic chemical test?

^in reference to drunk driving

because you can choose not to drink and drive. That is why just drinking is not illegal.

you can also choose not to express homosexual behaviour
we went over this

and the test isn't arbitrary, it takes into account what is likely to make most people unable to make the correct descisions while driving.

Except homosexuality is a natural state, being drunk is not

they are very different things

the percent they came up with is arbitrary by definition and will never apply to all cases

@meratrix being drunk is a natural state... for the irish

lol

being drunk is entirely natural
that is your personal moral inclination

speaking

You can only ever apply a best fit interpretation because you cannot account for every possible alcohol tolerance

and I cannot account for every single homosexual interaction
but banning it solves the problem

It actually doesn't solve anything, because you are transgressing against someone's civil rights in their natural state, being drunk while driving is not a civil right.

It was never defined as such

being gay was never a civil right

you are using circular reasoning anyway
"homosexuality is a right because we said so"

“Free speech is a right because we said so”

yes

being gay isn't the civil right, the civil right in this case is, in crude terms, freedom to fuck who you wish consensually.

that is not a right either
Example: incest and pedophilia

consensually, so not pedophilia, and I am not against incest if they consent.

that is your arbitrary judgement that children under a certain age cannot consent
it's really just a loophole

are there really no children under the age of consent who have agency?
do they magically gain it when they hit that age?
do they gain agency when they cross state borders?

no, it's because we have to define it somehow, and most people at the age of 18 can make that descision with decent judgement.

it's never perfect

but it somehow must be defined