Mitchfynde

My response was much more nuanced than this and this wasn't even the point of my response to that video. The whole point was to make it very clear that it was an anti-gay propaganda video. John Doyle is an anti-gay "conservative". This is no secret.

Part 1 of the same series you posted, which is called "gay people fact of the day" and is purposefully being posted during Pride Month, is about how Pride Month and the pride flag are mockeries of Christianity as well as "anti-white". Specifically, he talks about how the most recent iteration of the pride flag includes every group which cannot produce white children. Maybe the scare quotes around "conservative" make more sense to you after watching this.

Claim 2: There is no definition of "trans".

A transgender person is a person whose gender identity is different from the one which is associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Claim 3: It's somehow sexist to think Marsha P was trans.

[I can't go over this without first pointing out that this is pretty blatantly a TERF talking point. I know you're not a TERF, because you would probably never identify as a feminist, but I know you've been consuming TERF content. Just needed to point it out.]

I'll just let the source speak for itself on this one.

Johnson describes avoiding men for fear of violence, undergoing hormone treatment with the goal of having gender surgery, and facing serious repercussions for expressing femininity in public. 

Go ahead and ignore this as well as the rest of the historical context.

Claim 4: Up until the 80s it is factually true that the gay community was ALL about sex and drugs.

Okay. You backed this up with anecdotal evidence, so I guess this is totally true! You go on to ask your audience how many of them who are gay were molested as children... which you then estimate only 2% of people know a gay guy who was not molested as a child.

You're outright saying that gay people were sex / drug fiends and then backing that up by saying they were all molested. No sources for any of this, by the way. So, I guess my question would be, what changed? Why is the gay community different now if they are all molested? It seems to be your implication that this molestation is what turned them into sex-crazed junkies. What changed?

Bonus claim: Mitch is a goat boy.

I'm actually a human man.

Claim 5: I had that guy blocked.

I'm calling bullshit on this. I was able to respond to him just fine without unblocking anyone. I was only unable to respond to him after he blocked me. I'm assuming he didn't like me calling him a pedo.

Claim 6: I block all sorts of LGBT people who disagree with me based on their identity as self-hating LGBT.

HUGE SMELLY BULLSHIT on this one. I didn't even block the pedo guy until he blocked me. I always block people back to avoid the sneaky drive-by unblocks later on. I don't recall having this same discussion about self-hating anything, ever, to be honest. It's possible that I've had this discussion before, but I don't recall blocking a single person.

Bring receipts for claims like these. Not sure why I'm saying this, as you don't bring proof to any discussion ever really.

Claim 7: The video and following discussion was just an innocent exploration of gay history.

See my response to Claim 1. As you point to individual predators, I point to the individual who made the video we were discussing. This was a tactical anti-LGBT video posted on Pride Month for extra sting and it's plain as day for anyone to see.

Claim 8: The "gender ideology movement" has predatory pedophilic behavior integrated into every facet of the belief system.

Brah. You are not making a strong case for this being an innocent look into LGBT history on your part. You quite literally say this and then go on to say that me saying that you're saying it is false. You cannot make this shit up. This is psychosis.

I'm not asking the pedo guy to deny reality. I'm pointing out that he is counter-signaling against his own self-interest to virtue signal to fascists who would make his lifestyle illegal.

Claim 9: Mitch is a radical on the left.

I'm a radical on the CENTER left. You fudge terms way too much. A radical and a leftist are 2 different things. If you called be a radical liberal, I'd never have taken issue with that. I am radical because I live in radical times. I don't currently see an alternative.

Not that you cared to post any receipts anyways, because you're a lazy, useless piece of garbage. But hey, I'll throw you a bone. Yeah, I'm fairly radical these days. I think it's justified, but whatever.

But I'm not a socialist and I'm not a communist. I don't believe in dismantling western society or even capitalism. I advocate for some socialist ideas WITHIN a capitalist framework, but I don't do so out of any allegiance to socialism. I simply wish to use their good ideas, as many nations (including my own) already have to great effect.

Claim 10: I was saying loads of pedos were heroes or whatever.

No. And maybe this one is a misunderstanding. I was ignoring the implication that "all gays are pedos" that pedo guy was making. I did not phrase it clearly enough for you, but what I was saying is that many of the people at Stonewall were heroic. You eventually work that out yourself, but you find it almost laughably unlikely that I could have meant that, which just sort of goes to show the level of bad faith. You have almost no intention of trying to understand what I am saying, you are just angry at something and projecting it on me.

Claim 11: It's stupid to call the Stonewall Rioters heroic because heroism requires sacrifice and progressing LGBT rights was in their self-interest.

Do you not think that rioting is a sacrifice? You're sacrificing your own safety and freedom. You could be sacrificing your life if things go the wrong way. Don't get me wrong here, not all riots are heroic.

Claim 12 A: Marsha P Johnson had he/him pronouns and B) did not identify as transsexual.

A) Evidence??? B) Did pre-op trans people often identify as transsexual in the 1960s? Regardless, you're just re-litigating something that you don't know that I've already disproven.

Claim 13: Some 16 year olds were trained to be more mature adults than some 30 year olds today and therefore jailbait songs were less weird.

I'm not sure that you meant to make this claim, but it was too funny not to include. Bro really said that shit.

Claim 14: The right constantly criticizes their own side while the left is not allowed to criticize their own side.

This is one of the funniest and most confusing statements. You are in an itsy bitsy, teeny weeny media circle my friend. You think I'm far left, for instance. I'm a liberal. I'm center left. I despise the far left. You can find posts of me joking about supporting Trump's administration pursuing legal action against Hasan Piker.

Did you really forget "Copmala" and "Genocide Joe", or did you honestly think it was the right who was pushing those slogans the hardest? There are quite literally meme charts about how the far left can blame everything on the center left, even when it's the right or far right doing it. Everything is our fault. Oh, and never forget that "when you cut a liberal, a fascist bleeds" and "liberals get the bullet too".

Claim 15: Child pageants were the norm, so Trump wandering into rooms with naked young girls to ogle them was understandable from a historical perspective.

HUH! It's funny how now, suddenly, you have a very nuanced position on this topic. Let's ignore that, earlier, you were talking about how Harvey Milk could never be considered heroic because he dated a 16 year old. Absolutely no double-standard here.

You waffle on for a long time about Epstein.

Claim 16: Same as Claim 6.

Claim 17: I hate minorities???

I don't even know how to respond to this. Seriously.

Claim 18: It's just Claim 11 again.

Claim 19: The Stonewall Rioters are somehow analogous to Deadpool.

Uhhh... And you said this immediately after claiming leftists only watch Marvel. I haven't even seen Deadpool or any Marvel movie in the last decade... maybe even 2 decades, so maybe you can use that as some evidence that I'm not a leftist. I do absolutely adore Handmaid's Tale though, so maybe that cancels it out.

Hey, are you watching the Testaments? It's not nearly as good so far. Something about the production feels really cheap in comparison.

Claim 20: Marvel superheroes are heroes because they endanger themselves as a sacrifice to a greater good.

This... is exactly what the Stonewall Rioters did. Just because it also benefitted them doesn't change that. Superheroes want to live in a better world, do they not? This is why it's hard to take you seriously. You call the whole thing "self-fellaciating". That's an extreme downplaying of what took place, which was one of my very first points in this whole discussion. That video was made for that purpose.

Claim 21: You think I said that it's okay when gay people are pedophiles.

Almost all of this has been already litigated in this post and in previous posts. My phrasing is not always perfect, which is something you really demand, because you are not approaching this discussion in good faith and are instead looking to farm gotchas.

While it's true that I gave historical justification for Harvey Milk's relationship, you gave the same justification for Trump walking in on naked little girls to stare at them. Much younger than Harvey Milk's boyfriend and much much later in history, as late as 97.

Again, the justification for Harvey is purely based on historical grounds. I would still potentially praise a bad person today for doing something heroic, but I would certainly carry a harsher judgement for their crimes, which we both agree on. You're just pretending to disagree with me because it makes your argument easier.

Claim 22: Stonewall Rioters demanded THE REMOVAL of the age of consent.

Evidence?!?! Please?! This is an extraordinary claim.

Claim 23: This is all Trump Derangement Syndrome and that's why you have to give up on ever reaching me. Oh, and I'm supa dupa bad faith of course. I'm probably a Satanist or something else too.

Lol. Lmao. This is just... incredible. You over-estimate your ability to reason by an insane degree. I just looked at our discussion about empathy. You aren't even remembering it accurately.

I ASKED, not asserted, if your takeaway was that empathy was bad. You clarified your position. Do you remember my response after you clarified your position? I already know you don't. I immediately just said "fair enough, I misunderstood".

This is another case of why I find it impossible to take you guys seriously when you use terms like "bad faith". Why on Earth would I have immediately conceded if that discussion was so bad faith? Like, yes, I assumed the worst of you. You are in no position to judge me on that with the way you treat me. But I IMMEDIATELY took you on your word. What possible bad faith reason could I have to do that? I guess you'll find a way to invent one.

Claim 24: It's selective outrage.

Alright, I think this has already been litigated somewhere here, but let's just go over this. So, this is clearly referring to the Trump / Epstein thing VS the Harvey Milk thing. Obviously the history is already litigated at least twice now in this response.

Trump being a pedophile is not my problem with Trump. It's probably not in the top 100 worst things Trump has done. The interpersonal harms that a president has done are never ever going to be the main concern when judging such a person. A president has the power to harm an entire nation. In Trump's case, he has the ability to harm the entire world. Of course I will be more outraged by anything he has done. He is the main priority target of all attacks.

You can call it Trump Derangement all you want, but Trump is quite literally the biggest threat to what you called "modern liberalism" in current day. I wanted to say "bigger than China or Russia", but actually there's no distinction. Trump is a Frankenstein amalgamation of nearly all foreign anti-Western propaganda, even somehow the Islamic variety. It's not derangement if it's actually that bad.

Oh, and just as a final note, reminder that the age of consent today is still 16 in 34 states. You can say chippy chippy all you want, but that shit would not even be illegal today. I'm curious, would you condemn Andrew Tate to the chippy chippy??

Claim 25: You literally just call me a pedophile.

I'm sure this was totally a good faith claim here. Oh yeah. Like the whole framing of the video is that I think MAPs are heroes. I haven't even used the term "MAP" in like a decade. The fact you'd even begin to act like any part of my point was about justifying any kind of child sex abuse is just silly. Your arguments are silly. You are not a serious person.

So let me get this straight. You can be an actual pedophile and still be a hero? Nah I don't think you can. Because you lose all forms of qualifications of what makes a person a hero. Because even in fiction when "heros" are flawed we recognize that at some point you may only be acting in a heroic way rather than being an actual hero. It's a term that's been watered down a lot.

Also bringing up Trump. Like dude. Again there's zero actual proof Trump was a pedophile. No one, and I literally mean no one, has posted proof. "But Epstein ~" ok so you want to go there. What about Clinton? What about Whoopi Goldberg. What about every single person with any connections to him. "Well they don't really matter-" why the fuck not when realistically a large number of them have more evidence against them. And the statement of, "They were best friends"....... That's you intentionally manipulating words to mean shit they don't mean. Yes they were friendly with one another. But much like most influential and powerful people they have public, "friends" and then they have actual friends. Trump is the primary reason charges against Epstein even happened at all.

And more over I love how you can gloss over rapists and still call them heros while shitting yourself over Trump who we have zero proof he's done anything like that. (And realistically you can only believe he did based on current information if you either have TDS and are obsessed with Trump, or if you are one of those far right lunatics that looks at Epstein as a vassal of Israel. Either way.)

But yeah this whole, "if you don't agree with me you are a self hating gay/lesbian" bullshit isn't just woke or makes you look stupid. Same fucking mentality of, "if blacks don't stay owned by the Dems and only ever vote Dem they hate themselves are a race traitors". Same fucking sentiment. Ma'am these leftists really proving they are White Supremacists out here. You're literally the fucking meme

It's quite literally, "You hate yourself and I know better than you". You're so fucking conceded. It's actually pathetic. And it's funny too because it's always, "everyone can be heroic even if we know for a fact they diddle kids. Except Trump. We have no proof he did but he's beyond redemption anyways. But yeah if you're gay and a pedophile you're totally heroic".

No wonder people like your want to flood the country with rapists. You believe they are heroic because they are a minority probably.

As far as Trump goes, I have to ask this. How much smoke until you start to wonder if there's a fire? Because Trump is so covered in smoke, he's starting to resemble a reggae concert on 4/20.

Well, Trump has also never done anything very heroic. I'm sure he's done like a handful of good things at some point, but he's very actively a supervillain. So he's both a pedo and the opposite of a hero.

You're completely painting what I said about self-hating gays in a dishonest light. It was nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me. I disagree with the LGBT community all the time. We're talking about gay people posting or amplifying anti-gay propaganda for seemingly no reason. It's not like it was some good faith discussion about gay history, that would be totally fine. It was an anti-gay Conservative tying the roots of the LGBT rights movement to pedophilia. What possible reason could a gay person have to amplify that message outside of self-hatred?

The same thing applies to any minority group voting against their own self-interest for seemingly no reason. I'm not afraid to acknowledge that. There are self-hating members of every minority group.

I can see you've learned from Dave to label me as something I'm not until something gets a reaction out of me and then to just continually double-down on it to derail me in every discussion. Whatever, fine, I'm a Satanic Leftist if you must insist. I'll just pretend you're right so we can stop litigating that over and over. You win, Dave.

You spelled conceited wrong, by the way. The meme was pretty funny though, I'll give you that.

No, I'm sorry, but it's not just any random person is heroic if they're a pedo or whatever brainless slop you're accusing me of. If you were even trying slightly to approach this in good faith, you'd probably realize why maybe a few people may think positively about Harvey Milk. It's not exactly a fucking mystery. But no, it's because he's a pedo. Obviously, the public notoriously loves pedophiles. [Sarcasm.]

And yeah, I mean, a good faith interpretation of my worldview would obviously include that I want to flood every country with rapists. I'm just some kind of absolutely evil nihilist who wants bad things for no reason and there's no other way of looking at it. I gotta give you credit, you've built a very convenient narrative for yourself. It must be nice to be able to shut your brain off and just stop thinking.

Yep, I'm pure evil and extremely far left and I love Harvey Milk because he fucked a 16 year old. Include this quote in your video, because this is definitely a genuine belief I hold and not at all the result of you just putting fucking words in my mouth. Totally!

Countries which Trump has threatened or invaded

The conclusion I arrived at was that "It is, at times, compassionate to kill. The difficult part of it is to do so without hatred or vengeance in your heart as you do it. When you are killing someone who has caused or intends to cause great harm, you are taking the karmic burden that they would’ve had unto yourself through the act of killing them. You have to find it deep within yourself to love that person, no matter what they have done or what they will do, so that you can take their negative karma from them so that their next incarnation might give them another shot at being a good person."

I did not at any time imply in my tags that you should take pleasure in killing. I have a very atypical view on this sort of thing. Charlie Kirk's killer, for instance, is a murderer and should suffer the legal consequences of what he did. But I view Charlie Kirk being dead as a good thing because that is someone I view as causing great harm to the world being taken out of the equation.

Granted, I'm not a Buddhist. I don't actually believe in karma or anything like that. But all human death is a tragedy to me. When death is celebrated, I always took that more as a celebration of whatever good came from that result. Human beings are animals. I'm not sure if anyone is truly evil in the way we conceptualize evil.

Liberals when someone aborts their son because of his disability:

The main difference being the right side orphanages were run by clergy and at 18 they'd offer to send you through the seminary and become a clergy, if you weren't adopted, because then they can get the church to hand you a stipend, so that you're never fully without, versus the state orphanages/foster care. There are abuses and shit both are known for, the exact same stuff, you be sure. An unfortunate side effect of having a position where kids are vulnerable is that abusers will do everything they can to be in those positions.

The left's main argument, even among the batshit insane far-lefties is that we should leverage the government to look after people. The right has been, across the board, the pull-up-your-bootstraps movement. The only help you guys believe in are charities which are deeply insufficient when you are talking about such a large country.

This is true, but only seems to be a way to downplay that this was in fact one of the only gay bars in New York City and the only one where dancing was allowed.

Claim 2: Stonewall was raided for legitimate reasons.

It's not clear if this is true or not, but the conduct definitely suggests otherwise. Why did they go out of their way to arrest drag queens or trans people?

Claim 3: Time lauds Stonewall for youth sex work.

Hilariously false. He did not even try. Even in his own snippet of the article, you can clearly see they are referring to San Francisco and it's clear in the actual article that they are lauding sex workers as a whole for their role in the movement. There's no mention of Stonewall or any other event centering around youth sex work.

Claim 4: Marsha P. Johnson was not trans.

Most likely false, but we can't know for sure. The term "transgender" only became commonly used after her death. She identified at the time as a drag queen and a transvestite, but she used she/her pronouns. It's true that she at various times referred to herself as a gay man, but that's not a smoking gun in the historical context.

Doyle dismisses all trans people as cross-dressers anyways, so his opinion is worthless here.

Claim 5: Marsha P. Johnson wasn't even there.

Are we just fucking around at this point? How was she at the event to describe it if she wasn't even there? He doesn't appear to be claiming that she wasn't there for the initial raid, he's making it sound like she wasn't present for the riots. What a joke.'

Claim 6: Stonewall rioters were pedophiles.

Doyle doesn't outright say this, but it's the implication. The entire video he keeps alluding to youth sex workers and now he is talking about how the rioters wanted to lower the age of consent.

The kernel of truth is that they DID lower the age of consent... to the same age of consent that everyone else had. That's right, gay people had a different age of consent at the time. The demand was merely for equality. Imagine that.

Conclusion: Stonewall's history is dirty.

I know a bit about Stonewall having seen the interview with Marsha P. actually. Marsha never identified as trans and was always a cross dresser. And actually there's a BIT for me to address in your post.

This is true, but only seems to be a way to downplay that this was in fact one of the only gay bars in New York City and the only one where dancing was allowed.

No actually. He didn't downplay it. He stated a fact. A fact which was kind of important for the broader scope of things.

It's not clear if this is true or not, but the conduct definitely suggests otherwise. Why did they go out of their way to arrest drag queens or trans people?

Fun fact about perception. It matters. You say, "It's not clear" meaning you should realistically have no rebuttal. Instead you try to weasel word your way into dismissal. What's more, several things can be true at once. The people there could have been violent because their club got raided. They could have gotten violent because they thought they were being targeted even if they weren't. Could they have been? Yes. Do we know that? No. So any input you have on this is frankly invalid.

Hilariously false. He did not even try. Even in his own snippet of the article, you can clearly see they are referring to San Francisco and it's clear in the actual article that they are lauding sex workers as a whole for their role in the movement. There's no mention of Stonewall or any other event centering around youth sex work.

The literally mention Stonewall. so saying there's no mention is a crock of shit. Because early gay community areas did have issues with prostitution. That's also a fact. I also hate people saying "Sex Workers" in regards to physical prostitution because it's a way to sanitise the fucking language.

Most likely false, but we can't know for sure. The term "transgender" only became commonly used after her death. She identified at the time as a drag queen and a transvestite, but she used she/her pronouns. It's true that she at various times referred to herself as a gay man, but that's not a smoking gun in the historical context.

This is actually addressed heavily in the video. Because one thing about Drag queens, which I know SIGNIFICANTLY more about than you historically, prefer to be called by their "Stage" persona. Both name and pronoun. Not because they were trans. But because that was the custom. And I'm not going to get into the thrashing people like you deserve watering down all drag queens as "Trans". How about open a history book that's made by early drag queens. And PRE modern LGBT. You'll learn something.

Are we just fucking around at this point? How was she at the event to describe it if she wasn't even there? He doesn't appear to be claiming that she wasn't there for the initial raid, he's making it sound like she wasn't present for the riots. What a joke.'

No. The "Story" that you often hear is that "Trans people of color started the Stonewall movement" because of people like Marsha. Marsha, according the the video I linked, AND the interview very much stated that Marsha didn't "Throw the first brick". Which they did not. Marsha's words were, "Things had already gotten kicked off before I was even there. I don't even know if a brick got thrown". Doyle doesn't dispute this and explains it in the video as such. (However you watched the entire video from a point of, "How is he wrong and how can I dismiss what he said" rather than actually listening to what he said. He cited the Marsha interview.

Doyle doesn't outright say this, but it's the implication. The entire video he keeps alluding to youth sex workers and now he is talking about how the rioters wanted to lower the age of consent.

He DOESN'T imply this. YOU view him as implying it. He stated clearly that there were huge issues with underage prostitution with places like Stonewall. Which is factually true. But because it's inconvenient, you have to make it out like he's saying that. I however didn't get that from the video at all. What's more, It's fucking disgusting hearing a person say the phrase, "youth sex workers". No. That's called victims of child sexual assault. They are minors. We call that rape. And he showed paperwork that was presented that IS real of there being people that were either a part of Stonewall, or associated with the broader movement that DID want to remove the age of consent. That's a factual statement you are just painting your view of how he framed it. Rather than, "Yes that's bad".

The entire point in your response is, "I watched this in bad faith, took away things he did not say, used manipulative framing to pretend he was being bad faith instead of me, and presented what I said as fact".

Props for trying to use idpol to bait me though. You forgot I'm not a leftist.

I posted a literal ex feminist lesbians video on Marsha. Which you ignored. You very much are a leftist. You worship the left. You worship the fact you are on the left. You are by definition a leftists. You can't separate people from what they are saying, and you always have to assume bad faith if anyone does not agree with you 100%. Actual liberals? They don't do that. Then again your side frequently dismisses anyone that does not agree even if they are a part of the groups you are claiming to represent.

He stated clearly that there were huge issues with underage prostitution with places like Stonewall. Which is factually true.

This is 10000000% true. Pedophilia has always been a problem in the gay community, (remember Harvey Milk openly dating an underage boy?) but in the 60s and 70s it was probably the worst. Back then it was so easy to get foreign CP magazines and that kind of stuff was everywhere. When I was in my early 20s. almost every older gay who was in "the community" during the 60s and 70s and 80s I talked to would fondly reminisce about all the CP they could get their hands on. Children who were kicked out for being gay found their way into predatory hands and were turned out in these very same clubs that modern gays lionize as some kind of revolutionary hotbed. But that's not how the gay community was. Back then, it was all about sex and drugs. That's it. Politics was unimportant for the club dwellers. They just wanted to get high and have sex, and a large percentage wanted that sex to be with underage boys.

You don't know that none of these people were heroes. Someone doing something terrible doesn't erase heroism they've done either. Particularly past figures, who lived in times where moral norms were sometimes pretty significantly different than they are now. Harvey Milk died in 78. People were still openly writing songs about jailbait during that era. You could regularly hear songs on that topic on the radio. It's still wrong, of course it is, but you're MAGA for fuck sakes!

How can you clutch pearls about Harvey Milk when your idol is Donald Trump? The man who is one of the most connected people to Jeffrey Epstein. Who was Epstein's best friend for years, who sent him weird letters, who was known to engage in voyeurism towards young girls during pageants? Give me a fuckin break.

Liberals when someone aborts their son because of his disability:

The Bar was owned by the Genovese crime family The fact that it was an OSHA nightmare run by the mob alone does not take away from the fact that they specifically raided this location over and over again (on a monthly basis it seems) to knowingly encounter people that they could arrest for the mere act of crossdressing. To put it another way, if an establishment in my country is found to have OSHA violations up the wazoo, the expected result is to have it taped up like a literal crime scene and shut down to protect the public. What they do not do is go into the premises, arrest the patrons who coinicdentally were committing miscellaneous crimes like unpaid roadtax or smoking untaxed tobacco, leave with the respective confiscated goods, and repeat the procedure a month later.

The Mayor was cracking down on illegal booze Cannot find evidence but will take it at face value that he had made some statement to this effect. Assuming that it is true, I am doubtful of the stated intent. If you know that this one crime family is currently (illegally) distributing (illegal) hooch, why would you waltz down, confiscate it, and then just leave, only to repeat the same song and dance a month later? It just feels like you're using it as a bait for some ulterior motive.

Many prostitutes were underage, runaways, homeless teenagers, and some of the patrons were there to have sex with those minors. I cannot find any mention of underage runaway homeless teenage boys prostituting themselves, and regrettably the description is completely devoid of citations.

Assuming that this is true via stories of young people runing away from homes and prostituting themselves to not starve etc, I do not see how this can be the general reason for uprising, that nonces were not being allowed to nonce (see above monthly raids and arrests), or the fault of the patrons themselves.

Time Magazine lauded Stonewall for the centering of youth sex work

Sex workers participated in nearly all of the iconic queer uprisings of the era. Indeed, they helped create the conditions that made such uprisings possible. In San Francisco, for instance, a group of street youth — largely trans and queer kids, many of whom sold sex in the Tenderloin — came together in 1966 to form a new organization called Vanguard.

... I guess??? Is this the source I was supposed to rely on to conclude that there was prostitution at Stonewall because there were minors who were forced to prostitute themsleves in San Francisco?

The Police raiding the Inn were not homophobes. They were raiding a criminal operation which just so happened to cater to gay men. If they were raiding a criminal operation which just so happened to cater to gay men, why did they not shut it down and allow it to operate for roughly a month before they returned to repeat the same raid again?

Once again, if their intent was to stop a criminal operation, I would be more convinced if they had actually stopped the said criminal operation. At this point it appears to me that they had used this as an excuse to leave up a very effective bait for homosexuals since all other bars were deemed illegal for serving homosexuals in the first place.

There were no transgender involved in the Stonewall Inn Riots I'm too lazy to rebut this.

The same pattern of underage prostutition and drugs existed at other similar locations such as Compton's Cafeteria I cannot find any mention of the above claim, and regrettably the description is completely devoid of citations.

12 Arrested as Child Molesters in a Boston Area Ring HOLY SHIT A CITED SOURCE What is he citing this for? Boston doesn't look anywhere near the Stonewall thing. The artcle itself doesn't even say that the homosexual pedophiles were in a bar akin to the Stonewall Inn. I am legitimately lost

One of the very first demands to come out of the Stonewall gay rights groups was to lower the age of consent. While number 7 under "State" looks like a pedophile's end goal, I find it odd that it came after "Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws." One example being the British legislation which made the age of consent consistent with that of heterosexuals. In the same way that "Parliament does not legislate in vain" (since you can't abolish laws and demand at the same time for the law to be equal and equally enforced) and the fact that nothing else in the document reads like a pedophile's manifesto, I am willing to take it with a grain of salt and conclude that someone had a stroke of genius.

I regret to admit that the sources I have are not very good, as I do not have access to or know where to find the absolute original documents/legislation, but seeing as I found all this and almost nothing supporting the author's claims, I find his conclusion to be very doubtful.

Liberals when someone aborts their son because of his disability:

Christian charity, while not totally insignificant, pales in comparison to government safety nets. You can't give to charity and then vote against helping people over and over and over and expect me to take you seriously as a pro-life person.

"Eugenics" is not correct, as many of the people you're talking about being aborted are not actually possible to remove from the gene pool. Their genes aren't passed down from people born with those afflictions.

Besides, that's not a majority opinion as far as I can tell. I do believe in eliminating that issue through relatively harmless abortions, so I'll bite the bullet there. It still does not contradict anything.