Still, it is not bad to see what kind of reasoning they use.
Like mentioning that support is impossible for gay youngsters, because of the age of consent regulation.
They take something that should be possible (and I can't imagine it is not possible to give mental support to a teenager) and stretch and stretch that to wanting to get rid of the age of 16 as an age of consent.
It's good to see the reasoning, and where and how they are screwing the readers. Because they are.
And they mix up support with sex lightly, but so "subtle" that they may take some people with them in their reasoning.
They are spin-doctoring big time.
I agree with Parts that it is good to be able to see what they are doing. It is repulsive, in a very sly way.
And the idea that they actually belief what they are saying, creeps me out even more.
Thank goodness for an age of consent. Reasoning would never help against these ideas. Legislation may keep some in control of themselves.