32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Silhouette]

That is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Your argument is invalid.

Nope. You're again misinformed about the nation of discrimination. Discrimination is quite legal depending on the circumstances, and in fact vital to the application of any law. How then could we apply speeding tickets only to those who exceeded the speeding tickets rather than to all drivers? We discriminate, fining only those who have exceeded the statutory limits. We use a valid criteria for discrimination and apply the law accordingly.

On the civil side, a landlord can discriminate against renting to those who don't have enough money to pay the rent. While entering into leases with those who do. Not having enough money to pay is a perfectly legitimate basis of discrimination.

Illegal discrimination is the application of an illegitimate basis of discrimination. Like race, gender or sexual orientation. If you gave someone a ticket because they're black....that's illegal discrimination. If your refused to rent to someone because they are gay, that's illegal discrimination.

You fallaciously lump legal and illegal discrimination together. Which the law doesn't. Rendering your claim of 'invalidity' itself uselessly invalid.

And so you would argue then that "transsexuals" [there is no such thing] would have a "right" to enter any opposite gender bathroom or lockeroom right? Except that there is a legitimate basis to deny them this. Likewise, two women or two men do not qualify as "man and wife" "father and mother" who are and have been for thousands of years the only qualifiers for "married". There is a legitimate reason, determined by the majority, for limiting marriage to just those two; as opposed to polygamists, gays, siblings etc. That is for the best interest of the children who are most-intrinsic of all people to the word "marriage"..

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Quiz question: What high profile queer activist stated in a lengthy NY Times piece, that if Hitler was gay, that would "serve to humanize him"? The inference being of course, that if Hitler was queer, all those little indiscretions like 52 million dead people, would play second fiddle to the humanity of his gayness. Who was it? Anybody want to venture a guess?

Barrack Hussein Obama?

 

[Seawytch]

Sigh. I feel like I'm living in a lunatic asylum any longer. Who's getting to these people? A few years ago, the American Lung Association came out with a policy statement regarding Hollywood's relentless "product placement" of tobacco in movies aimed at teenagers. They said it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and that moderate smoking had no detrimental effect.

Alright, let's change the face of this argument. I understand why lesbians want a child. Next to self-preservation it's the strongest natural instinct a woman possesses. But a homosexual male?? Come on "daddy". Let's hear about all the self-sacrifice and nurturing it's going to take to raise a healthy, mentally well-adjusted child. What's your motivation? Oh, and you'd be perfectly willing to have an adoption agency give you a little girl rather than a little boy, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you?

Gays and lesbians have and want children for all the same reasons heterosexuals do.

We are raising healthy, well adjusted kids.


Same-sex marriage and children s well-being Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

“Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian”
2013 study from Tufts University, Boston Medical Center and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health published in Pediatrics.

“U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents”
2010 study from the University of California-San Francisco, the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of Amsterdam published in Pediatrics.

“Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School”
2010 research by Stanford University published in Demography.


“Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families”
2009 research from the University of Amsterdam and New York State Psychiatric Institute published in Sex Roles.

“Parent-Child Interaction Styles Between Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Adopted Children”
2007 study from Florida State University published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies.

“Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents”
2008 metastudy from Michigan State University published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies.

“Pychosocial Adjustment Among Children Conceived Via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers”
1998 research from the University of Virgina published in Child Development.

What you cannot produce is a peer reviewed study from a reputable source that says anything to the contrary. You don't know any gay parents do you?

 

[Skylar]

And so you would argue then that "transsexuals" [there is no such thing] would have a "right" to enter any opposite gender bathroom or lockeroom right?

I would argue, quite simply, that if you want to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you're going to need a very good reason. And there is none. They are being denied because of tradition isn't good enough.

There's no portion of the marriage contract that gays can't fulfill. No state interest in denying them. No harm caused to anyone else in the recognition of their unions. Making denial just an arbitrary denial of fundamental rights.

Except that there is a legitimate basis to deny them this. Likewise, two women or two men do not qualify as "man and wife" "father and mother" who are and have been for thousands of years the only qualifiers for "married". There is a legitimate reason, determined by the majority, for limiting marriage to just those two; as opposed to polygamists, gays, siblings etc. That is for the best interest of the children who are most-intrinsic of all people to the word "marriage"..

The obvious problem being...children aren't a legal requirement of any marriage. No heterosexual couple has to have children or be able to have children in order to have their marriages recognized as legally valid. So you would impose upon gays a standard that no one else is held to.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Rendering it invalid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And so you would argue then that "transsexuals" [there is no such thing] would have a "right" to enter any opposite gender bathroom or lockeroom right?

I would argue, quite simply, that if you want to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you're going to need a very good reason. And there is none. They are being denied because of tradition isn't good enough.

There's no portion of the marriage contract that gays can't fulfill. No state interest in denying them. No harm caused to anyone else in the recognition of their unions. Making denial just an arbitrary denial of fundamental rights.

Except that there is a legitimate basis to deny them this. Likewise, two women or two men do not qualify as "man and wife" "father and mother" who are and have been for thousands of years the only qualifiers for "married". There is a legitimate reason, determined by the majority, for limiting marriage to just those two; as opposed to polygamists, gays, siblings etc. That is for the best interest of the children who are most-intrinsic of all people to the word "marriage"..

The obvious problem being...children aren't a legal requirement of any marriage. No heterosexual couple has to have children or be able to have children in order to have their marriages recognized as legally valid. So you would impose upon gays a standard that no one else is held to.

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Rendering it invalid.

Correct.


Infertile opposite-sex couples are not disallowed to marry, nor are older opposite-sex couples compelled to divorce when they are no longer able to have children.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

When the state seeks to restrict or deny a citizen his civil rights, such as same-sex couples their equal protection rights, the burden rests solely with the state to justify that restriction or prohibition, where the restriction or prohibition must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and it must pursue a proper legislative end.


And when the state fails to meet this burden, which is the case with same-sex couples being denied their equal protection rights, any law seeking to indeed restrict or deny a citizen's civil rights will be invalidated by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about it yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:

Amazon.com peter padfield himmler

Is this for real? I've never heard such a thing. Why did nazis require non-Jew gays to wear pink triangles and have them gassed?

For the same reasons they killed their other victims: fear, ignorance, and hate.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

You have the right to be ignorant and hateful; and you have the right to express your ignorance and hate.


Thankfully, however, you don't have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate, prohibited from doing so by the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

You have the right to be ignorant and hateful; and you have the right to express your ignorance and hate.


Thankfully, however, you don't have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate, prohibited from doing so by the Constitution and its case law.

In other words I made good points and you don't have a lucid rebuttal so as usual you substitute ad hominem and hope it passes as a weak substitute.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

 

[Silhouette]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

Um hello! Read some of my posts. Or are you talking about just the gay cult? Yeah, I know. In that case you're right. Children are like this little conversation they want to save until after they get the legal loophole to get them home behind closed doors. If we can judge that environment as anything close to a gay pride parade, these children are headed for big trouble..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Why?

All rights have limits, and when the exercise of the right is dangerous, it is generally not considered protected by the right. Such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you know the one?

A blind person driving is clearly dangerous to other people. A gay couple marrying clearly isn't.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

But then again, people are saying this isn't fair, regardless of whether it is a right or a privilege and the terminology of the word is changing. Words do change. "Cheese" came from the old English word for mould, words changed drastically when the Normans invaded England, it happens all the time.
The term "marriage" is clearly different in the English speaking world seeing as England, South Africa, parts of the US, Canada and New Zealand, a hefty part of the English speaking world, has, in law, same sex marriage, gay marriage. Ie, the term marriage has changed.

You say they "refuse to abide by its constructs", it's kind of like telling a black person they can't go on a train because it's only for white people and they "refuse to abide by its constructs".

A majority decided that children do best in this situation. Really? How many of the majority know once ounce of who is better to bring up a child, a gay couple or a straight couple.

This is clearly along the same lines as a Children's TV presenter in the UK, who happened to have one hand, and half an arm.

CBeebies presenter Cerrie Burnell on breaking down barriers for disabled TV talent - Manchester Evening News

"The reaction from most viewers was positive but some parents complained their children were upset by the sight of the new, one-armed presenter. There was a flurry of emails objecting to her presence and one viewer left an online rant charmingly stating their child was "freaked out" by her appearance."

But you still have a problem here. The 14th Amendment still says:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

abridge definition of abridge in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Law Curtail (rights or privileges):"

Which in general is the PARENTS have a problem with this because their prejudices have already been formed and they're going to be pig headed about it, whereas children just adapt to their situation and couldn't give a toss about any of this.
Same with gay marriage. Seeing as there haven't been that many instances of gay couples adopting, in comparison with straight couples, and that those who seem to hate gay couples don't seem to have a problem with single parent adopters, you get the point, right?????

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

Gay people marrying does not harm children for many, MANY reasons.

1) Gay marriage, indeed marriage in general, does not mean the couple will have children. In fact having children has feck all to do with marriage. You don't need to be married to get preggers, right?
2) Gay marriage does not mean they will go to gay pride events. In fact, whether a person goes to gay pride has feck all to do with whether they are married.
3) You think it will damage culture? What the hell?

Your arguments are extremely bad and seem to be clutching at straws more than anything else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

This issue isn't about the welfare of children, that's why. It'd be like saying that no one has ever brought up the issue of watching TV because hey, a gay couple might try and buy a TV if they can get married.

I bet in the whole time you've been on this topic you've never heard about a straight couple "getting their hands on little kids", have you?

There's a BIG BIG difference between gay and pedophile, you know? Which is probably why no one who is open minded enough to accept gay people for who they are is going to go so far down the levels to actually equate gay and pedophile.

Some gay people are pedophiles.

What is interesting is this:

Pedophile and Child Molester Statistics - Yello Dyno

" Nearly all the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%)."

"Males are reported to be the abusers in 80-95% of cases"

Which means you think that men should not be able to have children, right? I mean this is the logic you're using.

"About 60% of the male survivors sampled report at least one of their perpetrators to be female."

Most abuse by men is against girls. Hardly the domain of gay people.

"Violent child victimizers were substantially more likely than those with adult victims to have been physically or sexually abused when they were children.."

Some people really should be looked at seriously before they adopt. But it's not that they're gay, it's that they've been through certain experiences.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

"Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women."

This is exactly what you're doing. In the middle ages you'd have harped on about Jews, 100 years ago you'd have harped on about black people. Feel proud? I mean, people used the bible to show how stupid black people were......

"In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters."

"The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."

"By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters."

Things have changed, you are part of the 15% of people who don't believe. You're a minority seeking the infringement of rights for minorities, woohoo.

"Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977. "

"For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. "

So, in fact, people in gay relationships are MUCH LESS LIKELY to be child abusers than single men.

There's nothing to suggest gay men like abusing children. There is something to suggest that child abusers like abusing children, surprisingly.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I think a lot of gay men were victims of homosexual predation themselves as kids. Like any abused slash abuser, they just keep the cycle going.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

It tells you that most people aren't dumb enough to think that all gay people are pedophiles.

 

[NoNukes]

"Gay marriage". The the next step for queers is to "adopt" a little boy, to get their hands on a little boy. That's what this insanity is really all about.

Are you calling gay people pedophiles?

No, I'm calling you a nitwit if that isn't obvious. You probably think it was just coincidence that the Catholic Church flushed its ranks of thousands of child-molesting queer males because they were 10 times more liely to rape children than heterosexual priests were?

Do you REALLY think that priests who raped choirs boy were gay but ones who didn't were straight?

Come on man, there are multiple instances of men who were straight men married, girlfriends whatever who have raped little boys.

They are pedophiles who rape targets of opportunity. Put a little girl in front of those creeps and they rape her to. Notice that once their victim actually DOES show any signs of sexual identity, they lose interest.

There are plenty of heterosexual men in prison who have sex with men. Supply and demand.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think a lot of gay men were victims of homosexual predation themselves as kids. Like any abused slash abuser, they just keep the cycle going.

You think huh?

Well you tell me what you KNOW and not what you just made up.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

You think huh?

Well you tell me what you KNOW and not what you just made up.

I KNOW that I seriously hope you aren't as ugly as your avatar.