Another CA Pedo Perv HS Teacher Caught Grooming Kids

[SassyIrishLass]

Marriage is a constitutional right.

What? Lol

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Marriage is a constitutional right.

Adopting is also legal.

What is your issue again?

Marriage is not in the constitution. Legal marriage was designed to protect children. Homos can’t procreate. Data clearly shows the social demise rooted in unstructured families.

 

[Lesh]

Pedo's used to be priests, now they are teachers for the state

That’s always been an issue.
My former neighbor was a retired teacher. MAGA gun nut. Blew his brains out when some of his former students exposed his sexual attacks on them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That’s always been an issue.
My former neighbor was a retired teacher. MAGA gun nut. Blew his brains out when some of his former students exposed his sexual attacks on them.

Yeah right. (Insert eye roll here)

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Do you?

Stop. I mean really, stop.

 

[toobfreak]

Of course you never hear Biden or any Democrat unless fox says so

So then produce for us the video of Biden talking about the need to protect children in schools from untoward sexual material not suitable for their tender years! You can't! Because it is all coming from HIS school unions and boards under the direction and pressure of his DoE!

But there is no epidemic of pedophilia all of a sudden

No, it has been carefully developed over many years as part of the leftwing agenda as you don't see any republicans involved in promoting gender dysphoria and sexuality to little kids.

 

[Catsnmeters]

What? Lol

I said marriage is a constitutional right.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Marriage is not in the constitution. Legal marriage was designed to protect children. Homos can’t procreate. Data clearly shows the social demise rooted in unstructured families.

Marriage is in the constitution. It's in the 9th amendment between the right to travel and presumption of innocence.

Marriage is not based on procreation.

Data shows you what you want to see.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Marriage is in the constitution. It's in the 9th amendment between the right to travel and presumption of innocence.

Marriage is not based on procreation.

Data shows you what you want to see.

Tha constitutional provision is about race, not a counter-nature proclivity.
Data supports the empirical in the case of unstructured families. Get with the program and progress a little. Locales suffer most where family structure is depleted.
It’s a very natural right for every human to be granted the opportunity to be raised by its actual parents. Every human in the existence of the species has had one specific mother and one specific father. Homos are not above nature.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I said marriage is a constitutional right.

It's not

 

[Catsnmeters]

Tha constitutional provision is about race, not a counter-nature proclivity.
Data supports the empirical in the case of unstructured families. Get with the program and progress a little. Locales suffer most where family structure is depleted.

Even if this were true, is it your contention that only marriages where social structure is at its peak, should be allowed?

Maybe you want only certain age groups to be allowed to marry...the age group most likely to allow the social structure to peak?

What about race? Should we only allow the race with statistically the most chance of success to be married?

It’s a very natural right for every human to be granted the opportunity to be raised by its actual parents. Every human in the existence of the species has had one specific mother and one specific father. Homos are not above nature.

Marriage isn't about nature. It's about love and living in a country that allows two people of legal age to be married.

Your argument seems terribly familiar to the days when people didn't want a black and white person to be married. Same arguement, different group.

 

[westwall]

This sexual deviant is currently a HS history teacher, former president of the teachers union & advisor to the groomer club at the school.
He was caught grooming when a kids older brother caught onto his game. He was sending inappropriate texts & pics to what he thought was a minor boy.

Parents had already complained about him so it's not like the district was totally unaware of his problems but they tried to act shocked.

Look at the pic of this guy- he's wearing a Kum & Go shirt.
That's just a little too on the nose.

As a parent, if I caught some pedo twink creeping on my kids they'd have to scrape him up when I was done

View attachment 729511


Parents at Foothill High School had previously complained to the principal about Mr. Kavigan, but nothing had been done in response, our source added.

A viral video is making the rounds online of him being confronted by the minor’s older brother.

In the video, the student’s older brother reportedly posed as a minor in order to confront the teacher about sending sexually explicit materials to his minor sibling.

EXCLUSIVE: CA High School Teacher, Former Teachers' Union President and Gay Club Advisor Caught Soliciting Underage Boy - Older Brother Confronts Him in a Viral Video | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

UPDATE: Authorities announced in a press release that on November 23rd, Roger Kavigan from Long Beach was arrested on suspicion of contacting a minor with the intent to commit sexual assault.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Good brother!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Even if this were true, is it your contention that only marriages where social structure is at its peak, should be allowed?

Maybe you want only certain age groups to be allowed to marry...the age group most likely to allow the social structure to peak?

What about race? Should we only allow the race with statistically the most chance of success to be married?


Marriage isn't about nature. It's about love and living in a country that allows two people of legal age to be married.

Your argument seems terribly familiar to the days when people didn't want a black and white person to be married. Same arguement, different group.

The issue is about legal marriage.
Marriage, in and of itself, is a concept and anyone can marry anyone or anything. It’s when it’s given legal status that it becomes coercion and mandates acquiescence and subsidies. Child-bearing is the only reason for legal status. To protect children. Homos can’t procreate therefore legal marriage is moot.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The issue is about legal marriage.
Marriage, in and of itself, is a concept and anyone can marry anyone or anything. It’s when it’s given legal status that it becomes coercion and mandates acquiescence and subsidies. Child-bearing is the only reason for legal status. To protect children. Homos can’t procreate therefore legal marriage is moot.

I'm still scratching my head how marriage is a Constitutional right

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm still scratching my head how marriage is a Constitutional right

He’s reaching. Kinda like how Obama mentioned terrorism in his response to Benghazi and then later pretended he said terrorism was the cause.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's not

Yes. It is.

Right to Marry

www.law.cornell.edu

Do Repubs even realize there is a 9th amendment? James Madison would be ashamed.

Ironically, we owe our 2nd amendment rights to the 9th amendment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yes. It is.

Right to Marry

www.law.cornell.edu

Do Repubs even realize there is a 9th amendment? James Madison would be ashamed.

Ironically, we owe our 2nd amendment rights to the 9th amendment.

No it's not. Just stop ya damn dumbass

 

[Catsnmeters]

The issue is about legal marriage.
Marriage, in and of itself, is a concept and anyone can marry anyone or anything.

I am talking about legal marriage. The law doesn't recognize marriage between a person and their cat.

It’s when it’s given legal status that it becomes coercion and mandates acquiescence and subsidies.

How is the right to marry coercion? What do you mean by mandating acquiescence and subsidies?

Child-bearing is the only reason for legal status. To protect children. Homos can’t procreate therefore legal marriage is moot.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No it's not. Just stop ya damn dumbass

ROFL. So you ignore judicial precedent with denial and ad hominem.

Let me know when you have a logic based arguement instead of one based on thoughts and feelings.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

ROFL. So you ignore judicial precedent with denial and ad hominem.

Let me know when you have a logic based arguement instead of one based on thoughts and feelings.

Gfy left loon. The constitution never mentions marriage. Stop your goddamn left loon flaming