Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You'll pardon me for not seeing a representative of the Vatican as a valid source.
The Catholic Church doesn't have a gay problem, it has a celibacy problem. Gay men don't molest children. Gay priests don't molest children. All the gay priests I know, have boyfriends.
Until the Catholic Church abandons its ridiculous celibacy rule, it will continue to have a problem, period. The reason it was boys being molested is because it's about ACCESS.
Amazing how gays circle the wagons to protect their own......deviants......
the problem was the HOMOS raping the altar boys......not a problem of CELIBACY or a problem of ACCESS.....
wrong
The problem was the priests raping minors.
If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
Amazing how gays circle the wagons to protect their own......deviants......
the problem was the HOMOS raping the altar boys......not a problem of CELIBACY or a problem of ACCESS.....
wrong
The problem was the priests raping minors.
If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
So you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?Amazing how gays circle the wagons to protect their own......deviants......
the problem was the HOMOS raping the altar boys......not a problem of CELIBACY or a problem of ACCESS.....
wrong
The problem was the priests raping minors.
If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
so you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?wrong
the problem was the priests raping minors.
If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
of course not.....wtf makes you think that....?
are the charges against sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
So you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?wrong
The problem was the priests raping minors.
If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.
It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
Are the charges against Sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
so you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
of course not.....wtf makes you think that....?
are the charges against sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
.
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
Sandusky is married to a WOMAN but preyed on underage boys. Again, more likely about ACCESS than anything else. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.
so you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?
of course not.....wtf makes you think that....?
are the charges against sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
.
Wrong. Not both. He is being brought up on charges of a sex act with a minor.
If he were found to have had sex with an adult man, there would be no charges.
You are making things up in an effort to win this debate. You need to question why you are in the position to make things up.
The answer is simple...
If you debate ONLY the truth, you will run out of things to say.
both......parse it anyway you want but it was male to male sex.....i.e., homosexual....
Sandusky is married to a WOMAN but preyed on underage boys. Again, more likely about ACCESS than anything else. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.
as if men with homosexual tendencies never get married....
more about ACCESS...? ya, sure thing (sarcasm)....the problem with you is more about ACCESS to the internet....than your idiotic reasoning.......
ok....pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.....like Sandusky i guess...
ephebophiles are homosexuals with an attraction to adolescents.....the Church problem...
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
No, they weren't. Pay attention. If there were altar girls instead of altar boys in the church, it would have been them molested and not the boys. It was about ACCESS.
So you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?
Are the charges against Sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
Sandusky is married to a WOMAN but preyed on underage boys. Again, more likely about ACCESS than anything else. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.
duh.....the priests involved were homosexuals......were they not....?
No, they weren't. Pay attention. If there were altar girls instead of altar boys in the church, it would have been them molested and not the boys. It was about ACCESS.
ROFL! No, it's about access to young boys. The priests were homosexuals. That's one reason they found becoming a priest attractive.
Sandusky is married to a WOMAN but preyed on underage boys. Again, more likely about ACCESS than anything else. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.
as if men with homosexual tendencies never get married....
more about ACCESS...? ya, sure thing (sarcasm)....the problem with you is more about ACCESS to the internet....than your idiotic reasoning.......
ok....pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.....like Sandusky i guess...
ephebophiles are homosexuals with an attraction to adolescents.....the Church problem...
Of course gay men marry women...just as Michelle Bachmann about it.
Again, a Vatican spokesman is not a valid source. The church's problem is ACCESS, period. If the church had altar girls instead of boys, the church would be pointing the finger somewhere else. Their problem is with their centuries old, ridiculous, rules on celibacy.(That had much more to do with property rights than it did adherence to the bible)
The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males and the victims are almost always victims because of the pedophile's ACCESS to them. The number one victim of pedophiles are members of the fuckers FAMILY.
Pedophilia isn't a gay thing or a straight thing...it's just a thing that is completely unfucking related to this discussion on equal marriage rights for consenting adult gays and lesbians.
So you are saying that if they were young girls it would not have been as much an issue?
Are the charges against Sandusky "homosexual acts with a minor" or "sex with a minor"?
It doesn't matter what the charges are. That's purely a political issue. The fact is Sandusky never laid a hand on any girls.
Homosexuals have lobbied hard to avoid having cases of males molesting males labelled "homosexual."
And yet Sandusky is a heterosexual. How does that wash with your "it must be the fags" worldview?
What does any of this have to do with consenting adult gays and lesbians having equal access to legal civil marriage? Oh, I know...NOTHING.
as if men with homosexual tendencies never get married....
more about ACCESS...? ya, sure thing (sarcasm)....the problem with you is more about ACCESS to the internet....than your idiotic reasoning.......
ok....pedophiles like pre-pubescent children.....like Sandusky i guess...
ephebophiles are homosexuals with an attraction to adolescents.....the Church problem...
Of course gay men marry women...just as Michelle Bachmann about it.
Again, a Vatican spokesman is not a valid source. The church's problem is ACCESS, period. If the church had altar girls instead of boys, the church would be pointing the finger somewhere else. Their problem is with their centuries old, ridiculous, rules on celibacy.(That had much more to do with property rights than it did adherence to the bible)
The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males and the victims are almost always victims because of the pedophile's ACCESS to them. The number one victim of pedophiles are members of the fuckers FAMILY.
Pedophilia isn't a gay thing or a straight thing...it's just a thing that is completely unfucking related to this discussion on equal marriage rights for consenting adult gays and lesbians.
That is pure horseshit. Child molesters arrange to have access to the sex they prefer. If they like young boys, they go into the Boy Scouts or the clergy. If they like young girls, then they get a job were they have access to young girls. You're acting as if the job circumstances of the child molester is a pure accident. You have to be terminally naive to believe that.
And yet Sandusky is a heterosexual. How does that wash with your "it must be the fags" worldview?
What does any of this have to do with consenting adult gays and lesbians having equal access to legal civil marriage? Oh, I know...NOTHING.
Gays claim they can have children and still be gay. How does that wash with your "gays are never guilty of anything" horseshit?
