Lesbian woman demands double standard when she has sex with 15-year-old

I fixed it... seems sfjeff screwed up the quote tags or something.... I saw I was replying to YOU and that didn't seem right given your opinions on much of this stuff seems fairly consistent to mine.... I saw the error and fixed it (probably while you were replying to me)

 

Great minds think alike. LOL

 

???? No more so than children a heterosexual couple has.

 

You know, if Homosexuals would just lose the "I'm holier than thou" attitude, they wouldn't be so reviled.

 

Two high school girls have some hot lesbian sex...

...and they didn't tape it for the rest of us to watch? OUTRAGEOUS! Throw the book at them!

 

That is the reason why every child a homosexual couple has in their family is a desired child. Homosexuals make the conscious decision everytime they decide to bring a child into their family

- - - Updated - - -

kettle meet the pot.

 

The OP started this thread claiming its a gay issue. Not any gay people, nor anyone who happens to believe that homosexuals should have equal rights. Just remember that everytime someone chimes in about the 'gay agenda'.

As I have said over and over- I think that this girl should be treated like any 18 year old man would be treated in the same circumstances.

If you think that is 'support of a gay child sex predator' well then I think that merely displays a reading comprehension problem on your part.

 

I was replying to a poster who was talking about what the 'gay girls' said. I haven't seen anything from either girl addressing whether they consider themselves 'gay' or not.

Well then we are in agreement on one thing- I have said from the beginning that I believe this 18 year old girl should be treated exactly like any similar circumstanced 18 year old boy.

Whether or not you are a homophobe, I make no such judgement.

 

How psychotic. Seek professional help.

 

What about the hetero couples that adopt, I guess they are some how a lesser class of parent to the homos.

 

Translation: "Having been caught in another wrong statement, I will now attempt to distract by flinging feces and posting borderline-psychopathic fantasies." Seek professional psychiatric help!

 

I see you haven't figured this out yet.

I am in no way saying that most children of heterosexuals are wanted- clearly the children adopted by heterosexuals are always 'wanted'- just like every child adopted by any gay couple, or given birth to a lesbian through artificial insemination.

All children born that require a specific intent by the parents to have those children.

We heterosexuals though- we can have children entirely by mistake- and whether we intended or desired to have them at all.

Which leaves the anti-gay marriage because of procreation down to the rather odd argument that marriage therefore exists only to protect accidental children.

 

I feel good about myself regardless of arguing against progressive leftist loser social engineering project of the radical gay agenda. My logic is sound because I am right. It is not my problem that leftists can not understand simple concepts that involve adults committing acts of indecency and perversion with minors, it is still wrong, even in the presence of laws that were allowed by morally depraved legislators and incompetent judges.

 

You are right! These pedophilic homosexuals are mentally depraved, that used to be true, actually it is still true, but the psychology profession became infested with homosexuals and changed the truth into a lie disguised as truth.

- - - Updated - - -

I make no wrong statement. I tell the truth. The truth is anathama to progressive leftists.

 

Yes! Heres my evidence

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=316&invol=535

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=434&invol=374

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfr...0029.KY.htm/qx

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

ya got anything other than the random thoughts bouncing around in your head to support your claims? .....I didnt think so.

 

Most children living with "homosexual" parents are from one of their previous heterosexual relationships. Children of homosexual parents are no more desired than they are heterosexual parents. Just another of the absurd fantasies you need to convince yourself of to make sense of your world.

 

Not immoral when they are near in age. Why you cannot understand that simple concept is beyond me.

You of all people speaking about morality.. based on your posts in this thread, you are either a troll or a moral midget.

 

I am immoral? Only because you do not agree with me. This statement is invalid.

 

Nah, there is disagreement and then there is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy extremism. Immoral? Based on your posts, a 17 year old and an 18 year old having sex means the 18 year old should be executed. Well, either you dont really mean it, or you are not only immoral, you are literally *Hitler*, and this discussion is over.

 

And from the "I have no real argument so I will fling myself off the Niagara Falls of rhetoric and ethics with false insults disparaging name calling that are of no consequence and makes no sense in context" files we get this little gem.

 

Once again, if people practiced a little old fashioned discretion, stories like this wouldn't exist. Lesson? If you're breaking the law, might want to reconsider waving it in people's faces. Somebody might call you on it.

Dumbasses.

 

There ya go, stretch that reality.
We are not talking a 18 and 17 yearold, its a 18 and 14 year old.
Adult and minor relationships are fraught with potential problems, always have been. Nothing new here.
Deal with it.

 

This thread is just proof positive that homosexuality is steeped in sexual deviance and one of their REAL goals is to normalize it and get people to accept their pedo perverse behaviors. It just seems that many gays can't keep their hands off of people.

 

It already is normalized, for those of us living in the 21st Century. Some of you dinosaurs are stuck in the past, but eventually, you'll all die off, and be remembered by the historians as the misguided bigots that you are.

 

When your entire identity is based on deviant sexual acts, its impossible to think of anything else... obviously.