Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Typical comments from a con when they are proven wrong.

No wonder your side has not only lost the SSM battle but now are losing the ability to discrmate against gays. Any more loser comments from you con?

 

but yet, when a priest with gay feelings gives an alter boy a Hail mary.... you don't bring up that point at all then, do you.... that the priest has gay feelings but went into the priesthood because of the vow of celibacy...


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...s-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay

once again, finding ways to disqualify a person who would "count against the agenda" while not allowing people to ask "why" and "what can we do to prevent this"

 

I'm far from liberal, more conservative on most issues actually.
Thanks for trying. Do you think 60% of conservatives under 30 are also "*******s"?

You and your backwards views are being replaced. Take your hate to Iran or Russia. You would fit in much better

 

I have never said that. I think people that harm children should be executed, I've actually been pretty clear on that issue. No one is justifying child molestations (no matter how much you try to skew the conversation). And if you remember it was the church (big religion) that was protecting these people, not homosexuals.

Why people molests children should absolutely be addressed but your side just wants to focus on self identified gay men as the culprit when it is actually self identified heterosexual men that have easy access to the child that are the real danger.

YOU are the one twisting this to promote an agenda.

 

I suspect not. However, feel free to give us an example of where you would consider yourself in the conservative mainstream on an issue.

No, I think they are uninformed and have not thought through the issues yet. They also probably have no real moral compass. Most of these problems will be resolved by getting older and gaining more experience. Some liberal issues seem nice at first glance, until you turn them over and examine the ugly underbelly.

And you can feel free to have sex with yourself.

 

First I'm conservative because I believe in low taxes. That should be the end of it, but for good measure.

I am for private property rights, less interference with people's lives. Pro gun rights, less entanglement with foreign powers. I am against government regulation when not absolutely necessary. I'm for energy independence. I am pro life. In every conceivable way I'm a conservative. I tend to agree with Barry Goldwater about homosexuals. It goes against the republican party, but they aren't exactly conservative anymore.

Dictating morality to people is not at all conservative. That is the Christian progressive influence in the party. Seriously you should read up on Barry Goldwater.

When it comes down to it, you are not conservative on this issue. You just seem to be a statist democrat.

 

My position on the government and marriage is that the government should be out of the marriage business completely. It was and should be an institution of the church, but the government subsequently STOLE it from the church. There should be NO provisions for marriage in the IRS tax code, or in any of the other financial schemes the government has entered into. That includes social security, and I should be allow to assign as a beneficiary anyone I want, in the case that social security provides a survivor benefit.

Of course you will no doubt whine and complain that this upsets a number of things like marriage tax credits, etc., but that can all go away if we adopt a level tax system with NO deductions for anything, PERIOD.

Now I ask you, how conservative are you really?

Gimmee a break. Were you laughing when you wrote that? Please don't confuse libertarian thinking with conservative thinking, and claim libertarians are the only true conservatives.

Yawn, you are living in Egypt, land of denial.

So you would opposed laws outlawing murder because murder is a moral issue?

 

I actually agree, unfortunately no one is seriously advocating for this, instead some want to enjoy those (purely civil, non religious) protections and benefits while denying them to another group. The government is not allow to discriminate, and when it does it should be challenged.

Quick question, did you think the government should get out of marriage prior to or after the issues of ssm?

 

Since the vast majority of pedophiles are men, we should ban men from getting married. Women can still get married of course, but men should not even be allowed around children. They should be banned from any job that requires them to interact with children.

If it seems totally outrageous and ridiculous to punish a group for what some individuals do, welcome to the 21st century!

 

That has been my position for a very long time. As I said, the institution of marriage began as a church institution, and it was STOLEN by the government. For example, in order to be able to marry the marriage official must be licensed by the state, and when performing the state, must act on behalf of the state. This puts Christian and Muslim ministers in a position of not being able to deny service on a religious basis, which is completely preposterous. Once again, the state (secularists) stealing the ministry of the church. This has happened to social welfare, health care, schools, the list goes on and one. That's why NONE of that is in the Constitution, because the role of the government was severely limited to a small number of aspects of life. But now the secularlists have stolen control of those aspects of life, put it under the government, which has screwed the whole works up from back to front.

Do I want less government, yes, a lot less government.

 

It seems to me that they are in the same place they were before... Before government involvement, a minister could provide a non-legal, religious marriage ceremony. Today, a minister can still provide a non-legal, religious ceremony. It would be illegal for the minister to call it a civil marriage if it is not done in accordance to the law, but the minister can still do just as much as they did before.

 

Who is doing that? Or is that just a strawman to entertain yourself with?

 

Marriage has been limited to men and women ecause they are the only couples with the potential of procreation. It has nothing to do with morality. Its biology. Marriage which includes gay couples is all about dictating morality.

 

Yes, and that would conform to your peculiar conservative notion of freedom of religion as set out in the first amendment to the constitution.

You really can't fully appreciate the contempt that I have for pretend conservatives who says they embrace conservative values, who with a little discussion, turn out to be quite liberal.

The first rule of liberalism, lie about who you really are.

Isn't it interesting how secularist homosexuals and their supporters, are quite happy to destroy a nation's complete religious heritage and culture, all so they can feel better about being perverts and degenerates?

 

Ummm, who's pretending to "embrace conservative values"? I'm just pointing out that ministers are no more or less restricted than they were before. Is people being free to do exactly what they did before somehow the same as preventing them from doing exactly what they did before? Seems like nonsense to me.

 

I'm just holding the mirror, you choose to see what you want to see.

 

A seasoned diplomat would call that an "inaccurate statement".

Typical liberal re-writing of history.

The only question, "Is it malice or ignorance that motivates someone to make such a false comment?"

 

It is not a false statement that ministers operating in non profit churches are no more restricted with government involvement with marriage than they were before government got involved with marriage.

If you think that is false please explain how?

 

I can only imagine that the issue you have is not that ministers can or cannot do what they've always been able to do, but that with government involvement, they are no longer the only ones who "own the term". Are religions entitled to the exclusive use of the term, in respect of the religious tradition of marriage? Maybe, I suppose. I don't really care what it's called. If religions want exclusive use of the term, I don't really care. Arguments about semantics bore me. I happen to think that tradition alone is a very weak argument often used by people who would pick and chose which traditions they like and which they don't, but arguments about the use of a word seem harmless and insignificant enough to me. If it makes religious people suffering from insecurities happier, go for it.

 

Procreation is entirely irrelevant.

Actually marriage which includes gay couples is called equality.

 

Actually, with your claim made

without quoting any other persons post, makes it hard to tell where you are trying to direct the mirror. No one is punishing a group for what some individuals do. AND no one suggest homosexuals should be excluded from marriage because homosexuals and bisexuals are over represented among those who molest children.

 

That's what they call it, but marriage equality would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire to be married. By only including gay couples, while continuing to exclude others, it becomes INEQUALITY by design. Much like government treating married couples different than unmarried couples is INEQUALITY by design.

 

Government can discriminate when at a minimum the distinction used is rationally related to some, legitimate governmental interest. In my opinion seeking to improve the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples create, is arguably a legitimate governmental interest. Doing so to win more respect and dignity for gays is not.

 

This is a lie. You have been shown this numerous times but choose to ignore it as it doesn't fit your agenda. Men who identify as heterosexual and are friends of the family with easy access are, by a significant margin, the key perpetrators. People should have the right to sign whatever legal contract they wish as long as all parties can legally consent.

Your side attempted to stop that with homosexuals by banning civil unions and all marriage like contracts. You started this war and now you don't want to fight it.

I agree the tax benefits of marriage should largely be removed, child care credits would be more efficient.

 

The government should seek to improve the wellbeing of a child, yes. But not necessarily the biological parents, your system is hugely flawed, gamed, full of fraud, and is a massive failure (>50% divorce, even less with stable solid families). Not to mention it rewards heterosexual couples simply because they are heterosexual, even if they have no intention or possibly of reproduction. Why do you want to discriminate against children that are not lucky enough to have their biological parents -- why should parents that have taken those unwanted children be treated worse than those that discarded the child?