Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Correct, they would oppose marriage of the same sex REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation. String together a few words and make an argument if you can.

 

Please don't pretend everyone is stupid. Of course this is about sexual orientation.

Your argument has already been defeated. I was pointing out how hilarious your claim was.

 

Good thing their opposition to SSM is going to be nullified in a few months. Enjoy THAT!

I love uppity Christians who think it is ok to force THEIR morality on others. When someone forces you to marry someone of the same sex then you can come back and say their morality is being forced on you. Until then, I'm satisfied to see anti-SSM folks being told to (*)(*)(*)(*) off. About time!

 

Actually it was a religious case. You dont have a clue

 

You dont have a clue. Legalizing same sex marriage has no effect upon their opposition. EVERY case has come from states with gay marriage already legalized.

 

No, it was an insurance case. Nice try though, you are the one who really is clueless.

- - - Updated - - -

And soon the entire country will have SSM being legal. Their opposition is nullified because they won't be able to do a damn thing about SSM. As I said, anti-SSM folks are being told to finally (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

 

A Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, isnt forcing THEIR morality on others. They want them and their morality to just go away from their business. ON THE OTHER HAND law suits and 1000s in fines and damages compelling them to do so, is the only example of someone forcing their morals upon others.

- - - Updated - - -

They are not trying to do a thing about gay marriage, silly. They dont want to bake their cake.

 

When they bake cakes for cheaters, divorced people, etc. YES they are quite hypocritical. If you don't like or if you feel that your religion prohibits you from following public accommodation laws, get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of business. Plain and simple.

Public accommodation laws have been around for quite awhile and it is only now uppity Christians are having a problem with it. They can all (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

They aren't doing anything about SSM now as much because they LOST that battle. Yet they have been fighting it for years. Their opposition is nullified in a few months permanently.

And if they don't want to bake a cake, don't open a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bakery.

 

No, you are still the one who is COMPLETELY clueless. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the case was decided under isnt an Insurance regulation. Its a "free exercise of religion" regulation that prevents the government from violating that freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is arguing whether they are hypocritical or not. Which is of course why you want to go there

 

And again, if my religion says I don't have to pay taxes, does that mean I don't have to pay them now? No, so it isn't about religious freedom because it isn't absolute.

They are saying they can't do it because it goes against their religion. So does making a cake then for all the other folks. That is why those bakeries are losing.

I remember one bakery saying they couldn't for religious reasons, but made a cake for a DOG wedding. According to their religion, marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN, not dogs. They lost and good riddance.

 

Try to focus upon the topic of discussion instead of constantly looking for somewhere to run from it.

 

LOL pot calling the kettle black with all the off-topic posts you have made. Typical hypocritical con.

 

The topic of discussion

And my response to the topic that youve been railing against

Certainly buying your own abortion pills is more of a burden than picking one of the other 20 bakers in town to get a wedding cake.

In one case they want to asses $150,000 in damages against the baker in addition to the fines, when the lesbian couple simply went to another baker and got the cake they wanted at a lower price than what they would have been charged by the baker who didnt want their business.

 

what does any of that have to do with the proclivity toward pedophilia among homosexuals?

 

I think the bakers should be allowed to refuse service to anybody they wish.

 

There is no proclivity, which was proven on the first page.

 

You haven't proven proclivity toward pedophilia among homosexuals. For that to be proven, you would have to show the majority of homosexuals are this way. You have not proven that.

 

It means the bigots cannot even focus on one lie against homosexuals without adding two or three more. It's quite hilarious actually. Also, you have never proven your above statement, and you op has been disproven. Cheers

 

I am an atheist and the fact that only women give birth and only men cause them to do so is biology, not morality.

 

You havent yet even comprehended his argument. He wouldnt need to show that at all. If one out of a 1000 heterosexuals molest children while 2 out of a thousand homosexuals or bisexuals molest children, it would be demonstrated that homosexuals have TWICE the proclivity of heterosexuals to molest children. .2%, not 50% or the "majority"

 

we are at over 800 posts and still, 1 million acts of pedophilia committed by the 7.2 million homosexuals compared with 2 million acts committed by the 221 million heterosexuals yet they continue to falsely calim no proclivity among homosexuals. I understand that the facts are unsettling, but they are the facts.

Did you actually expect serious discussion with respect to adressing the problem or, did you expect the circling of the wagons that we've seen?

When you consider the push within this thread to redefine male-on-male sex as not being homosexual-sex, as opposed to acknowledging the huge issue within the homosexual community, you understand why parents do not want homosexuals as boy scout leaders and other groups where they would be alone with little boys.

 

And this is entirely irrelevant. Procreation is not required in order to marry. So using the inability to procreate as an argument against same sex marriage is really dumb.

- - - Updated - - -

Except this was debunked on page one. Continuing to lie after 800 posts doesn't make it any less of a lie for you to continue claiming it.

I expect truth. Your post is a proven lie.

 

No one claimed it was. My youve gotten a lot of mileage out of that strawman. I think the group desrves a minimal amount of effort out of you to come up with new strawmen, instead of recycling the same ones over

 

Without a requirement procreation is an invalid argument. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

It's not a strawman. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

thanks for validating what I said

When you consider the push within this thread to redefine male-on-male sex as not being homosexual-sex, as opposed to acknowledging the huge issue within the homosexual community, you understand why parents do not want homosexuals as boy scout leaders and other groups where they would be alone with little boys