Pedophile Principal Arrested

NO KIDDING?!!! Just what does that have to do with the statement that I made? You make NO SENSE!

 

you said that pedophiles are not gay. I simply pointed out that pedophiles can in fact be either homosexual or heterosexual

 

some really should reconsider drinking all that koolaid being offered at the alter of Maobammy

 

Sorry but I don't see how that makes them 'special'.

What part of 'allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not affect that' do you not understand?

No I mean single mothers are at an all time high now. I don't think the whole, "You can get married and be together forever thing" is enough of a lure to stop single motherhood and I seriously don't think gays and lesbians have anything to do with this either.

Perhaps the reason there are more single mothers now in society has more to do with something else than who can and cannot get married?

 

Because they are the only type of couple who can procreate

???? That would be my point. Government encourages behavior that is beneficial to society. Not encouraging behavior so that those who engage in that behavior can feel better about themselves.Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage, without any of the obligations of parenthood.

Most of them unmarried when they gave birth. While the children born to the married women are much more likely to have the benefits of both their mother and father in the home.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Thats my point.

 

By having sex, sure, but people who cannot procreate by having sex find plenty of other ways to do so. Being able to procreate sexually is rather a moot point since people who cannot procreate sexually are finding artificial ways to do it.

Also people who can procreate sexually can already get married, nobody is worried about their rights. So what's the point of bringing them up?

No, the government mainly just tries to prevent chaos in society. They don't seem to to encourage beneficial behavior at all. They just let people freely do what they want so long as they are not harming anyone else in the process.

Then why do so many gay couples adopt?

Also plenty of heterosexual people get married and choose not to have children so they can just enjoy the benefits of marriage without kids. They avoid having kids by getting sterilized, by having abortions, and by taking birth control and they remain childfree and married for their entire lives.

So why don't you think these people should be barred from marriage if the goal is to prevent people who don't want or can't have kids from 'enjoying the benefits of marriage'?

So why aren't these women getting married before they give birth so as to avoid 'single motherhood'? And what do gays and lesbians having the right to marry have to do with this?

Then why compare the two?

 

???? That's not the goal. It is to include all those couples with the potential of procreation. We don't know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples.

 

Ok, so when they don't procreate then we stop letting them get tax breaks and other legal benefits from marriage right?

Also why don't you oppose two people from marrying who have made an active choice to never procreate? If a guy has become sterilized and a woman has had a tubal ligation those procedures would be in their medical records. They could easily be placed on a 'Do Not Marry' list by the government since they have absolutely no potential to procreate sexually. You could also keep an eye on couples who go in for regular abortions or who refuse to stop taking birth control.

And once women hit menopause they should no longer be eligible for marriage. Again, all you need is to invasively look into their medical records and that will stop all people who are infertile or sterile from 'enjoying the benefits of marriage' without actually having kids.


You really make no sense, you want to reserve marriage for those who can procreate, but then in the same breath you want to allow those who clearly cannot procreate at all or ever (the elderly, the sterile, the infertile) into marriage. It is illogical.

 

Why do you keep ignoring the facts- and only note the accusations?

The facts are that this man is openly heterosexual- he is married, and he is the father of two grown children.

He is accused of homosexual child molestation.

The only facts we know for sure is that he has 'male on female' sex- i.e. heterosexual.

Why do you ignore his heterosexuality?

 

It is.

You know what that means, your hypothesis is just as unfounded, as in no proof. . I will point it out below.

Well that hypothesis is just as valid as any, but lacking proof it's not really worth anything.

What method are you using to measure one's gayness? How would you prove they are or were not?

I suppose you have no proof? Thus it's just another guess. One based on a bias at that.

Being gay doesn't really change by doing that. Just sayin.

 

being gay is a choice....there is no such thing as "born this way" crap. it's all about choice............some choices have very severe consequences........at least there is minimal consequence in a heterosexual relationship IMO.

 

Nice story. Prove it, otherwise it remains a story.

Your opinion?

 

I quoted the wrong portion of your post. YOUR source directly refutes your claim that

- - - Updated - - -

The homosexuals who desperately need to believe they were born homosexual.

 

While there is not sufficient evidence to claim that being attracted to the same gender is an innate characteristic, there is no evidence that anyone has a when it comes to sexual attraction.

 

It directly refutes yours.

They can believe whatever they want. I believe I was born this way.

 

Which is entirely irrelevant to who can marry. Don't need to be able to procreate to marry, so you can't exclude a couple from marrying because they can't procreate.

 

Prove it's a choice. Become aroused by another man and then penetrate him.