A Sound Victory in the Gay Rights Movement

[jallman]

Originally Posted by jallman
Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual.

My reply
Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?

I guess you should just take that one up with the judge and the state of kansas.

I'm taking it up with you, you used that as an excuse are you suggesting that indeed we just get rid of the laws entirely?

I havent made any such assertion, no matter what you have chosen to read into my post. I simply stated that it is a great thing that the court has decided to apply penalty equally across the board to any offender.

So he did know right from wrong and no it does not make him defendable as a minor.



I don't think that had anything to do with his sentencing, perhaps you should go and reread the article.

No, the harsher sentencing was based solely on the fact that he was homosexual and had sex with a minor. Sex with a minor is condemnable and worthy of punishment, but he deserved no more punishment than a heterosexual in the same situation. And thats what the court UNANIMOUSLY ruled.

Hmmm seems you can't defend your position so you have to use personal attacks.

The point is defensable either way, thus a UNANIMOUS ruling on the part of the court.

The prosecutor used the law as it stood and succeeded in getting a sentence according to the law. The rapist has already served 5 years, perhaps you are having the comprehension problem not me. Plus the fact he has a history of such sexual assualts, again the comprehension problem hitting you.

The prosecutor used an unfair law. It was struck down. I have no problem comprehending what a great day this is thanks to the court making a UNANIMOUS ruling in favor of equality.

You don't seem to want any debate of the matter, so why do you post it in a debating forum. The points I have been making are two

1. Victory for whom? You have yet to say who this defeat for children is a victory for. Comprehension problems?

This victory is for all of America and the right to equality for all Americans. If a stiffer penalty applies, it should be applied across the board. Would you have been happier if the penalties for heterosexuals had been increased to match the penalty for a homosexual? I could agree with you there. Are we having a problem separating the issues or are you simply refusing equality based on the fact that it was a homosexual involved?

2. A homosexual assualt on a young male is more egregious than a heterosexual attack on a young male and should be treated more harshly.

An assault yes, but consentual sex is hardly an assault. It is a misconduct. Comprehend much?

 

[jallman]

Our left wing buddy jallman is trying to make something big out of this when in reality its the right decision...................There is no victory here.......:roll:

Okay, chief rino, it is a victory when the wrong decision was the status quo and now the court is forcing the right decision.

 

[jallman]

So sodomy and perverted sexual practices are now to be considered normal in the USA?

No more so than they were considered normal within your own party. Since when do we care about the opinions of NAzis in America? Oh thats right, we dont, pig boy.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by jallman
Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual.

My reply
Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?

I havent made any such assertion, no matter what you have chosen to read into my post.

I have read nothing but what you wrote and you wrote the part about it "clearly" being consentual, as if that mitigates it ( and I know you know what mitigate means since you took the time to post the definition). You brought that facet into the equation. So what does that have to do with anything. I say again if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why it is against the law to have sex with a minor in the first place if they consent? You staked that ground not me. If you want to withdraw it fine go ahead.

I simply stated that it is a great thing that the court has decided to apply penalty equally across the board to any offender.

You said it was a victory. Who is it a victory for and why? And since it was a lessening of the sentence I can only surmise that you support lessening sentences against those who commit such assualts on children.

No, the harsher sentencing was based solely on the fact that he was homosexual and had sex with a minor.

Homosexual sex with a minor. Let me ask you this. I don't know if you are a father to a son but if you are or if you can imagine that you are imagine that the police come knocking on your door and tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old woman and she had sexually assualted him. She has been arrested and they are bringing him home. The imagine they call but this time the tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old man and he had sexually assualted him. He has been arrested and they are bringing him home.

Are you telling me your reaction to both would be the same and that the latter would not be more harmful to your son than the former?

Sex with a minor is condemnable and worthy of punishment, but he deserved no more punishment than a heterosexual in the same situation.

A premise I highly disagree with due to the more psycholocial damage that can be done to the victem and the fact that we generally try to trust men with boys and women with girls in adult child interaction.

And thats what the court UNANIMOUSLY ruled.

Which the lower court did not agree with.

The prosecutor used an unfair law. It was struck down. I have no problem comprehending what a great day this is thanks to the court making a UNANIMOUS ruling in favor of equality.

You said VICTORY, are you trying to back away from that now?

This victory is for all of America

One of the more absurd statements you could have made.

and the right to equality for all Americans.

Ahh the right to equally molest minor children, what a day.

If a stiffer penalty applies, it should be applied across the board.

That might be more a victory, but since the harm is more egregious when homosexuality is involved it is perfectly acceptable to have a stiffer penalty as the people, through the state legislature, decided to do. The courts have now interjected a right that once again does seem to exist anywhere.

Would you have been happier if the penalties for heterosexuals had been increased to match the penalty for a homosexual?

A lot more so than this VICTORY you proclaim for homosexual child molesters.

I could agree with you there. Are we having a problem separating the issues or are you simply refusing equality based on the fact that it was a homosexual involved?

I think you are having a problem explaining why it is a VICTORY.

An assault yes, but consentual sex is hardly an assault. It is a misconduct. Comprehend much?

BAck to the top, if you believe minor children can consent to sex then why to you support it being against the law in the first place?

 

[jallman]

Originally Posted by jallman
Obviously you did not read the article or you took it upon yourself to overlook some of the key points of the case in an effort to detract from such a profound ruling. It was stated clearly that the sex was consentual.

My reply
Well if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why is it against the law for anyone hetero or homo?




I have read nothing but what you wrote and you wrote the part about it "clearly" being consentual, as if that mitigates it ( and I know you know what mitigate means since you took the time to post the definition). You brought that facet into the equation. So what does that have to do with anything. I say again if you are going to accept the premise that 14 years can consent to sex then why it is against the law to have sex with a minor in the first place if they consent? You staked that ground not me. If you want to withdraw it fine go ahead.



You said it was a victory. Who is it a victory for and why? And since it was a lessening of the sentence I can only surmise that you support lessening sentences against those who commit such assualts on children.




Homosexual sex with a minor. Let me ask you this. I don't know if you are a father to a son but if you are or if you can imagine that you are imagine that the police come knocking on your door and tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old woman and she had sexually assualted him. She has been arrested and they are bringing him home. The imagine they call but this time the tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old man and he had sexually assualted him. He has been arrested and they are bringing him home.

Are you telling me your reaction to both would be the same and that the latter would not be more harmful to your son than the former?



A premise I highly disagree with due to the more psycholocial damage that can be done to the victem and the fact that we generally try to trust men with boys and women with girls in adult child interaction.



Which the lower court did not agree with.





You said VICTORY, are you trying to back away from that now?



One of the more absurd statements you could have made.



Ahh the right to equally molest minor children, what a day.



That might be more a victory, but since the harm is more egregious when homosexuality is involved it is perfectly acceptable to have a stiffer penalty as the people, through the state legislature, decided to do. The courts have now interjected a right that once again does seem to exist anywhere.



A lot more so than this VICTORY you proclaim for homosexual child molesters.



I think you are having a problem explaining why it is a VICTORY.



BAck to the top, if you believe minor children can consent to sex then why to you support it being against the law in the first place?

Okay, I think I see what you are saying now. However, if you will separate the issues you will see what I am saying. It is not okay for an adult to have sex with a minor under any circumstance. ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. I dont believe a minor can consent to sexual contact with an adult, however, minors consent to sex with eachother all the time. The Kansas law mitigates the misconduct in instances where there is a 4 year or less difference between the two individuals. I am saying the victory comes in where the higher court ruled that the punishment must be equal across the board for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is a victory in the fight for equality. However, I am in agreement with you that any misconduct with a minor is a sad thing and yes, I agree the penalty should be stiffer across the board, for both hetero and homosexuals.

Let me ask you something...do you think that the crime is more egregious when a heterosexual (male or female) commits an act of sexual misconduct with a minor who has identified him or herself as homosexual?

 

[Aryan Imperium]

No more so than they were considered normal within your own party. Since when do we care about the opinions of NAzis in America? Oh thats right, we dont, pig boy.

My post wasn`t addressed to you. Mind your own business and keep out of my way!

 

[Aryan Imperium]

It will never be considered normal but what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business.............

Not when they are attempting to make their "alternative lifestyle" just another "choice" for young people to make.They are perverts.There is nothing natural about a man inserting his penis into another man`s bottom.
The problem is they are no longer "private" about what they do,far from it.

 

[Stinger]

Okay, I think I see what you are saying now. However, if you will separate the issues you will see what I am saying. It is not okay for an adult to have sex with a minor under any circumstance.

Well you joined them not me and no they are not seperate issues, the issue is a homosexual assualt on a minor child. Not a homosexual rape of an adult or just a sexual assualt on a minor child.

ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. I dont believe a minor can consent to sexual contact with an adult, however, minors consent to sex with eachother all the time.
The Kansas law mitigates the misconduct in instances where there is a 4 year or less difference between the two individuals.

If the older is under the age of 19. A bad law IMO it should be if the older is under the age of 16 at least in which case it would be handled in the juvenile court. But in this case by my reading there was the 4 year difference and the older was 18 years old. No where does it say he did not know right from wrong.

I am saying the victory comes in where the higher court ruled that the punishment must be equal across the board for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

For whom, who is better off because of this?

It is a victory in the fight for equality.

Equality is an ideal, ideals are held by people, ideals don't have victory's. So again a victory for whom and at the expense of whom?

Let me ask you something...do you think that the crime is more egregious when a heterosexual (male or female) commits an act of sexual misconduct with a minor who has identified him or herself as homosexual?

Yes. I don't think minor children are capable of making such indentifications and their emotional developements are subject to influence by such events. I start from the premise that "sexual orientation" is not genetic it is developmental. And I start from the premise that it is in the best interest of society to discourage homosexual behavior or encouragement.

Now I answered yours please offer me the same courtsey

Once again

Homosexual sex with a minor. Let me ask you this. I don't know if you are a father to a son but if you are or if you can imagine that you are, imagine that the police come knocking on your door and tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old woman and she had sexually assualted him. She has been arrested and they are bringing him home. Then imagine they call but this time the tell you that your 14 year old son was found in the home of a 22 year old man and he had sexually assualted him. He has been arrested and they are bringing him home.

Are you telling me your reaction to both would be the same and that the latter would not be more harmful to your son than the former?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Why is it a victory and do we want to grant victory to people who would molest young children?

This reverts back to Equal Protection Under The Law.

Yes it is, it is at exact opposite of the prime function of living beings, propagation.

So you're saying that our lot in life is to make babies and die. Because the world isn't overpopulated and orphanages aren't full or anything :roll:

Those incidences claimed to prove homosexual behavior in the wild are either exagerrated or observed when the animals or under stress or captivity.

Unbelievably false. Male banibos, emus, various birds, and even zebras have been observed in the wild as having exclusive homosexual relationships. 4 penguins in a German zoo have exclusive homosexual relationships even when exposed to females during the mating season. The male penguins acctually went through mating rituals together, mated, built nests together, and gathered rocks and protected them as if they were eggs. They snubbed the females.

In humans the anus is not designed for homosexual sex and we see the health problems related to homosexual sex. We are as a species heterosexual, the is not a debatable point. Homosexual behavior is abnormal to the species.

Your basic argument is that homosexuality is abnormal because we can't reproduce by shoving our manhood into a counter part to produce a child during sex so cannot produce children "naturally". I have one question for you. You paint the purpose of sex as reproduction so do you plan on banning condoms and birthcontrol and calling barren heterosexual women and infertile heterosexual men "abnormal"? You essentially have no argument because homosexuals reproduce via artificial insemination. It's not abnormal to the species because we can still produce children via that means. By your criteria only barren heterosexual women and infertile heterosexual men are "abnormal to the species" because they can't ever have children no matter how hard they try.

Which is one reason this is not a victory for anyone, homosexual sexual assualt on young children can have more severe consequences on the victim.

Says who? Provide proof.

 

[Navy Pride]

Okay, chief rino, it is a victory when the wrong decision was the status quo and now the court is forcing the right decision.
__________________

And I said it was the right decision my Liberal friend....That does not make the sexual act that gays engage in not abnormal.......

 

[jallman]

My post wasn`t addressed to you. Mind your own business and keep out of my way!

oh trust in this pig boy, I will always be in your way. ALWAYS.

I dont care if your post was addressed to me or not. I ask you this, when was a Nazis input ever taken into account when addressing the legislation of the U S iof A? Oh...It never was...so go crawl back under your hole that the U S of A drove you to and think of another way to be put down again. Yes, pig boy, come out again if you want.


Damn stupid ass nazis.

 

[Deegan]

oh trust in this pig boy, I will always be in your way. ALWAYS.

I dont care if your post was addressed to me or not. I ask you this, when was a Nazis input ever taken into account when addressing the legislation of the U S iof A? Oh...It never was...so go crawl back under your hole that the U S of A drove you to and think of another way to be put down again. Yes, pig boy, come out again if you want.


Damn stupid ass nazis.

Don't allow this person to get you you Jallman, it only plays in to his hand, and I know you're better then that.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Watch out Jallman. If you don't get out of his way, he'll kick your ass via the internet!

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Why is it a victory and do we want to grant victory to people who would molest young children?

This reverts back to Equal Protection Under The Law.

No it doesn't IMO. But I find it very telling that no one wants to say who it is a Victory for and why we want to grant those people a victory such as this.

So you're saying that our lot in life is to make babies and die. Because the world isn't overpopulated and orphanages aren't full or anything

Where did I say that? I did say the most important function a species has is to propagate, but it certainly isn't the only one.

Unbelievably false. Male banibos, emus, various birds, and even zebras have been observed in the wild as having exclusive homosexual relationships. 4 penguins in a German zoo have exclusive homosexual relationships even when exposed to females during the mating season. The male penguins acctually went through mating rituals together, mated, built nests together, and gathered rocks and protected them as if they were eggs. They snubbed the females.

Unbelieveably not, animals don't have relationships and you cite one example of animals in captivity which I noted in my statement.

You paint the purpose of sex as reproduction

Well that is it's prime function isn't it. If it weren't for the reproductive part having two genders and engaging in sex would be a total waste of time for the species. But then nature also made it enjoyable so we'd do it alot. Why? To make sure the species was reproduced and maintained.

so do you plan on banning condoms and birthcontrol.........

Of course not, you are being silly now.

and calling barren heterosexual women and infertile heterosexual men "abnormal"?

Being born unable to reproduce is abnormal but they can still engage in normal sexual behavior if thier sexual drive is still there.

You essentially have no argument because homosexuals reproduce via artificial insemination.

Which is abnormal.

It's not abnormal to the species because we can still produce children via that means.

Yes it is abnormal because it must be done by artifical means.

By your criteria only barren heterosexual women and infertile heterosexual men are "abnormal to the species" because they can't ever have children no matter how hard they try.

See above. And those who are capable of reproducing by STILL engage in homosexual sex are especially engaging in abnormal behavior.

We are HETEROSEXUAL as a species, why is it so hard for you to grasp the fundimental principle that HOMOSEXUALITY is an abnormal behavior for HETEROSEXUAL beings.

And biology was my major and anyone who has studied biology at the higher levels knows full well that sexual reproduction is the driving force of any species, survial is a prime directive of our programming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Which is one reason this is not a victory for anyone, homosexual sexual assualt on young children can have more severe consequences on the victim.

Says who? Provide proof.

Just read about the Priest assualts on young men and the effects they have had on them. Had it been a bunch of Hooters girls sexually assualting them I doubt you would find such psychological harm.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

oh trust in this pig boy, I will always be in your way. ALWAYS.

I dont care if your post was addressed to me or not. I ask you this, when was a Nazis input ever taken into account when addressing the legislation of the U S iof A? Oh...It never was...so go crawl back under your hole that the U S of A drove you to and think of another way to be put down again. Yes, pig boy, come out again if you want.


Damn stupid ass nazis.

Thank you for your "thoughtful" input,most appreciated.

 

[Kelzie]

No it doesn't IMO. But I find it very telling that no one wants to say who it is a Victory for and why we want to grant those people a victory such as this.


Where did I say that? I did say the most important function a species has is to propagate, but it certainly isn't the only one.

Unbelieveably not, animals don't have relationships and you cite one example of animals in captivity which I noted in my statement.

Well that is it's prime function isn't it. If it weren't for the reproductive part having two genders and engaging in sex would be a total waste of time for the species. But then nature also made it enjoyable so we'd do it alot. Why? To make sure the species was reproduced and maintained.

Of course not, you are being silly now.

Being born unable to reproduce is abnormal but they can still engage in normal sexual behavior if thier sexual drive is still there.

Which is abnormal.

Yes it is abnormal because it must be done by artifical means.

See above. And those who are capable of reproducing by STILL engage in homosexual sex are especially engaging in abnormal behavior.

We are HETEROSEXUAL as a species, why is it so hard for you to grasp the fundimental principle that HOMOSEXUALITY is an abnormal behavior for HETEROSEXUAL beings.

And biology was my major and anyone who has studied biology at the higher levels knows full well that sexual reproduction is the driving force of any species, survial is a prime directive of our programming.

Just read about the Priest assualts on young men and the effects they have had on them. Had it been a bunch of Hooters girls sexually assualting them I doubt you would find such psychological harm.

Two things. I find it very odd that you can not grasp who this is a victory for. And yes, ideals do have victories. As in, women being allowed to vote was a VICTORY for equality. More equality was gained, therefore the ideal of equality was better represented in America than it was before. Now hear you have someone receiving extra punishment because of what gender he likes, not what he did. That is not equality. So when the courts decided he should get equal punishment as a heterosexual, that is a victory for equality because now the ideal is more prevelant.

Second. Mr.-Not-Reproducing-Is-Abnormal. I'm sure, since you're a bio major and all, you are familiar with the phenomena that occurs when pregnant famale rabbits are malnourished? Her body absorbs the fetuses (feti?). Nature's little way of saying that if the environment can't provide for you, sure as hell can't provide for your offspring. It has been proven that younger boys in a large family are much more likely to be homosexual. I think there is a good thesis out of that saying it is nature's way of telling us "knock off the reproduction"

 

[Columbusite]

A quick reality check:

High school seniors go out with freshmen.

Straight couples engage in anal sex.

Do with this info what you will.

 

[Stinger]

Two things. I find it very odd that you can not grasp who this is a victory for.

I find it extremely odd that anyone would term the lessening of penalties for child molestation a victory for anyone.

And yes, ideals do have victories. As in, women being allowed to vote was a VICTORY for equality.

That was a victory for women of voting age. So again who is this a victory for?

More equality was gained, therefore the ideal of equality was better represented in America than it was before.

Well in this case is equality of sentencing for homosexuals who prey on little boys more important that protecting the little boys? Why does it trump the safety of our children?

Now hear you have someone receiving extra punishment because of what gender he likes, not what he did.

No it has does have to do with what he did and who he did it to and the effects of what he did.

That is not equality.

So we have hate crimes not because of what someone did but because of what they thought. I think you would find that a man who strikes an innocent woman would probably get a stiffer sentence than if he strikes another man. And in this case that the young child not only was sexually assualted but was homosexually assualt is a mitigating factor and makes the crime that much more egregious.

So when the courts decided he should get equal punishment as a heterosexual, that is a victory for equality because now the ideal is more prevelant.

Sorry but I totally disagree with the rationalization you are jumping through. Eqaulity is not an entity so it doesn't have victory's. Let's put it this way, who benifits from this decission and why? But if you really wanted to celebrate something it should be increasing the sentencing of heterosexual sexual assualts. I think you have your priority grossly screwed in the wrong direction.

Second. Mr.-Not-Reproducing-Is-Abnormal.

Where did I say Not-Reproducing-Is-Abnormal?

I'm sure, since you're a bio major and all, you are familiar with the phenomena that occurs when pregnant famale rabbits are malnourished? Her body absorbs the fetuses (feti?). Nature's little way of saying that if the environment can't provide for you, sure as hell can't provide for your offspring.

So what does that have to do with making homosexual behavior not abnormal behavior for a heterosexual species?

It has been proven that younger boys in a large family are much more likely to be homosexual. I think there is a good thesis out of that saying it is nature's way of telling us "knock off the reproduction"

Well that's not proven here, that that factor alone causes boys to engage in homosexual behavior, and it has never been shown that as our population has increased that homosexual behavior has increased.

We are a HETEROSEXUAL species, period that is not a point that can be contended.

 

[Kelzie]

I find it extremely odd that anyone would term the lessening of penalties for child molestation a victory for anyone.

I think 15 months is a very reasonable sentence for an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old. As someone said, same thing as a senior who dates a freshman. Fairly common, really.

That was a victory for women of voting age. So again who is this a victory for?

And...allowing women to vote....think hard now....advances....EQUALITY. Stop trying so hard to disagree. It's really not all that hard of a concept.

Well in this case is equality of sentencing for homosexuals who prey on little boys more important that protecting the little boys? Why does it trump the safety of our children?

It doesn't. He was punished.

No it has does have to do with what he did and who he did it to and the effects of what he did.

Which were the same effect of a heterosexual 18 and 14 year old. And he did the same thing as any other person who engages in stuatory rape.

So we have hate crimes not because of what someone did but because of what they thought. I think you would find that a man who strikes an innocent woman would probably get a stiffer sentence than if he strikes another man. And in this case that the young child not only was sexually assualted but was homosexually assualt is a mitigating factor and makes the crime that much more egregious.

And I think it's wrong that a man is punished more for hitting a woman. And prove that it is more egregious. That's an opinion which many don't share.

Sorry but I totally disagree with the rationalization you are jumping through. Eqaulity is not an entity so it doesn't have victory's. Let's put it this way, who benifits from this decission and why? But if you really wanted to celebrate something it should be increasing the sentencing of heterosexual sexual assualts. I think you have your priority grossly screwed in the wrong direction.

Yes it does. Equal rights for gay people is the victor here. Despite what you think, an idea can have a victory.

Where did I say Not-Reproducing-Is-Abnormal?



So what does that have to do with making homosexual behavior not abnormal behavior for a heterosexual species?

All I can do is draw the dots for you. You're going to have to connect them yourself. I'll give you a hint though: both nature's way of saying "stop reproducing"

Well that's not proven here, that that factor alone causes boys to engage in homosexual behavior, and it has never been shown that as our population has increased that homosexual behavior has increased.

We are a HETEROSEXUAL species, period that is not a point that can be contended.

It doesn't have to be proven in this story to be relevant. And seeing as this story had nothing to do with the study in the first place, it would be a little odd if it was mentioned at all.

And we have homosexuals in our species. So we are obviously not a heterosexual species.

 

[Stinger]

I think 15 months is a very reasonable sentence for an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old. As someone said, same thing as a senior who dates a freshman. Fairly common, really.

Dating and having sex are the same thing???? Especially at 14 years old? Anyone who allows a 14 year old to date an 18 year should be brought up on charges to begin with. Any 18 year old who dates 14 year olds either needs to given some psyhcological help and have an injunction placed against them. There's two reasons why 18 year olds date 14 year olds, they have their own mental development problems and therefore 14 year olds do not have any business being involved with them in a relationship or they have figured out 14 year olds are easy prey. And yes it is more common, not fairly just more, than it was and that is not good. It is a black mark on our society that it is more acceptable because it indangers young children. There is a reason statutory rape laws were put in place to begin with and those reasons have not changed.

And...allowing women to vote....think hard now....advances....EQUALITY. Stop trying so hard to disagree. It's really not all that hard of a concept.

Think hard now WOMEN were VICTORIOUS, now once again who is victorious in this decission? Let me tell you homosexuals who prey on childen. And the victims are the children they will prey on. What a celebration! Hope you and everyone else here who subscribes to the notion that this is a victory can live with that.

Which were the same effect of a heterosexual 18 and 14 year old. And he did the same thing as any other person who engages in stuatory rape.

Plus engaged the young boy in a homosexual act which is a mitigating factor.

And I think it's wrong that a man is punished more for hitting a woman. And prove that it is more egregious. That's an opinion which many don't share.

No I think that not too many don't share that opinion.

Yes it does. Equal rights for gay people is the victor here. Despite what you think, an idea can have a victory.

Yep they don't have to worry about spending as much time in prison when they rape young boys, what a victory.

All I can do is draw the dots for you. You're going to have to connect them yourself. I'll give you a hint though: both nature's way of saying "stop reproducing"

No when your point makes no sense you need to connect them not me.

And we have homosexuals in our species. So we are obviously not a heterosexual species.

Quote from a recognized authoritative biology book that says we are not a heterosexual species. We reproduce heterosexually NOT homosexually, it is a defining feature of our species. That some choose to engage in homosexual behaviors does not refute that fact. But the minute two homosexuals do manage to sexually reproduce (and not by artificial means) let me know.

 

[Navy Pride]

A quick reality check:

High school seniors go out with freshmen.

Straight couples engage in anal sex.

Do with this info what you will.

Straight couples engage in anal sex.

And its just as abnormal for them.........Without being to graphic, the Anus was designed for and out take not and in take........

 

[Navy Pride]

Come on my left wing friends, if you had a daughter who was 14 would you have a problem if she was having sex with a guy who was 18? Get real.....

 

[Stinger]

Come on my left wing friends, if you had a daughter who was 14 would you have a problem if she was having sex with a guy who was 18? Get real.....

And if they found out that an 18 year homosexual was enticing their 14 year old son.................just hunkey dorey? And if they found out an 18 homoseuxal had had sex with their 14 year old son it would be no different to them than had an 18 year old woman had had sex with their 14 year old son and they don't believe the former would have a more egrgious effect than the latter. Some people need a reality check.

 

[Diogenes]

Come on my left wing friends, if you had a daughter who was 14 would you have a problem if she was having sex with a guy who was 18? Get real.....

I would have even more of a problem if it were my 14 year old son who was raped by a guy who was 18. I would take steps to make sure the offense couldn't possibly be repeated...

 

[Navy Pride]

I would have even more of a problem if it were my 14 year old son who was raped by a guy who was 18. I would take steps to make sure the offense couldn't possibly be repeated...

Excellent point my friend..........