The Homosexual Dilemma

[Syriusly]

Hey Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon. Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags

LOL....its like watching the guy on the street yelling obsenities at passing cars.....keyboard Tourette's Syndrome. ....

 

[GreenBean]

Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!

 

[GreenBean]

Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

Who gives a fkn rats ass ? I mean really ... give it up

 

[Syriusly]

Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

Who gives a fkn rats ass ? I mean really ... give it up

I think I should just copy and paste that for every single post of yours......so completely applicable.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!

Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?

Why?

Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.

Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.

 

[GreenBean]

Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!

Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?

Why?

Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.

Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.

I guess you just don't get it do you ? ...Of course you don't - you're a faggot , and no a very bright one at that.

The Title of this thread - THE HOMOSEXUAL DILEMMA
The Topic of this thread - THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SOCIETY BY HOMOSEXUALS


You're bringing in remotely relevant facts re: heterosexual molestation is merely an attempt to distract from the fact that Homosexual males are the most prolific child molestors within the Human Race . Do heterosexuals do it also ? ...of course they do HOWEVER Homosexual males represent about 3% of the population , yet are responsible for abou 1/3 of all child molestation case ... in effect the chances of your child being molested by a Homosexual are aproximately 300X greater than a heterosexual.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, you made a claim that was proven false. Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and the justices howled with laughter from his statement.

...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”


As the justices and onlookers laughed, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.

In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.

No problem- let me rephrase

Two things:

Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he thinks child molesters should be?

You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do. Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts. I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion. Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does. What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.

You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.

Bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.

No problem- let me rephrase

Two things:

Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he thinks child molesters should be?

You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do. Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts. I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion. Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does. What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.

You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.

Bigot.

No faulty assumption at all- I am pointing out your actual posting pattern here on US Message boards

You were speaking of the Vatican and child molestation by priests- yet you made not one mention of the female victims of priests sexual molestation.

So why is it you and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about you and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and the justices howled with laughter from his statement.

...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”


As the justices and onlookers laughed, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.

In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.

That was the original claim- and then you lied in your response to the original claim.

But heck- not the first time I have pointed out that you have lied and had you just declare you are right and run away.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty. It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.

50 shades of gay. You can't escape from the truth.

Two things:

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.

No problem- let me rephrase

Two things:

Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he thinks child molesters should be?

You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do. Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts. I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion. Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does. What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.

You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.

Bigot.

No faulty assumption at all- I am pointing out your actual posting pattern here on US Message boards

You were speaking of the Vatican and child molestation by priests- yet you made not one mention of the female victims of priests sexual molestation.

So why is it you and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."

And what is it about you and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?

I"m not answering the same question twice, especially after I demonstrated your question makes you look like a raging moron. Bye.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!

Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?

Why?

Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.

Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.

I guess you just don't get it do you ? ...Of course you don't - you're a faggot , and no a very bright one at that.
.

I don't get your bigotry and hate- no I don't. I don't understand why someone would spend his time sharing his hate with the rest of the world.

I don't understand why anyone would endanger children by spreading a false narrative- why anyone- would be telling parents "Its the Homosexual men that are a danger to your children" when the majority of victims are girls, and the majority of molesters of boys are openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky.

No- as a man who has been happily married to my gorgious wife for over 20 years, and as a father- no I don't understand the tiny minded bigotry you espouse.

Luckily your kind of bigotry is rapidly becoming as popular as the guy yelling "bitch slap n*ggers until they stop being so uppity".

 

[bodecea]

Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters. The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit . And based on your post .... are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!

Most molestors are MALE family members and friends. Little girls apparently need to watch out for their fathers, their brothers, their cousins, their uncles, their grandfathers, their parents' friends. How sad.

 

[bodecea]

I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and the justices howled with laughter from his statement.

...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”


As the justices and onlookers laughed, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.

In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.

They did. And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments. You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it. Have you done so since then? If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG. Your claim, which was bullshit. Now we know you're a liar.

Like I pointed out before Saintboy-

Here is what you claimed:
"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....

Stop lying, Fish breath!"

Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times

I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.

Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented. Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.

http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and the justices howled with laughter from his statement.

...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”


As the justices and onlookers laughed, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.

In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.

The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG. A claim that was never proven. It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error. I'm right and I'm moving on. Bye.

They did. And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments. You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it. Have you done so since then? If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.

I'm not sitting through an hour and a half audio for something I know isn't there. If indeed the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments made by the Virginia AG, as you falsely claimed, there would have been commentary about it in articles that can be referenced. You claim to have a family, I really do. And if you really were a family woman, you would know better than to think a father and husband has an hour and a half to spend chasing down phantoms of your Leftist imagination.

If you don't have an actual link to comments made about the jocular reaction of the justices, then STFU.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.

Nobody carries signs that say that.

I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.

You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.

Private... we want you to keep your deviancy private... You need to be offended by that... and that's fine.

But when you and your bestee are being dragged from your home, just before that round cracks through and scrambles your eggs... see if you can keep from wishing that you had just kept your private life, private.

And that's not a threat from me... normalizing sexual abnormality is a symptom of a dying culture. History requires that culture's which do so, either collapse or are conquered, shortly there after. And without regard to which way the end comes, the next order of business, either by those building a new nation or the conqueror set to work cleansing the culture of homosexuals. SLAMMING the door to the proverbial closet... once again.

So it's just a function of nature.

And all because you idiots can't find the strength of character to recognize that you have the freedom to just BE... whatever the fuck ya want. You can playhouse with your bestee, visit in hospital, receive retirement benefits and ya can do that in any state in the US RIGHT NOW, through the forming of an LLC.

It's a simple formula, which has played out time and again throughout history and it is WHY you keep getting your swollen asses tossed back into the closet... You're IRRATIONAL and destructive to cultural viability.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Most molestors are MALE ....

Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.

So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.

Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most molestors are MALE ....

Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.

So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.

Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.

100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.

100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

where_r_my_keys merely keeps carrying the same old baggage.

What is funny is that he thinks he is an authority on any of this stuff.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Most molestors are MALE ....

Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.

So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.

Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.

There's about 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1.6 billion Muslims but only 14 million Jews. By your logic Jews are abnormal and thus perverse.