Bachmann "gays want to freely prey on children sexually"!

Did she mention the word 'paedophiles' or did I miss it in her disgusting rant? No I did not. The phrase she used was "gay community".

 

Tell YOU what, skippy- learn to back up your claims in the first place. It's not my job. You make a claim, you back it up.

First article- nothing about adults having sex with underage kids.

Second article- refers to age of consent among young people themselves- nothing about adults having sex with kids in their early teens.

Third article, yet again, nothing referring to adults having sex with kids in their early teens.

Fourth article- that's Belgium, and again, I fail to see how this is "many people".

Fifth article- one guy? One guy means "many people"?

Seems that Google isn't so friendly to you after all.

 

I once read a stat somewhere that said 85% to 90% of all stats are made up.

 

Bachman sounds perfectly reasonable. And she speaks the truth. Search on something like "gays lower age of consent", seems gays want to have sex with children.

 

In 1880 the age of consent in morally-pure, Christian America was 10 across most states. In Delaware it was 7...seven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

 

Prove it.

 

1. If you actually read my posts before trying to take me to task, you would have noticed that I had said multiple times that pedophilia does not mean sex with children. It also means sex with those below the age of consent (specifically teens).

2. Many is a generalization and not a specific numbers. It could be 3, 4, 5, 100, 1000, or many more. Are you expecting me to list the names of everybody that would like to see the age lowered?

3. By using the phrase "I believe" made it obvious that it was my opinion....which the purpose of this forum is to post opinions. I did not state it as being a fact, therefore there was no requirement to "back up my claim".

4. Bachmann expressed her opinion and stated that it was her opinion. She has a right to her opinion. She did not state it as fact. I do not agree with it, but I will not get my panties in a bunch just because someone expresses a differing of opinion....only when they are presumptuous (which Bachmann CAN be at times).

5. There are many people in Belguim. I would assume that there are many that support lowering the age of consent in Belguim or else it wouldn't even be considered.

 

Sounds like most of those articles are discussing "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which would protect two people under the age of consent for having sex with one another without the man going to jail for statutory rape (SCOTUS has held when both parties are underage it is okay to just charge the boy and not the girl).

The language from those articles say that a significant age gap (pedophilia) would still be illegal, but a 12 year old having sex with a 13 year old wouldn't be a crime as it is now.

P.S. one of those is Yahoo Answers

One is a satire periodical: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/

 

There is a Leftwing critique of "what is Gay " as in Scientific ,because when I went to school ,sexuality was defined as Heterosexual ,Bisexual ,and Homosexual ,EQUAL non more or less natural then any other .

Now where do Lesbians and Gays"fall within the Scientific paradigm ?

What is the LGBTQWERTY?

Yes it is "LGBTIQ" what is Queer Sexuality ?

I reckon that the LGBTIQ ,is in fact a POLITICAL definition with nothing to do with Human sexuality at all ,but a group of feminist Fascist fools, parading as gay and lesbian !

Yes, lesbian Feminist 3rd Wave Fascism ,wears the Pants Political in the LGBTIQWERTY!

A separatist Communalist Political tendency of the Middle class ,'Lifestyle choice " yuppie reaction .

Other definitions that these LGBT idiots put forward ,MSM =Men who have sex with Men .

WSW=Women who have sex with women .

How stupid ;all, normal men have sex with men and all Normal women have sex with women ,its called masturbation ,and politically the LGBT is Mental Masturbation .

This is what happens when Idiots called Sociologists are actually listened to Politically..

 

It was progressive women that pushed for raises in the age of consent so that deeply religious, socially conservative, men couldn't marry 12 year olds even if they could afford them.

 

So where are they now when progressive men are pushing to lower the age of consent?

- - - Updated - - -

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gays+lower+age+of+consent

 

Apart from a few whackadoodles all I see there are groups seeking to decriminalize "Romeo and Juliet' type relationships or to equalize age of consent laws regardless of sexuality.

In Britain the age of consent used to be 16 for heterosexuals and 21 for homosexuals so two 17 year old heterosexuals in a relationship were within the law while two 17 year olds in a homosexual relationship were criminals.

Similarly the Canadian case at the end of your link did not concern lowering the age of consent, it concerned not raising the homosexual age of consent to a level higher that the heterosexual age of consent.

Where is there credible evidence that "progressives" are seeking to lower ages of consent? The evidence would suggest they've always done the opposite which is why you can't marry 12 year olds like you could in the good old days.

Oddly enough there are still a number of very non-progessive, highly religious and socially conservative countries where you can marry 10-12 year olds (and more than one if you can afford it) and yet where homosexuality is nearly always illegal. They pretty much own that one. Wonder why that is?

 

You just acknowledged that progressives were trying to lower the age of consent. Your hope was that throwing in some extraneous information would distract from that fact.

A shrouded reference to Islamic countries, which is a group that progressives believe the West needs more of in society. Wonder why that is?

 

Do the search, read the results. Gays are all over removing and reducing the age of consent.

 

That vast majority of pedophilies--no matter which gender or age group they have sexual feeling for-- do not offend.

The vast majority of child sexual predators do so secretly as not to be detected.

Both your contentions are false and uninformed.

 

Definition of pedophilia:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

When an opinion is an outright lie designed to slander a group of people, especially when I happen to be one of them, hell yes I'm going to "get my panties in a bunch". Or is Bachmann immune to criticism? Do the rest of us not get to challenge her opinion?

 

Only in cases to equalize them and I see nothing wrong in that. I also see nothing wrong in not treating two teenagers as criminals.

Not at all, I've been completely plain in my language.

Actually it was a shrouded reference to dominant patriarchies which have existed throughout time and across religions. I don't believe it really has very much to do with religion, that's usually just a mask to hide behind just like it used to very much be in the West also. That was until "progessives" started demanding a seat at the table and enacting laws to protect women and children.

 

Great, so you acknowledge and approve of efforts to lower the age of consent. Thanks for proving my point.

Right, except the only places where your comment would apply nowadays is within the Islamic world. Although I find it strange that a progressive would complain about children aged 10-12 being married when Canada had up until very recently an age of consent of 14. And, the previously mentioned child porn legalization in Amsterdam in the 1980s, shows that progressives don't have quite the pro-child view that you are ascribing to them.

 

To equalize them, yes because I believe in equal treatment before the law. Don't you?

Because some of the countries within the Islamic world are dominant patriarchies which have never been successfully challenged by the people they oppress.

I actually consider myself a libertarian but that's by the by. You do realize that Canada's age of consent of fourteen was set in place in 1892? Just 12 years before that the US age of consent was 10 so, not sure of your point there? It was an old law that they only fairly recently got around to changing, it wasn't expressly enacted at the behest of "progressives" it was most likely a hangover from a time when people married earlier because they lived shorter lives.

So because some social conservatives around the world support marrying very young children, all social conservatives around the world support marrying very young children right?

 

She may be speaking from personal experience. Her husband may have such a proclivity and she assumes that all gays behave the same way.

 

Could be. Whatever your personal agenda may be, you can find something to support it.

 

Just like I saw another study which said one third of all sex crimes against children are perpetrated by homosexual men.

I have serious doubts as to the credibility of the 85 to 95% number, but not the stat which says 33%.

 

what evidence do you have to support that progressives/liberals are more prone to this type of behavior aside from your wishful thinking and party politics ?

 

She left out the facts that promiscuous single mothers gain Welfare of $1 trillion dollars a year, now, as the raise fatherless kids who suffer Child Abuse of every type, and then become the vector of 70% of all violent crime in the USA.

We need Welfare Reform which is used to pay low earning families who marry and have kids.
We need stop paying for fatherless bastards which are destroying us and themselves.

 

What about the Prison Rapes we all know about have done nothing to stop?

People seem to think the aggressive gay "Tops" who attack others are straight guys for some reason.