Replies

I mean the idea that "children need to be protected from homosexuals" is as valid as "children need to be protected from heterosexuals".... Children need to be protected from anyone with a pedophilic bent is a more correct idea, IMO. The source for this article is not really interested in children who may be abused by pedophiles with a "heterosexual" nature... because the ultimate point of this article is to demonize homosexuals

Here is where the propaganda starts (and write this one down freepers) the correct term here is not pedophilia, but PEDERASTY.

PEDERASTY, which can be looked up in the dictionary or medical dictionary, refers properly to the act of boy-raping by men, not unlike the recent Catholic Priest scandal.

When the homosexual lobby claims most acts of pedophilia are hetrosexual in nature, they are probably technically correct, but that of course excludes all acts of pederasty which are ALL HOMOSEXUAL IN NATURE.

You are so correct. This agenda to change meanings of words, compare and contrast skin color to a choice of who to have sex with, becomes more outrageous every day.

The "free sex" push of the sixties, the politicization of AIDS, and now the use of race comparison to being "gay" and trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage", exposes the agenda.

Religion has now become the cover some use to pressure people into accepting a lifestyle choice, as being natural.

The agenda is no longer about acceptance, but moved to demands that I cannot accept. The threats of "HATE SPEECH" and "HATE CRIMES" when one disagrees with "homosexuality as being normal and natural" is where I draw the line.

Crime is crime and all crime is "HATE".

Ok. Pederasty. By definition it can only be men against boys. But it doesn't mean that heterosexuality does not have its equal to pederasty (as though older men never have sex with 15 year old girls). So the argument is just now more age specific.

Your term is more correct, though. Thanks.