[Qwerty]

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.

[freeper12]

>>Children need to be protected from anyone with a pedophilic

True, but then again I rarely drive by rest areas with 30+ cars of heterosexual couples having multiple anonomyous sex partners in the woods....but homosexual men on the other hand, just consider that an afternoon of fun.

It goes on everyday at a rest area about 10 miles from my house and I am sure it is replicated across the country all the time...of course the police won't do anything about it, because that would be a violation of their civil rights I guess...

[First Amendment]

the ultimate point of this article is to demonize homosexuals.

No one demonizes homosexuals. They do it to themselves by their actions and their efforts to SHOVE their disease causing abnormal and psychologically damaging practices on the world. What you call demonizing is simply shining the light of fact on what they do. The sooner you wake up and open your mind to this reality the sooner you will have a chance to become a happy, well person.

[ppaul]

Children need to be protected from anyone with a pedophilic bent is a more correct idea, IMO.

Agreed.
But a practicing homo is already engaged in deviant, perverted behavior.
He has already crossed the threshhold into perversion. That's why more boys were abused by priests than girls IMHO.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

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.

[webber]

Homosexual Pediphiles don't need to be demonized as you put, they're doing a damn good job on their own, Mary!

[bmwcyle]

I'll take my chances with a man who can face a women in a relationship with young boys over a homosexual child in a man's body.

[Aarchaeus]

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.

The only victims' ages given in the article were 16 and 15 years. Boys who were old enough to have gone through puberty. That is, they would have bodies that were sexually developed. This is not about pedophilia, it is about homosexuals preying on teenagers. Yes, children need to be protected from pedophiles. And teenagers need to be protected from predatory queers.