I
I know, right!?Wow, i must be a seer, because that's exactly what i was expecting when i saw the thread title...
Considering that the victims already had homosexual urges i'm guessing none of them where pre-pubescent, so it's not paedophilia...and apparently pedophile ministers.
So homosexuality is ok with the churches now? or is that reserve for Pastor and priest only? (Sarcasm)Considering that the victims already had homosexual urges i'm guessing none of them where pre-pubescent, so it's not paedophilia...
Thank you, Captain Semantics! Clearly he should have called him a pederast instead. That's a super important distinction for this topic, and truly our lives are enriched for having you point that out.Considering that the victims already had homosexual urges i'm guessing none of them where pre-pubescent, so it's not paedophilia...
From the article:Considering that the victims already had homosexual urges i'm guessing none of them where pre-pubescent, so it's not paedophilia...
Sounds like a pedo to me.starting when the boy was 14 years old
Ephebophilia, but still splitting hairs.Sounds like a pedo to me.
It's only splitting hairs if they have them, ifyouknowwhatImean.Ephebophilia, but still splitting hairs.
Added at: 17:36
Or still statutory rape.
At 14 there's a good chance they do as i recall...late bloomer Dave, or just too old to remember?It's only splitting hairs if they have them, ifyouknowwhatImean.
So is sleeping with your one month younger girlfriend for one month after you turn 18 in some places...Or still statutory rape.
So your argument for this is that he was mature for his age?At 14 there's a good chance they do as i recall...late bloomer Dave, or just too old to remember?
So your argument for this is that he was mature for his age?
No, it's that at that age most kids would have hair down there if i recall right...So your argument for this is that he was mature for his age?