Identify yourselves, folks. We don't bite (and it wouldn't be a 'sexual orientation' if we did).
On one of our recent posts, an unidentified commenter is trying to place scrutiny on the Democrats for not including "pedophilia" in the hate crimes bill:
We, wanting to send them a response back via email, took a look at the address they provided to us:
And then, curious as to what this odd email address was all about, we were humored to discover that it belongs to none other than...
...Gary Glenn, the president of the AFA of Michigan and longtime foe of the 'mos.
Not sure what the GR is all about. But next time, Gary: Please identify yourself. Transparency makes this whole discourse game a whole lot easier.
**Oh, and our response to Mr. Glenn's question is clearly spelled out right here: 'Factor' Fiction [G-A-Y]
Mr. Glenn, Pedophiles, in my opinion, who have physically harmed children should be hanged by the neck until dead! I suspect that that is one opinion that we commonly share. But that is entirely beside the point. As is the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals. But, the fact of the matter is that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Because of that, pedophiles are not protected by this bill. And, pedophilia is equally as illegal as it has ever been.
I suspect, though, that the reason you want pedophilia associated with a hate crimes bill that protects the religious, ethnic minorities, the disabled and homosexuals is because you want to perpetrate some vigilante-style-justice hate crimes against pedophiles. And, while I can certainly understand, and even empathize, YOU REALLY SHOULD LEAVE THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES UP TO THE AUTHORITIES! That is what they are there for.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 6, 2009 3:31:56 PM
Good cyber sleuthing JH!
Posted by: LOrion | May 6, 2009 6:27:48 PM
"We don't bite (and it wouldn't be a 'sexual orientation' if we did)."
Posted by: zortnac | May 6, 2009 7:03:31 PM
Why would the Democrats object to such an amendment?
Perhaps because they don't want to coddle foolishness in pretending your paranoid ideas have any semblance in reality?
But along those lines, can we, from here-on out, modify any "religious" legislation in this country to ensure that we are not protecting "religious" freedoms for Christians who practice human sacrifice?
I mean, we should make it plain in the legislation, shouldn't we?
Posted by: foundit66 | May 7, 2009 11:07:29 AMcomments powered by Disqus