Foxhound38 wrote: » If they marry the kids then why would they need to then adopt the kids??
Foxhound38 wrote: » Yes, this is a real article by a supposedly articulate journalist for the Kilkenny Journal. Shall this be the new line from the anti-SSM crowd? :pac:
The referendum will trigger legislation that cannot exclude anybody from marriage on any grounds whatsoever.
UCDVet wrote: » To all of those who are saying this is utter nonsense, that nobody would ever do such a thing....how do you respond to this?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/peter-truong-jailed-over-global-paedophile-ring/5146366
ceadaoin. wrote: » I didn't read the article but sure they could just marry a woman now if they wanted and have even more options for accessing children. Why aren't they up in arms about that?
Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters
UCDVet wrote: » Possibly because paedophiles are predominately men.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Prevalence_and_child_molestation That means it's roughly 10 times harder to find a female paedophile as it is to find a male paedophile.
PopePalpatine wrote: » I see Mick "The Bull" Daly has found a new job.