Pedophiles may get the same rights as gays?!

Definition of a pedophile: "adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child"
So you know what a pedophile is, now how about gay: "attracted to same sex: relating to sexual attraction or activity among members of the same sex"

Pedophiles are wanting the same rights as gays now that the gay rights activists have won their rights. Pedophiles think that what they are and what they lust for is a sexual orientation and not a disorder. Pedophiles are now protected under the law for sexual orientation discrimination. They claim they should have the same rights as gays do because they can't control the fact that they have sexual urges for children. They are also saying that because they can't change the way they feel about children that they shouldn't be shunned for it.

Now it says that two psychiatrists in Canada state that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like being a heterosexual or a homosexual. This means that they think of pedophiles as one of us, just another normal human with 'normal' urges.

Here is a quote from the article that you can find a link to in my sources;

Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

Um... I have something that can cure these disgusting urges- DEATH!
Another quote;

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Here is my view; Child pornography is STILL hurting the children! It's no better then if some sick fuck had sex with them! Child porn is illegal and should be! Taking naked pictures of children doing acts is still harmful and should not be allowed. It is NOT beneficial to society for one other reason, what happens when it's not enough for pedophiles? They will then seek out children to reenact the porn they have seen. 

Pedophiles are vile creatures who are nothing like the rest of us! They are NOT the same as homosexuals or heterosexuals or any other orientation. They have a sexual attraction to children who have not even begun to mature yet. They want these little kids because they have a deeper underlying need to feel powerful and in control! Children do not understand sex, or touching or any other mature acts like this. They get scared, they do not like it and they do NOT know that is going on. It IS harmful to them and it will hurt their future if they can't get the help to recover from the traumatic experiences.

Homosexuals (gays) are not the same as pedophiles. Gay couples are of age and are mature enough to consent to sexual acts. They do not seek out young children to overpower and control, they seek out the same sex that are either the same age or are still OF AGE to make mature decisions. That is a sexual orientation, that should and is legal.

Anyone who has kids or has family with kids knows how disturbing it is to even think that some adult man (or woman) might someday be able to legally touch and have sexual relations with your child! I don't know about you but if I have kids and some older man tries to do anything to them, I will be in jail for shooting the bastard regardless of if it's legal or not.

This is sickening news and it's even more so that it's actually gotten this far into the government and authority systems. It's gone through the White House even, and they are AGREEING with some of the crap that these pedophiles are pushing for! This is showing that the people we have elected to be in charge of this country have little to no moral standing or common sense!

What do YOU think of this sickening situation? Do you agree with the government and think pedophiles should have the same rights? Or do you think this is sickening and shouldn't have ever even been brought up? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Sources: pedophiles want same rights

Zimmerman trial Vs Alexander trial who's REALLY guilty?

I just learned of this whole Zimmerman case and the verdict and I have seen a lot of controversial conversations and arguments on it. So, naturally I decided to blog about my thoughts on this verdict and case after reading a few articles and the backgrounds of both parties. I have also seen a lot of pictures on social media sites comparing this case to several others such as the Casey Anthony's not guilty verdict and the Andrea Yates case with her being not guilty then the Marissa Alexander case with her being found GUILTY without killing anyone.

Lets start by looking at the victim's background and side of this situation. Trayvon Martin was an 17 year old junior in High school. His parents are divorced and his fathers new fiance lived in the neighborhood that he was shot in. He was visiting his father and his fathers fiance when he was shot down in the street. Martin's background might sound sketchy and he did seem like a troubled youth but he was never found to be violent. Martin had been suspended from school twice due to truancy and writing graffiti on the school grounds. Martin had also been in possession of a marijuana pipe and some jewelry that the police automatically thought to be stolen. On the night he was killed, the last anyone saw of him was when he bought candy and an Arazona Tea from a 7-11 store.

Now lets look at the defendants background and side of the situation. George Zimmerman is an insurance underwriter and was going to collage. He is a 200lb man (aprox) at 30 years old with several acts of violence in his past. At age 21 he was arrested for the assault of a police officer and resisting arrest. Then in 2005 Zimmerman was charged with domestic violence and has a restraining order from his ex-fiance. Zimmerman had called the non-emergency police several times in 18 months, five of those were reports of suspicious looking men around the neighborhood. To me, Zimmerman seemed to be of the paranoid sort that took matters into his own hands when he shouldn't. On the night of the killing, Zimmerman had called the police about a suspicious looking man walking around at night. He thought he was suspicious due to the fact that he was walking around at night in the rain just looking at houses. Now if you think about it, if you where depressed because your parents had taken you away from your friends and home what would you be doing? Martin was most likely only out walking around because he was upset.

Zimmerman blatantly disobeyed what the police dispatcher had told him while he was running after Martin that night. The police dispatcher told him NOT to follow or chase the 'suspect' but Zimmerman did so anyway. Zimmerman eventually shot and killed Martin who was unarmed, and only 70 yards from where he was staying.

Many different scenarios could have taken place but one seems to pull to my mind. From looking over the backgrounds of both persons and reading through articles of the trial what plays out in my mind is this:

Martin was walking home from the store after buying some snacks and was wearing a hooded sweatshirt due to the rain. He was probably upset about being away from his family and friends and from being suspended from school. Zimmerman, who already had a violent history, was part of neighborhood watch and from having so many break ins and robberies in his area saw Martin and automatically thought he was a bad person. Zimmerman's defenses were up and alert due to this and he wanted to take action thinking the police would arrive too late so he took matters into his own hands. He chased after Martin who was unarmed and probably startled him. Martin begins to run seeing someone is chasing him and then turns to defend himself against the mysterious man coming for him. Martin and Zimmerman have a scuffle and both attack one another leaving cuts and bruises. Zimmerman gets even more defensive and worries for his life thinking this young man might have a gun or knife and pulls out his own. Zimmerman (not thinking rationally) shoots Martin who was unarmed and fighting for his own life. 

To me this seems like the most realistic situation. I mean if you think about it, Martin was a young boy who was walking home at night in the rain and is being followed by a strange vehicle. Martin gets scared and starts to run, Zimmerman, thinking he is high and mighty, chases after him. A fight breaks out from both scared men and one gets shot. I'm not saying Zimmerman's verdict is right but it should make you think. Both parties where standing their ground.



Now, lets take a look at the other case where the verdict ends differently. A 31 year old Florida woman was found guilty of aggravated assault and attempted murder when she fired warning shots at her abusive husband. She had already filed an order of protection against him and claims she was protecting herself from another beating. Marissa Alexander has never been in trouble with the law before yet when she tries to defend herself against a brutally abusive husband she gets charged and convicted.
Here is a quote from Wikipidia on this case:

Alexander had a restraining order issued against her ex husband at the time and, during the day of the incident, had returned to their old home to collect clothes and some possessions thinking he was not there. Her ex husband was there, with their children, and they began to argue. After the argument became heated, Marissa Alexander returned to her car, picked up her firearm, and returned inside the house where she threatened him with the handgun before firing a warning shot into the wall. She was charged with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon.

The stand your ground law-

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents.

So what do you think about these cases? Who was in the right or wrong? Or was anyone right?



Sources: Zimmerman verdict  and Alexander case Alexander Case2
Other source: wikipedia