First, the article stated that the couple were gay. If the coupled pictured were a man and a woman, a clarification would not have been needed. Second, if the individual who was found molesting children were heterosexual the headline would probably omit the fact that he were, the reason, most people would already think that the individual was heterosexual, that is why when an individual is gay they are thus announced.

Furthermore, once again we see the ugly head prejudice when it comes to the priests. There are 30 times as many cases against teachers, both male and female molesting children than there are against priests. So why is it that the priests are always brought into the fray but never the teachers????? Statistically a child is more likely to have been molested or the be molested by teachers, than by priests.

Teachers like priests have a responsibility to care for and to teach the children, there crime is much more grievous because the government actually mandates children to attend school, not church.

dmk

I think the reason teachers who are molesters are reported in the media less than Catholic priests is there is much evidence the the Catholic church repeatedly and intentionally covers up, protects, and moves pedophiles to new locations to avoid detection. As far as I have seen there has been no where near that level of protection for teachers. The story with priests is not just the abuse but the cover up.

What I want to know is where were all these hot young women teachers who are molesting young boys when I was in school? Damn.

Anyone ever hear of NAMBLA? Their sole purpose is to encourage sex between adult males and young boys. It would be interesting to know if these 2 scum are members.

Do you have a source for these statistics?

And the answer to why priests are brought into the fray has already been answered.

The Catholic church COVERED UP the molestations, and PROTECTED the molestors from the law. Moved them to new districts where they molested again.

If the teachers did something similar, you can bet that they would get more attention.

NAMBLA is the "North American Man/Boy Love Association". Because this article is talking about people in the UK, which is not in North America, it is not likely that these two were members of NAMBLA.

The biggest thing is....it's gay pedophilia. It's pedophilia because it's a child...and also homosexual because it's a child of the same sex. Homsexuality and pedophilia are completely separate entities, but they are NOT mutally exclusive. One can be a homosexual pedophile or a heterosexual pedophile.

I am NOT connecting homosexuality with pedophilia at all, and people have misunderstood me and thought that. But the fact male sexually does anything with another male makes it homosexual, so to me it makes sense but is jus being overly redundant to point out the fact he's gay.

It's like saying...a black person is African-American. Haitians are black, some people from Trinidad are black, but that does not make them African-American, whereas not all AFrican-Americans are black (Egypt?). The same goes for homsexuality and pedophilia. There are gay people, there are pedophiles, and there are gay pedophiles. There are black people, there are Africans, and there are black Africans. It's a shitty example so I apologize but I just don't want to get flamed for saying gays are pedophiles, or that I'm somehow equating blacks with pedophiles or gays.

Well hell, that's good enough for me. Let's let em go.

I'm not certain I understand your sarcasm here. Do you think I am somehow defending these two men by saying they are not part of NAMBLA? Perhaps you realize that it is not a crime to be a member of NAMBLA, while it is very much a crime to have sex with a minor.

By saying they are not members of NAMBLA, I was only trying to help you out. Here, look at what you said:

Since you thought it would be interesting to know whether they are members of NAMBLA, I informed you that such a membership would be very unlikely in hopes that you would find this information interesting. So why do you respond with sarcasm?

I think everyone in NAMBLA should be shot.

I find murder to be an extreme punishment for people who have not committed any crime, and I do not see how this statement explains your sarcasm.