[Bob4God]

Since the 1920s, the Justice Department of the United States has defined rape as "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."

And for the last 80 years this definition has been quite sufficient, if not overreaching.

But now the bleeding-heart liberals that have hijacked our nation have redefined rape, the same way they are trying to redefine marriage out of existence!

The liberal media reports:

WASHINGTON — The federal government is changing its longstanding definition of “forcible rape” in compiling national crime statistics — expanding both the definition of victims, to include males, and the types of sexual assault that will be counted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report.

Did you catch that?

The new definition states that men can be victims of rape!

At first you may think that this new definition is a good idea; that it might allow for more recognition of young Catholic boys who are repeatedly raped and abused by their priests, or that it may extend protection to True Christian men who are attacked by homosexual rapists.

But think again.

This new definition is simply the next step in the big feminist agenda to subjugate and weaken men, with the implication that men aren't strong enough to fend off a rapist.

But these new definitions aren't a coincidence.

Don't think that they weren't developed with the sole intention of persecuting Jerry Sandusky, and manly men like him who enjoy some old fashioned naked horseplay in a shower with young boys!

Yes, Sandusky might have touched them in a naughty place occasionally during wrestling, and his erect penis might have accidentally slipped into their anuses at one point or another, but that could happen to anybody.

The old definition — “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will” — covered only forcible penetration of a woman’s cooter by a penis, and excluded many other kinds of sexual assaults that count as rape under more modern definitions.

For example, the outdated definition did not count forcible anal or oral penetration, the penetration of the cooter or anus with an object or other body part, the rape of a man, or the rape of a woman by another woman

What kind of perverted message does this send our children?

First of all, we don't need to hear about all this dirty stuff and the government would've been wise to continue acting like it doesn't happen.

The ludricrous implications of this new definition are as follows:

1) Men are big sissies who can't defend themselves from unwanted sexual advances

2) Women are smart enough and strong enough to figure out how to rape another woman or a man

3) Shoving a random object up another person's butt or mouth is rape, which means doctors and parents can no longer take their children's temperature

4) People who do not resist but do not want sex are rape victims, such as drunken idiots, people strung out on drugs, whores, gays, babies, retards and deaf-mutes. How stupid!

You'd have to be some kind of wimpy retard to not resist sex you didn't want, and that's exactly who the Big Victim Movement is pandering too.

Obama knows election day is drawing near, and he knows the power of the fag/retard/colossally intoxicated vote.

But what about those Catholic boys, you ask?

Well, if they were raised in a True Christian home the way GOD intended, each one of them would be packing a .44 Magnum and would have the balls to defend themselves from any attacker who dared lay a finger (or random object) in them.

Where has real manhood gone?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Brother, are you feeling well today?

[Bob4God]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Brother, are you feeling well today?

Absolutely not!

My blood pressure has been raging for hours as a result of the news, and I will continue to experience Christian outrage until the liberal government at least incorporates Deuteronomy 22:28-29 into the law!

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Is a little justice so much to ask?

[Redeemed Papist]

Can't a manly Christian sports instructor rehearse with young boys how to fend off a sex offender in the locker room without people looking for something sinister these days?

[Seth Campbell]

Originally Posted by Redeemed Papist

Can't a manly Christian sports instructor rehearse with young boys how to fend off a sex offender in the locker room without people looking for something sinister these days?

That depends. According to the liebrals, if he's gay, it's his RIGHT to molest little boys, however if he's Christian, then he can't even talk to them about protecting themselves without it being called "rape".