“the View” Sports Bigotry

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mary_bobo said:
I sure hope so. What a colossal waste of time that program is. IMO it does not cater to those who have thinking minds.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, it was a decent show. After Meredith left, it seemed as though whatever little class the show had left with her. I stopped watching “The View” after it became the “Starr Jones Dog and Pony Show/Wedding Contribution Hour.” Barbara Walters has clearly lost control of what once made the show a good one and I don’t know if she wants to, or cares to, get it back.

I made a vow never to watch it again after Rosie O’Donnell joined the panel. I’ve never even been slightly tempted “just to see what it’s like,” not even once.
 
Before O’Donnell came to the show Joy Behar bashed the Catholic Church every chance she got, it’s just twice as bad now. It’s Baaba-Wa-Wa’s show and she allows it. I noticed how irrate she was at Mel Gibson for his comments about Jews(saying that she would NEVER watch one of his movies again), but she sits by show after show while The Catholic Church, The Holy Father, & Priests are maligned by those two. They speak as though they have some authority!:nope: By the way, how can anyone listen to them! I can’t think of 3 more annoying voices than Behar, O’Donnell & Walters.:bigyikes: :banghead:
 
I questioned the wisdom of bringing Rosie on to the show. No more Queen of Nice; she’s become a really volitile element. I predict that The View has shortened it’s shelf life by the addition of Rosie and it’s effects. Unless they change their approach I doubt they will be on the air this time next year. I think it’s a syndicated show which means each market can decide if they want the show and when to air it.
 
Lucania said:
Before O’Donnell came to the show Joy Behar bashed the Catholic Church every chance she got, it’s just twice as bad now. It’s Baaba-Wa-Wa’s show and she allows it. I noticed how irrate she was at Mel Gibson for his comments about Jews(saying that she would NEVER watch one of his movies again), but she sits by show after show while The Catholic Church, The Holy Father, & Priests are maligned by those two. They speak as though they have some authority!:nope: By the way, how can anyone listen to them! I can’t think of 3 more annoying voices than Behar, O’Donnell & Walters.:bigyikes: :banghead:
Click to expand...
I agree…:yup:
 
While I agree 100% that the view is nothing but a bunch of bigots, I will have to disagree with the Catholic league on one thing. A lot of the Priests that did the abusing were in my eyes Pedophiles. I don’t think they were ever men of God, that they were wolf in sheeps clothing. It’s sad though that people just blain the whole church for what a small percent of men did.
But still, even if the boy was just below the legal age, it still counts as pedophilia.
 
child_of_God85 said:
While I agree 100% that the view is nothing but a bunch of bigots, I will have to disagree with the Catholic league on one thing. A lot of the Priests that did the abusing were in my eyes Pedophiles. I don’t think they were ever men of God, that they were wolf in sheeps clothing. It’s sad though that people just blain the whole church for what a small percent of men did.
But still, even if the boy was just below the legal age, it still counts as pedophilia.
Click to expand...
The point that the Catholic League is making is that technically pedophilia is a man loving a young child. There is a term for a man that loves older teens, something like ebophilia. Most of the cases involving priests tend to be men doing things with teens, not children. They aren’t trying to justify the abuse or anything they are saying that actual pedophilia is different from most of the cases of priest abuse.

It seems to be the Catholic League’s contention that an adult that abuses a teen is more a homosexual issue then a pedophilia issue.

The League also contends that the media is at fault for portraying this as a pedophilia issue instead of a homosexual issue.
 
Marauder said:
The point that the Catholic League is making is that technically pedophilia is a man loving a young child. There is a term for a man that loves older teens, something like ebophilia. Most of the cases involving priests tend to be men doing things with teens, not children. They aren’t trying to justify the abuse or anything they are saying that actual pedophilia is different from most of the cases of priest abuse.

It seems to be the Catholic League’s contention that an adult that abuses a teen is more a homosexual issue then a pedophilia issue.

The League also contends that the media is at fault for portraying this as a pedophilia issue instead of a homosexual issue.
Click to expand...
But the children were still underage was my point. To me a homosexual is attrackted to someone of their own sex,but that is of age. While I believe that homosexuality is abnormal in every way, I still will not put it on the same level as a man going after and abusing someone that is under the legal age of consent. That’s perversion. In my eyes, anyone that is under the legal age of consent is a child.
There have been cases in the last few yeas where a man (not a Priest) has raped a a teen, and everyone aggreed that the man was a pedophile, even theough the victim was anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. So lets not give the Priests, small persentage as it may be, special treatment. I pray for these men because they do have a serious problem when they are attracted to a child, but they still deserve jail time for the harm they did.
 
child_of_God85 said:
But the children were still underage was my point. To me a homosexual is attrackted to someone of their own sex,but that is of age.
Click to expand...
Ok, let me clarify that I was only explaining the Catholic Leagues apparent view of things. I wasn’t saying whether I agreed or disagreed with them.

I agree that any priest that is guilty of doing anything with anyone under the age of 18 deserves jail time.

But I can see their point. Should a priest that is technically guilty of violation of trust issues where in some states if you aren’t in a position of trust then things may be legal (i.e. 16-18) be lumped in the same pedophilia label as the ones that go after the young kids (i.e. pre-teen)?

Is a priest that does something with a 17 year old boy giving in to pedophilia or giving in to homosexuality? The answer could be one or the other or both depending on the situation.

Like I said I believe that a priest that does this deserves jail time and removal of priestly facilitities, just like I think female teachers that sleep with male students, etc. deserve jail time.
 
child_of_God85 said:
But the children were still underage was my point. To me a homosexual is attrackted to someone of their own sex,but that is of age. While I believe that homosexuality is abnormal in every way, I still will not put it on the same level as a man going after and abusing someone that is under the legal age of consent. That’s perversion. In my eyes, anyone that is under the legal age of consent is a child.
There have been cases in the last few yeas where a man (not a Priest) has raped a a teen, and everyone aggreed that the man was a pedophile, even theough the victim was anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. So lets not give the Priests, small persentage as it may be, special treatment. I pray for these men because they do have a serious problem when they are attracted to a child, but they still deserve jail time for the harm they did.
Click to expand...
Uh, if a Priest in England, where the age of consent is 16 (heterosexual or homosexual) had sexual contact w/ a 16 year boy, would THAT have been alright? Or in numerous other countrues, where the age of consent is even lower–as long as “legal” would it NOT make it “pedophilia”???

“Pedophia” is a particular disorder reating to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent childen, PERIOD–check out the DSM-IV if you think otherwise. While the priests who are guilty of abuse (up to & including forcible rape) of post-pubescent pre-consent children (Again the GREAT majority of the victims are boys) are guilty of mortal sin and monstrous violation of trust and sacred vows, their offense should be categorized for what it is. Particular jurisdictions law statues may or may not make distictions in the offense when the victim is 5 years old versus 15–but judges and juries DO tend to make the distinction that the younger the victim, the more damaging the effect–hence correspondingly more severe sentencing.

There is a BIG agenda to label all abusing priests as pedophiles–because that mudslinging tends to distract from the real, dirty little secret of homosexuals–that a lot of “gays” look back in fondness on their homosexual first experience as a pre-consent teen with an adult man. How many?–up to 20%+ possibly more
 
I would rather watch Jerry Springer than that cast of shrill uber lefist Harpies on The View. The young girl host should seek something better than that slop of a gig.
 
I am completely sick of movies like this new one that makes people think it’s the whole church, when it’s just a tiny percent of Priests. But I also think a lot of Catholics have forgotten who the real victims are. The real victims in all of this are the child/teens who were raped by men twice their age. It does say suffer not the little children in the bible, not suffer not the men who abbuse the innocent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top