2 out of several homosexual myths tossed around the fourm

[Jake21]

Sure, possible. But not proven and certainly not the majority. You can’t use hypothetical “possibility” as proof that the proposition that most of the perpetrators of sexual abuse were homosexual is a myth. The** fact** of the matter is that most of the victims were postpubescent males victimized by adult males. The acts were homosexual in nature. Whether any given perpetrator would take upon himself the classification of being a homosexual person is something that I don’t believe has been evaluated.

I don’t intend to use hypothetical possibility as proof that the proposition that most of the perpetrators of sexual abuse were homosexual is a myth. I only intend to explain to you guys why you should remain neutral on the issue until there is further research done. If there is not enough research on this matter that allows you to throw my argument for these possibilities out the window, then you should have a neutral position until that further research on this issue comes around.

you say “certainly not the majority” but how do you know that statement is true? Can you tell me where the statistical evidence for that statement is? You cant base that statement solely of the available stories about this scandal online. You need solid statistical evidence.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

As to the factors in your para 2, these priests will have been in one or more categories out of those mentioned by you and by Theo520, who has also hit the nail on the head in his conclusion. How many and how few are within **overlapping sets of categories **is up to them [selves] and not us.

 

[Corki]

you say “certainly not the majority” but how do you know that statement is true? Can you tell me where the statistical evidence for that statement is? You cant base that statement solely of the available stories about this scandal online. You need solid statistical evidence.

Read the John Jay report. There are plenty of statistics in that report. There is no need to remain neutral any longer.

 

[edwest2]

Vic_Taltrees_UK:
The John Jay Report:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

themediareport.com/fast-facts/

Ed

 

[Jake21]

Read the John Jay report. There are plenty of statistics in that report. There is no need to remain neutral any longer.

There most certainly is a need to remain neutral.

John Jay Report
Page 80

47 percent of the instances of abuse did not or may have not taken place on school or church property. The places of the 47 percent were either unrecorded, in an other place not listed, in a vacation house, or in a hotel room. What’s very important to remember is that the study reported that many of these priests had very close ties with the family’s of the victims. That means that a lot of the parents may have been trustworthy when it came to sending there male teenagers off to places with the Priests. We don’t have a lot of details relating to how the priest got there victims to these places and whether or not the parents were involved that often, BUT WE SURE DO NEED MUCH MORE DETAILS THEN WHAT THE JOHN JAY REPORT PROVIDES US WITH. It’s possible that the parents were often involved in how their children got to these places. It’s possible they were more much more comfortable sending their sons rather then their daughters to places with priests such as amusement parks, camping trips, etc which involved privacy, tents, hotel rooms, and vacation homes. WE JUST DONT KNOW ENOUGH!!! At the end of the day, THIS LACK OF CRUCAIL DETAILS SHOULD LEAD US TO NEUTRALITY.

 

[Gorgias]

There most certainly is a need to remain neutral.

John Jay Report
Page 80

47 percent of the instances of abuse did not or may have not taken place on school or church property.

Jake,

I think p. 80 does more harm to your thesis than good. Of the cases where location was recorded (that is, 70% of the cases), the majority weren’t “camping trips” or the like (e.g., during a retreat, Church service, during counseling, during social event, during reconciliation, during sporting event, school hours, Church service/training, hospital visit, visiting rectory). These add up to 92% of all cases in which the location is known – and 63% of all cases. These numbers suggest that “camping trips” and the other anecdotes you suggest aren’t representative, and in fact, are a minority of the situations encountered. In other words, the stats you cite demonstrate that your suggestions are unfounded.

The places of the 47 percent were either unrecorded, in an other place not listed, in a vacation house, or in a hotel room.

Wait – that’s a pretty unfair use of the statistics! If I told you that 47% of robberies in your town were either in unrecorded locations or at baseball games, would you therefore conclude that baseball games were representative of robbery locations? Of course not! In the same way, you can’t take “in a vacation house or hotel room” – which represent only 15% of the situations! – and lump them in with “unknown” to make them seem like half of the situations!

What’s very important to remember is that the study reported that many of these priests had very close ties with the family’s of the victims. That means that a lot of the parents may have been trustworthy when it came to sending there male teenagers off to places with the Priests.

Yes… but that doesn’t imply that only male teens were being trusted by their parents to be with priests, which is what you’re trying to show! You’ve taken a reasonable conclusion of the report (“parents trusted their children with priests”) and adding your own (unsubstantiated) opinion (“only male teens were trusted”) to it! That’s not reasonable!

It’s possible they were more much more comfortable sending their sons rather then their daughters to places with priests such as amusement parks, camping trips, etc which involved privacy, tents, hotel rooms, and vacation homes. WE JUST DONT KNOW ENOUGH!!!

This is where your logic fails to hold up. You can’t just throw out an arbitrary statement like “well, it’s possible that X, Y, and Z are true”, and then – without any substantiation of your assertion – ask us to hold that it’s true (or worse yet, tell us that it’s our responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated guesses!). If you want to have your ‘possibilities’ (which, as you admit, are only your ‘intuition’) treated as factual or even probable, you’ll need to substantiate them first. If I said that it’s possible that the moon is made of green cheese, it’d be unreasonable to expect that you’d respect that story… unless I substantiated it first.

At the end of the day, THIS LACK OF CRUCAIL DETAILS SHOULD LEAD US TO NEUTRALITY.

One would hope that this would apply to you, too: given that you have no details – other than one anecdote (and remember, you told me on this very thread that ‘internet stories’ don’t count!) – it’s irresponsible for you to make up stories based on your ‘intuition’ and then ask us to respect them as valid ‘possibilities.’

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… THIS LACK OF CRUCIAL DETAILS SHOULD LEAD US TO NEUTRALITY.

Jake, is neutrality saying that because A is part of B, A can’t be part of C at the same time? Because Quebec is French-speaking, it can’t be part of the British Commonwealth?

My point which hasn’t been addressed yet, is independent of statistics, and all and any statistics are independent of it and speak for themselves as themselves.

Most of you others are only arguing part of the case, whatever the case may be.

 

[Jake21]

Jake,

I think p. 80 does more harm to your thesis than good. Of the cases where location was recorded (that is, 70% of the cases), the majority weren’t “camping trips” or the like (e.g., during a retreat, Church service, during counseling, during social event, during reconciliation, during sporting event, school hours, Church service/training, hospital visit, visiting rectory). These add up to 92% of all cases in which the location is known – and 63% of all cases. These numbers suggest that “camping trips” and the other anecdotes you suggest aren’t representative, and in fact, are a minority of the situations encountered. In other words, the stats you cite demonstrate that your suggestions are unfounded.

Wait – that’s a pretty unfair use of the statistics! If I told you that 47% of robberies in your town were either in unrecorded locations or at baseball games, would you therefore conclude that baseball games were representative of robbery locations? Of course not! In the same way, you can’t take “in a vacation house or hotel room” – which represent only 15% of the situations! – and lump them in with “unknown” to make them seem like half of the situations!

Yes… but that doesn’t imply that only male teens were being trusted by their parents to be with priests, which is what you’re trying to show! You’ve taken a reasonable conclusion of the report (“parents trusted their children with priests”) and adding your own (unsubstantiated) opinion (“only male teens were trusted”) to it! That’s not reasonable!

This is where your logic fails to hold up. You can’t just throw out an arbitrary statement like “well, it’s possible that X, Y, and Z are true”, and then – without any substantiation of your assertion – ask us to hold that it’s true (or worse yet, tell us that it’s our responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated guesses!). If you want to have your ‘possibilities’ (which, as you admit, are only your ‘intuition’) treated as factual or even probable, you’ll need to substantiate them first. If I said that it’s possible that the moon is made of green cheese, it’d be unreasonable to expect that you’d respect that story… unless I substantiated it first.

One would hope that this would apply to you, too: given that you have no details – other than one anecdote (and remember, you told me on this very thread that ‘internet stories’ don’t count!) – it’s irresponsible for you to make up stories based on your ‘intuition’ and then ask us to respect them as valid ‘possibilities.’

17.7 percent of the cases took place in a hotel room or a vacation home. How do we know that these hotel rooms and vacation homes didn’t involve things like camping trips, trips to amusement parks, etc? 23.1 percent of the cases location was not recorded. How do we know that a decent sized amount of that 23.1 percent were not at hotel rooms or vacation homes? OH THAT’S RIGHT, WE DONT KNOW, BUT IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION!!! I believe my suspicion that parents would be more comfortable sending their male teenagers rather than their female teenagers on trips does have some weight to it. Let’s say hypothetically that a priest finds it to risky to assault their targeted victim on school or church property due to the risk of being heard or seen. Let’s say he has to resort to asking families that he is very close to if he can take their teenage daughters on a trip. So he asks the parents of the teenage daughters if he can take them on a trip to an amusement park and then they could check into a hotel after. What do you think the answer to that question is going to be? Don’t you think that the parents would be more likely to let their sons go on that trip rather than their daughters?

I believe it’s quite obvious that we need deeper research on these assaults. Can we both agree that we should remain neutral on this question of homosexual priests due to the absence of crucial details?

 

[JimG]

I think it’s a moot point now, given that the Church has already changed its policy regarding seminary admission to exclude those with deep seated homosexual tendencies. It has concluded its study of the past abuse crisis, and put in place training programs to prevent recurrence.

 

[Jake21]

Jake,

I think p. 80 does more harm to your thesis than good. Of the cases where location was recorded (that is, 70% of the cases), the majority weren’t “camping trips” or the like (e.g., during a retreat, Church service, during counseling, during social event, during reconciliation, during sporting event, school hours, Church service/training, hospital visit, visiting rectory). These add up to 92% of all cases in which the location is known – and 63% of all cases. These numbers suggest that “camping trips” and the other anecdotes you suggest aren’t representative, and in fact, are a minority of the situations encountered. In other words, the stats you cite demonstrate that your suggestions are unfounded.

Wait – that’s a pretty unfair use of the statistics! If I told you that 47% of robberies in your town were either in unrecorded locations or at baseball games, would you therefore conclude that baseball games were representative of robbery locations? Of course not! In the same way, you can’t take “in a vacation house or hotel room” – which represent only 15% of the situations! – and lump them in with “unknown” to make them seem like half of the situations!

Yes… but that doesn’t imply that only male teens were being trusted by their parents to be with priests, which is what you’re trying to show! You’ve taken a reasonable conclusion of the report (“parents trusted their children with priests”) and adding your own (unsubstantiated) opinion (“only male teens were trusted”) to it! That’s not reasonable!

This is where your logic fails to hold up. You can’t just throw out an arbitrary statement like “well, it’s possible that X, Y, and Z are true”, and then – without any substantiation of your assertion – ask us to hold that it’s true (or worse yet, tell us that it’s our responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated guesses!). If you want to have your ‘possibilities’ (which, as you admit, are only your ‘intuition’) treated as factual or even probable, you’ll need to substantiate them first. If I said that it’s possible that the moon is made of green cheese, it’d be unreasonable to expect that you’d respect that story… unless I substantiated it first.

One would hope that this would apply to you, too: given that you have no details – other than one anecdote (and remember, you told me on this very thread that ‘internet stories’ don’t count!) – it’s irresponsible for you to make up stories based on your ‘intuition’ and then ask us to respect them as valid ‘possibilities.’

Another important point is that there’s a solid possibility that a decent amount of the assaults that took place in “priest home/parish residence” could have involved the parents agreement for their male teenagers (not female teenagers for obvious reasons) to spend the night at the pirest house after some kind of trip.

 

[Corki]

Another important point is that there’s a solid possibility that a decent amount of the assaults that took place in “priest home/parish residence” could have involved the parents agreement for their male teenagers (not female teenagers for obvious reasons) to spend the night at the pirest house after some kind of trip.

Sure, it’s possible and so is the camp-out hypothesis. But the facts and statistics show that this was not the predominant scenario. The vast majority of the victims were teenage or young adult males and the acts were homosexual.

The “myth” you set out to disprove is not a myth. You even phrased the “myth” in your OP as “The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.”

Predominantly does not equal exclusively. No one believes that the priests who perpetrated these acts were exclusively homosexual. But they were predominantly so. No myth.

Beyond that, there have always been priests who fell into sexual temptation. Over the centuries, this mostly involved women. If a priest was really attracted to women, he would have no reason to seek out young men.

 

[Jake21]

Sure, it’s possible and so is the camp-out hypothesis. But the facts and statistics show that this was not the predominant scenario. The vast majority of the victims were teenage or young adult males and the acts were homosexual.

The “myth” you set out to disprove is not a myth. You even phrased the “myth” in your OP as “The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.”

Predominantly does not equal exclusively. No one believes that the priests who perpetrated these acts were exclusively homosexual. But they were predominantly so. No myth.

Beyond that, there have always been priests who fell into sexual temptation. Over the centuries, this mostly involved women. If a priest was really attracted to women, he would have no reason to seek out young men.

All these solid possibilities are connected to each other.

Solid possibility #1

A decent amount of priests can’t assault teenagers of both genders on school or church property to save their lives. This is because people may hear or see the assault on the property. The priests therefore want somewhere more private to assault their victims.

Solid possibility #2

The priests are either rejected or don’t even bother asking because they know they will be rejected if they ask parents if their teenage daughters could spend the night with them at hotels, vacation homes, or the priests house. The parents are much more likely to let their teenage sons spend the night at these places with these priests for obvious reasons.

Solid possibility #3

Since these heterosexual priests can’t get their hands on teenage females to save their lives they have to settle with teenage males. They therefore target feminine looking males as a substitute for females similar to what male inmates do because the inmates, just like the priests, have almost zero access to females.

Please explain to me how the John Jay Report negates these possibilities or how these possabilies are not solid in your view.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The fact that all your solid possibilities are solid still doesn’t get us anywhere.

What do you think about Quebec and the British Commonwealth?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

Well, it certainly does not help the gay “marriage” movement to be sure, and there’s already a lot of evidence that shows the problems of homosexual actions.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

I see. So before so-called gay “marriage” become and in, it was fun and neat to go after the Catholic Church in America because less than 2% of the total priest population abused children over several decades----even though sexual abuse and scandals in the American public school system were FAR worse statistically…

But now that fragile gay “marriage” (even though it’s allegedly “equal” to straight marriage) is , gay rights activists have to sit down and think about how to talk around the priest sex scandals which overwhelming involved homosexual actions, because even though we’re all “equal” now, it still damages the gay rights brand.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where

Our apologists do not “moronically” call things a scandal.

is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual?

Their actions were homosexual. Let’s be honest here: Homosexuals are more likely to have heterosexual sex than vice-versa, especially when you throw out pornography and college girls experimenting, and we know this because many homosexuals have their own biological kids, and despite all the talk of support for homosexual “marriage” from straights, they aren’t exactly eager to give it a whirl, not that they should.

So the idea that straight priests were abusing kids solely as an access issue, which you continue to argue below, is a bit far-fetched, especially when we both know the agenda here is to try and paste the priest sex abuse cases on heterosexuals to make homosexual actions and so-called gay “marriage” look all the better for even more selfish reasons.

So, we’ve got the selfishness of homosexual actions and on top of that selfish attention-seeking/validation from supporting said homosexual actions.

Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals?

The actions were still homosexual. If they were bisexual, wouldn’t more girls have been abused?

How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females?

A lot of the kids assaulted weren’t even teens. See my comments below.

It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible.

The primary I get from this is that that homosexuality and possibly even pedophilia is an illusion, that they were molesting young boys because they couldn’t get access to women.

Do you realize how devastating that would be (if true) to the gay “marriage” movement and it’s claims?

If anything, you’d be endorsing the more Protestant claims that gayness is just a choice or even a myth that people delude themselves with.

In your anger/excitement to condemn us, you’ve actually stumped over your own argument, my friend.

 

[Gorgias]

All these solid possibilities are connected to each other.

Still a house of cards, though.

Solid possibility #1

A decent amount of priests can’t assault teenagers of both genders on school or church property to save their lives. This is because people may hear or see the assault on the property. The priests therefore want somewhere more private to assault their victims.

B as in B. S as in S. You, yourself, discuss assaults in rectories. You realize that the rectory is “on church property”, right?

The John Jay report discusses assaults in the confessional, in church, and (IIRC) in school. All are “school or church property”.

This “solid possibility” is quite flimsy, you’ll have to admit.

Solid possibility #2

The priests are either rejected or don’t even bother asking because they know they will be rejected if they ask parents if their teenage daughters could spend the night with them at hotels, vacation homes, or the priests house. The parents are much more likely to let their teenage sons spend the night at these places with these priests for obvious reasons.

Your “solid possibility” hinges on a certain consideration: for some unknown reason, you seem to be under the misconception that these are one-on-one encounters, as if the priests were asking parents, “I’m going on a camping trip / vacation / retreat by myself. Mind if I bring Bobby along?” That’s not at all the dynamic of these encounters! In fact, these abusers would set up situations that would ease parents’ worries but would give them access to victims. The scenarios would be group situations that would still allow for isolated periods in which the abusers could assault their victims. They weren’t “one-on-one” vacations, as your possibility suggests. Again… ‘solid’ turns flimsy…

Solid possibility #3

Since these heterosexual priests can’t get their hands on teenage females to save their lives they have to settle with teenage males. They therefore target feminine looking males as a substitute for females similar to what male inmates do because the inmates, just like the priests, have almost zero access to females.

This is the worst of the three ‘possibilities’. First of all, it presumes – without substantiation – that females weren’t as accessible as males. Then, it goes off the deep end and suggests that non-homosexual men (who aren’t part of prison populations!) turn to homosexual activities in normal social situations! (Please – if you really think that’s what happens, please provide us with a citation from a reputable source who demonstrates that claim. It. Just. Doesn’t. Happen.) Finally – and again, without attribution – you claim that “feminine looking males” are the victims. You realize, of course, that with sexual assault of post-pubescent minors, what the abuser is looking for is secondary sexual characteristics, don’t you? Therefore, a person who abuses a post-pubescent female minor is looking for someone who has the physical characteristics of a woman; a person who abuses a post-pubescent male minor is looking for someone who has the physical characteristics of a man. Your possibility flies in the face of the research on the issue!

Please explain to me how the John Jay Report negates these possibilities or how these possabilies are not solid in your view.

They really are poorly-thought-out assertions, based on inaccurate presumptions and misunderstandings. I’m not trying to be mean, here – but a bit more research on your part might help you understand the situation a bit better, and would disabuse you of these untrue notions.

 

[Jake21]

Still a house of cards, though.

B as in B. S as in S. You, yourself, discuss assaults in rectories. You realize that the rectory is “on church property”, right?

The John Jay report discusses assaults in the confessional, in church, and (IIRC) in school. All are “school or church property”.

This “solid possibility” is quite flimsy, you’ll have to admit.

Your “solid possibility” hinges on a certain consideration: for some unknown reason, you seem to be under the misconception that these are one-on-one encounters, as if the priests were asking parents, “I’m going on a camping trip / vacation / retreat by myself. Mind if I bring Bobby along?” That’s not at all the dynamic of these encounters! In fact, these abusers would set up situations that would ease parents’ worries but would give them access to victims. The scenarios would be group situations that would still allow for isolated periods in which the abusers could assault their victims. They weren’t “one-on-one” vacations, as your possibility suggests. Again… ‘solid’ turns flimsy…

This is the worst of the three ‘possibilities’. First of all, it presumes – without substantiation – that females weren’t as accessible as males. Then, it goes off the deep end and suggests that non-homosexual men (who aren’t part of prison populations!) turn to homosexual activities in normal social situations! (Please – if you really think that’s what happens, please provide us with a citation from a reputable source who demonstrates that claim. It. Just. Doesn’t. Happen.) Finally – and again, without attribution – you claim that “feminine looking males” are the victims. You realize, of course, that with sexual assault of post-pubescent minors, what the abuser is looking for is secondary sexual characteristics, don’t you? Therefore, a person who abuses a post-pubescent female minor is looking for someone who has the physical characteristics of a woman; a person who abuses a post-pubescent male minor is looking for someone who has the physical characteristics of a man. Your possibility flies in the face of the research on the issue!

They really are poorly-thought-out assertions, based on inaccurate presumptions and misunderstandings. I’m not trying to be mean, here – but a bit more research on your part might help you understand the situation a bit better, and would disabuse you of these untrue notions.

You know what, I’m going to admit that over the past few days I’ve allowed my strong emotions on this issue cloud my reasoning. I admit that a majority of the teens were assaulted by homosexual or bisexual priests and that the priests could have just as easily assaulted females.

With that being said, I’d like to make it very clear on what I still stand against.

I’ve spent a lot of my years debunking the studies that claim that homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely to sexually assault people then heterosexuals. Whether it’s from the FRC, liberty council, or any other organization like them, the studies they site have several methodological flaws. I have not seen one valid scientific study that makes such a claim about homosexuals or bisexuals. Plus I think we’re all fully aware that there are homosexual men and women that are exclusively attracted to adults. Psychologists have clearly and validly concluded that homosexuality is not itself a psychological disorder and that there are homosexuals that have sexual self-control just like heterosexuals do. This is why I believe that preventing open homosexuals from becoming priests is unjustified. If openly homosexual people pass psychological tests, criminal background checks, and are seen to have a sufficient sense of morality and integrity, then why should they not have the opportunity to become a priest? They take vows of celibacy just like the heterosexuals do, and the Catholic Church does not teach homosexual attraction itself is immoral.

 

[Gorgias]

You know what, I’m going to admit that over the past few days I’ve allowed my strong emotions on this issue cloud my reasoning. I admit that a majority of the teens were assaulted by homosexual or bisexual priests and that the priests could have just as easily assaulted females.

OK. Cool.

I’ve spent a lot of my years debunking the studies that claim that homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely to sexually assault people then heterosexuals.

Fair enough. You know, don’t you, that the Church doesn’t make this claim, right?

Psychologists have clearly and validly concluded that homosexuality is not itself a psychological disorder

The Catholic Church doesn’t make this claim, either.

the Catholic Church does not teach homosexual attraction itself is immoral.

Well, hold on, now: the Catholic Church does not teach that homosexual attraction itself is sinful. Big difference, there!

However, the Church does make the claim that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered from a moral perspective.

and that there are homosexuals that have sexual self-control just like heterosexuals do. This is why I believe that preventing open homosexuals from becoming priests is unjustified. If openly homosexual people pass psychological tests, criminal background checks, and are seen to have a sufficient sense of morality and integrity, then why should they not have the opportunity to become a priest? They take vows of celibacy just like the heterosexuals do

Here’s the thing: the Church’s stance on homosexuals becoming priests isn’t a matter of passing psychological tests, criminal background checks, or their ability to make promises of celibacy. On the other hand, the Church’s program of formation for priests includes formation that enables a man to enter into a chaste celibate lifestyle. This program is conducted in seminary – an environment in which men live in close contact on a constant basis. If this is the environment in which a man must receive the formation which he needs in order to live out the priesthood, then there’s an issue, isn’t there? Imagine a heterosexual man being trained to be a chaste celibate… while living in a dorm filled with women to whom he is attracted – including some who may be attracted to him. How difficult would it be for this man to fully enter into formation and prepare to live a chaste celibate life? (Not impossible, mind you, but just very difficult.) That’s one of the problems of allowing homosexual men to enter into formation in a seminary – they’ll be in a difficult environment even before they might be able to live out chastity!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Admitting in advance that I’m retrograde in this culture regarding homosexuality, I’ll say the following:

1. The “female substitute” is, in my mind, ridiculous. There are lots and lots of actual, available females. Nobody outside of prison needs a “substitute” and particularly not when the “substitute” isn’t a female at all. There are professional prostitutes, there are non-professional-prostitute women who will do it for drugs, for a party, or for gifts. There are bar-fly women everywhere who’ll do it for fun, and go to the bar for the express purpose of being picked up. So the priest doesn’t want to hook up with a parishioner? He can go to some other town or city in mufti and never be caught. Priests travel a lot. Do they not know where Tijuana is? I’m not buying this one.
2. I don’t buy the notion that pedophilia is a thing all its own, with no sexual preferences involved. Pedophilia itself is a sexual preference. Are we to assume that pedophiles have no further preference beyond just age? Doesn’t make sense. Heterosexuals have preferences beyond age. Some like thin women, some like heavier women. Some like blondes. Some like brunettes. Some like whites, some like blacks. Some like classic looks. Some like the “cute”. And the APA is so ideologically infiltrated and pressured that nobody should take their categories seriously when it comes to sex proclivities. All the money is in affirming homosexuality. Nobody is financing studies of homosexuality that do not, and anybody in the psych business who did a study would find his work savaged by the “establishment” and himself without employment. Look what happens to the people who try to return to normalcy, homosexuals who want to change. They get their licenses pulled. They get prosecuted. That’s an establishment few would be willing to fight.
3. Nor do I accept that homosexuals are no more likely to molest or seduce than are others, particularly when it comes to young men. How many young men are molested or seduced by women? Not many. When one is sexually perverted in one way, is there some persuasive reason to think he can’t possibly be perverted in other ways?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right answer. So sue me.

 

[exnihilo]

Nor do I accept that homosexuals are no more likely to molest or seduce than are others, particularly when it comes to young men. How many young men are molested or seduced by women? Not many. When one is sexually perverted in one way, is there some persuasive reason to think he can’t possibly be perverted in other ways?

I agree with everything you said, but I disagree with you on the frequency of women abusing men. I don’t know how common it is. But it doesn’t seem rare. I read news stories almost daily of some female teacher abusing one or more male students. I realize headlines aren’t the best way to form an opinion, but it sadly doesn’t seem rare.

 

[Jake21]

Admitting in advance that I’m retrograde in this culture regarding homosexuality, I’ll say the following:

1. The “female substitute” is, in my mind, ridiculous. There are lots and lots of actual, available females. Nobody outside of prison needs a “substitute” and particularly not when the “substitute” isn’t a female at all. There are professional prostitutes, there are non-professional-prostitute women who will do it for drugs, for a party, or for gifts. There are bar-fly women everywhere who’ll do it for fun, and go to the bar for the express purpose of being picked up. So the priest doesn’t want to hook up with a parishioner? He can go to some other town or city in mufti and never be caught. Priests travel a lot. Do they not know where Tijuana is? I’m not buying this one.
2. I don’t buy the notion that pedophilia is a thing all its own, with no sexual preferences involved. Pedophilia itself is a sexual preference. Are we to assume that pedophiles have no further preference beyond just age? Doesn’t make sense. Heterosexuals have preferences beyond age. Some like thin women, some like heavier women. Some like blondes. Some like brunettes. Some like whites, some like blacks. Some like classic looks. Some like the “cute”. And the APA is so ideologically infiltrated and pressured that nobody should take their categories seriously when it comes to sex proclivities. All the money is in affirming homosexuality. Nobody is financing studies of homosexuality that do not, and anybody in the psych business who did a study would find his work savaged by the “establishment” and himself without employment. Look what happens to the people who try to return to normalcy, homosexuals who want to change. They get their licenses pulled. They get prosecuted. That’s an establishment few would be willing to fight.
3. Nor do I accept that homosexuals are no more likely to molest or seduce than are others, particularly when it comes to young men. How many young men are molested or seduced by women? Not many. When one is sexually perverted in one way, is there some persuasive reason to think he can’t possibly be perverted in other ways?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right answer. So sue me.

1. I have admitted that my strong emotions may have clouded my reasoning on the priest issue. With that being said, the studies I see flying around this forum and other places that claim the homosexual/bisexual population have higher percentages of sexual assault offenders then the heterosexual population have several methodological flaws.
2. The APA is a professional organization that conducts methodologically valid studies on homosexuality, the hilarious junk science organizations like the Family Research Council on the other hand, do not conduct or site methodologically valid studies.
3. The Consistently methodologically valid APA have validly concluded that there are several methodological problems with the studies that claim ex gay “therapy” changed people’s sexual orientation.

apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The licensed theorists can be prosecuted in some states because they ban this “therapy” for minors. I hope to see every single state pass laws that ban this practice in order to protect vulnerable children that are pressured by religiously conservative parents to go through this potentially dangerous “therapy” that is not supported by valid scientific evidence.