Gay?

[Ken]

Jeffrey:

I do, as do lots of ppl.

They need to let it be known that they don’t support being a pedophile. Most pedophiles are homos btw.

As do I…prolly the only thing we’ll agree upon.

They aren’t winning, they never will. I, like alot of ppl, won’t ever accept them or thier agenda. Its sick and wrong. Besides, when its all said and done, they’ll lose.

1. Is it the obligation of all people to let it be known they are not pedophiles? Rapists? Pornographers? Tax cheats? Bad check writers? To whom do they make it known?
2. What is the incidence of pedophiles preying on girls vs pedophiles preying on boys? Are the male pedophiles who prey on girls gay? Is most molestation within families father on son, or is it father on daughter? Or maybe gay mothers on daughters? Are the fahers who molest daughters gay? I don’t know. But since you say most pedos are gay, perhaps you know.
3. Mutual disapproval of Nazis is a start.
4. I say they are winning simply by observing that they have made gains since 1970. Gay bars are no longer raided and patrons arrested on morals charges. Being gay is no longer an impediment to employment. Gays are regularly featured on TV shows. Gays are represented in just about every occupational field. Gays are very influential in mass media.
5. Now, if they think they are winning, but you don’t, then we have an optimal situation. You are both happy with the situation.
6. Your acceptance, and the aceptance of like minded people, isn’t important to them. They are quite content for you to see them as disgusting perverts. They have what they want, are getting more, and have dismissed you and other likeminded folks. That’s life.

 

[PKK]

Ken:

1. Your acceptance, and the aceptance of like minded people, isn’t important to them. They are quite content for you to see them as disgusting perverts. They have what they want, are getting more, and have dismissed you and other likeminded folks. That’s life.

You are right our acceptance of them is not important. And at the moment yes they are winning, because a lot of christians have felt more sorrow over their misguided notions than they do of the victims. I don’t look at them as digusting perverts, I loved my father (however, I was not abused to the extent that my older siblings were). I saw him as some one with a sickness though not unlike alcholism, that needed much help. However, Sodom and Gomorah (? spelling) didn’t last forever either.

 

[cestusdei]

1. We’re making progress. You no longer attribute the positions of some homosexuals to all homosexuals.

1. Does a failure to protest indicate approval? What other groups have remained silent while some of their members engaged in harmful behavior? Were they hiding their disapproval? Or were they approving?
2. Feel free to disapprove of the Nazis. I share your disapproval and feel no discomfort.
3. Feel free to disapprove of homosexuals all you want. They don’t care; they are winning. However, it remains invalid to attribute the positions of some homosexuals to all homosexuals.

1. So you would say that we cannot condemn Nazi’s because one or two might be nice guys?
2. Give me evidence that all homosexuals don’t approve of such behavior.
3. How vile of you to label a whole group ie. Nazi’s just because some of them are not very nice. Tsk tsk.
4. They are winning. Which is why they are lowering the age of consent. That is what they do when the win. Destroy marriage, religion, and the family. I fully believe they would have me locked up or dead if they had the opportunity. They have already begun doing that in other nations. But they haven’t won here yet. And just maybe we can stop you (them).

 

[Jeffrey]

I’ll more than likely be dead by then. Hopefully enough ppl will continue to see thru the lies and your kind will repent. You’ll wish you had on Judgement Day.

Mac6yver:

Believe what you want. In 50 years, your kind will be a dinosaur in this country.

 

[Jeffrey]

Ken:

1. What is the incidence of pedophiles preying on girls vs pedophiles preying on boys?

Overwhelimngly they prey on boys.

Ken:

Are the male pedophiles who prey on girls gay?

Nope…still sick tho.

Ken:

Is most molestation within families father on son, or is it father on daughter? Or maybe gay mothers on daughters? Are the fahers who molest daughters gay?

I wouldn’t know.

Ken:

I don’t know. But since you say most pedos are gay, perhaps you know.

All ya have to do is read. A rather large % of the pedophiles that I read about ( crimelibrary.com ) most were molested by another man. A few of the ‘gays’ I talked to at work said the same thing, having a ‘gay encounter’ by an older man/woman, Bible and Church teachings, books abound.

I heard and read enough to think/believe that most pedophiles are ‘gay’. They engage in homo acts. That would make them ‘gay’.

 

[Ken]

1.** So you would say that we cannot condemn Nazi’s because one or two might be nice guys? **

I already said you should feel free to condemn Nazis. Go for it.

2. Give me evidence that all homosexuals don’t approve of such behavior.

Andrew Sullivan says he is a homosexual. On his blog he has opposed lowering the age of sxual consent.

3. How vile of you to label a whole group ie. Nazi’s just because some of them are not very nice. Tsk tsk.

Are you now supporting Nazis? Is this Church policy?

4. They are winning. Which is why they are lowering the age of consent. That is what they do when the win. Destroy marriage, religion, and the family. I fully believe they would have me locked up or dead if they had the opportunity. They have already begun doing that in other nations. But they haven’t won here yet. And just maybe we can stop you (them).

I really don’t think they care about you one way or another. I’d say most gays would recommend benign neglect. You are no threat. Why would anyone want to see you dead?

 

[Maggie]

Is it me or are you guys really really having to stretch on the analogies? Nazi-ism was an ideologic belief system which encompassed an awful lot of Christians at the time. Hitler, being a sick, twisted megalomaniac, also happened to be a very religious person. So you might want to watch which analogies you choose.

Homosexuals whether you choose to view them thus or not generally do not choose to have these tendencies. They have a choice on whether to act on them, and some of them similar to any other group that feels oppressed, may choose to share their own misery by recruiting others to it, but that hardly represents the majority or really even a small minority.

And pedophilia is NOT equivalent to homosexuality. Pedophilia is about power over an innocent and inability to be sexually stimulated by a mature adult. Whether the child is male or female doesn’t matter because pre-pubescent children don’t have sexual characteristics. The rates of genders abused tend to reflect the level of trust parents have in leaving their children with the same gender care-taker. Women as well as men can and do abuse children. And they can and do often use the parents to get to the children as in the example stated in another post.

What would be so wrong with accepting the notion that you can condemn the acts without condemning the people? That you can try to fight within society that way and probably get an awful lot of homosexuals to pick up that banner if you approached it that way rather than with a blanket statement condemning all homosexuals. We have no business attacking the personhood of any other person. I don’t care if he’s blue, green, gray, or gay. We are playing then by the same rules that the abortion advocates use in killing millions of children. I can attack this person because they aren’t one. They don’t count, they don’t matter, they have no right to human dignity.

 

[Ptero]

** I think that I agree with Ken that only by really cracking down from the pulpit on all of it can we not be seen as bigots and can we really begin to get people to recognize these aspects of moral teaching for what they are…**

I agree that Catholic teaching should be heard from Catholic teachers/pastors. Amen to that! As a person who will be in RCIA this fall, I have deep concerns over the crowd of “dissenters” and how much voice they have in the church. If I wanted to join a church that taught that abortion, gay marriage, contraceptive use, women pastors were desirable, I would not be looking into the catholic church, but perhaps the episcopal church.

**I really wish people would stop using this analogy. Pedophilia ruins a person for life. It’s not the same in any way shape or form. It’s an insult to anyone who has ever suffered from child sexual abuse to go around throwing it out there as equivalent. **

There is a reason I like to use this analogy.

Because most people still find sexual relations between adults and children repulsive, and yet I strongly feel that in 20 years this too will change if the current moral climate continues. My hope in using this analogy is to remind anyone out there who is old enough to remember that it wasn’t too long ago that many people would have been repulsed by a comparison between:

Contraceptive use leading to an acceptance and legalization of abortion.

Especially once the gay community is fully accepted in all their glory, and not just those who want to behave as responsible heterosexuals do, but those who have no qualms about who they hurt in the course of their fight to change laws that are in effect to protect people who need protection, namely women and children.

I am not hear to insult anyone who has experienced the horror of sexual abuse.

I am sorry Maggie that you are offended by the comparison to pedophilia.

I must though take issue with your statement that a person who is sexually abused is “ruined for life.” This is probably the last thing a sexually abused person needs to hear.

Several very close friends of mine have suffered tremendously both as victims and one as victim turned perpetrator of sex abuse. I know that neither of these people are ruined for life. Of course they are seriously affected, but we all have a cross to carry, my only desire is to help others to carry theirs as plenty of folks have helped me to carry mine.

 

[Ptero]

Hitler, being a sick, twisted megalomaniac, also happened to be a very religious person.

Huh?..define religious!

Hitler was a big fan of the occult, and he was also arrested several times in his younger days for male prostitution. Many of his close minions were secretly gay and pederasts. He wanted to return Germany to the pre-christian pagan days, he worshipped Wotan.

He may publicly have chosen to persecute some homosexuals , but he was about as far from being an orthodox catholic as one can be, if you are suggesting otherwise.

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=hitler+%26+homosexuality&btnG=Search

There’s lots of reading you can do on this subject. Also, read Roy Shoeman’s book “Salvation is From the Jews.”

Another insightful book on an inside look at how gays act politically as a group seeking to obtain power is Michael Roses “Goodbye Good Men.”

Yes, I agree that we don’t need to pile hate upon hate, but politically speaking shouldn’t we all be invested in protecting the culture from people who aren’t invested in the culture’s future?

Ultimately, I don’t see gays as winning as some do here. Not in the eyes of God. I only think it wise to pay attention to history and at least make an attempt to protect the culture.

Being suspect of gay political power has little to with a dislike or condemnation of individuals and everything to do with protection for the good of the whole culture from the motions of a potentially powerful group that has nothing but an identity based upon sexual acts to pass down to future generations.

 

[cestusdei]

Ken, they are already arresting clergy. They create hate crimes laws as a pretext. Btw, many top Nazi’s were gay, but let’s not be judgemental. So far you have Sullivan. That’s it? Just one? Maybe show me a major homosexual group that worked against lowering the age of consent. I really don’t think you can refute me. Just contradicting me won’t do it. If you are Catholic you might be in the wrong Church. But you won’t say what church you belong to or whether you accept church teaching. I never trust those who try to dodge basic questions. I suppose I should ask whether you are homosexual. It makes sense as you are really keen on their agenda.

 

[Maggie]

That’s okay Ptero you actually haven’t offended me. We disagree on the pedophilia, but it sounds to me like we don’t disagree greatly on the homosexuality points. You treat them as individuals, not as a group, and I try to do the same. My understanding of some of Ken’s points may be off, but I don’t think he is looking for anything more than that. It isn’t that he wants them to be looked at as a group or to have political power he is simply asking that they not all be tarred with the same brush. The problem with the approach that is being asked of them is that they are being forced out of the closet by one side or the other… the crosses they bear are being asked to be displayed publicly by groups of people that don’t actually want them on either side.

 

[Ken]

cestusdei:

Ken, they are already arresting clergy. They create hate crimes laws as a pretext. Btw, many top Nazi’s were gay, but let’s not be judgemental. So far you have Sullivan. That’s it? Just one? Maybe show me a major homosexual group that worked against lowering the age of consent. I really don’t think you can refute me. Just contradicting me won’t do it. If you are Catholic you might be in the wrong Church. But you won’t say what church you belong to or whether you accept church teaching. I never trust those who try to dodge basic questions. I suppose I should ask whether you are homosexual. It makes sense as you are really keen on their agenda.

I wouldn’t doubt that clergy are being arrested somewhere. I am speaking of the US. No clergy have been arrested in the US for speaking out agianst gays. The gays just don’t care what the clergy are saying. You should feel free to say whatever you want without worrying about arrest.

OK. If some top Nazis were homosexuals, then I guess the rest were heterosexual. What’s your point?

You asked that I demonstrate that all homosexuals don’t support lowered age of consent. It only takes one to demonstrate that.

It is unreasonable to conclude that a person supports something because they didn’t protest it. As I said before, how many Catholic priests protested their fellow priests sexual abuse over a forty year period? That in no way means those priests supported sexual abuse. Do you think it does?

 

[chemcatholic]

Gay domesticated pets hardly prove that homosexuality is prevalent within the animal kingdom. To use the comparison to animals, you need to observe a large variety of animals in their natural habitat, unaltered by humans. Domesticated and captive animals are hardly in their natural environment. Besides, dogs also naturally sniff each others butts. It’s pretty lame to pick and choose practices of other species and apply them to humans.

And yes, infertile couples should be allowed to marry. Re-read the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah was infertile, yet God gave them a son. Neither male-male nor female-female sexual acts can ever produce a child.

Peace

 

[cestusdei]

Ken, in Europe one minister is in jail and a Cardinal is on trial. In Canada they just passed a law that gives a 2 year sentence for saying what I say here. The US isn’t far behind. But I don’t think you care about homosexuals (or the truth). You don’t mind them being beheaded in Saudi Arabia. What you don’t like is the Catholic Church. You are for anyone who is against it. The priests who committed those acts were homosexuals. They did it because they were gay not because they were priests. And they did it even though it is contrary to our doctrines. It proves my point. Homosexuals were the main perpetrators.

I find that you tend to not provide real evidence. Also you are careful not to mention your church affiliation or sexual orientation. I challenged you to provide evidence that homosexual groups worked against lowering the age of consent. You have not done so. Therefore you lose. Put up or shut up. You didn’t put up, so now just slink away and sulk. If you had evidence you would have posted it. You didn’t. My point carries. Don’t post to me again unless you give PROOF. I will repeat this over and over again.

 

[Ken]

cestusdei:

Ken, in Europe one minister is in jail and a Cardinal is on trial. In Canada they just passed a law that gives a 2 year sentence for saying what I say here. The US isn’t far behind. But I don’t think you care about homosexuals (or the truth). You don’t mind them being beheaded in Saudi Arabia. What you don’t like is the Catholic Church. You are for anyone who is against it. The priests who committed those acts were homosexuals. They did it because they were gay not because they were priests. And they did it even though it is contrary to our doctrines. It proves my point. Homosexuals were the main perpetrators.

I find that you tend to not provide real evidence. Also you are careful not to mention your church affiliation or sexual orientation. I challenged you to provide evidence that homosexual groups worked against lowering the age of consent. You have not done so. Therefore you lose. Put up or shut up. You didn’t put up, so now just slink away and sulk. If you had evidence you would have posted it. You didn’t. My point carries. Don’t post to me again unless you give PROOF. I will repeat this over and over again.

I accept that clerics have been jailed for speech in some countries. I do not accept that this indicates the same will happen un the US.

Those countries have long had laws forbidding expression against various religious and racial groups. So, they simply added homosexuals to the class of protected groups. All these laws are somewhat silly.

We can look at our history to see if it is probable that the US will follow those countries.

It has been forty years since the major civil rights legislation was passed. Yet there are no laws against speaking out against Blacks. Support for anti-discrimination laws was much stronger than the support for gays, yet we are still free to speak out against Blacks if we choose.

In the Seventies and Eighties legislation was passed to redress problems women had in the workplace. Support for women and this legislation was much stronger that support for gays. Yet we are still free to speak against women if we choose.

There never have been laws prohibiting speaking against religion, and religions have been in the US for hundreds of years and have strong support. Yet we are still free to speak against any religion we choose.

So, the history and tradition of the US does not indicate that laws prohibiting speaking against gays will be enacted.

Keep speaking out against gays if you choose. It’s your right to do so, and I support it. Nobody cares. Nobody is listening. Nobody will put you in jail.

---

I do object to the execution of gays in Saudi. It is rare, but it happens. I object because there is no reason to kill them. Do you favor killing gays?

---

I have never claimed that gay groups worked against the lowering of sexual consent age. I do claim that lack of protest does not indicate approval.

A subset of Catholic priests were sexual abusers over the past forty years according to the John Jay report commissioned by the USCCB. We did not see Catholic priests protesting that activity over the past forty years. Nor did we see an organization of Catholic priests protesting. This absence of protest does not in any way indicate that the full set of Catholic priests support sexual abuse.

---

Feel free to post whatever you choose as often as you choose… I support your right to do so.

 

[Ken]

chemcatholic:

Gay domesticated pets hardly prove that homosexuality is prevalent within the animal kingdom. To use the comparison to animals, you need to observe a large variety of animals in their natural habitat, unaltered by humans. Domesticated and captive animals are hardly in their natural environment. Besides, dogs also naturally sniff each others butts. It’s pretty lame to pick and choose practices of other species and apply them to humans.

And yes, infertile couples should be allowed to marry. Re-read the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah was infertile, yet God gave them a son. Neither male-male nor female-female sexual acts can ever produce a child.

Peace

I’m sure we might be able to find socially redeeming reasons for the marriage of infertile couples other than the hope that God will intervene. Are there any reasons other than the hope that a miracle will produce kids? If we were to rely on miracles, I suppose God to also cause a lesbian couple to conveive. But I wouldn’t count on it or design social policy around it.

 

[cestusdei]

Ken, actually you did see protests. For example the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, CUF, and like minded groups warned the bishops. Even Rome warned the bishops. So now where is the evidence I requested from you? Put up or shut up.

 

[Ken]

cestusdei:

Ken, actually you did see protests. For example the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, CUF, and like minded groups warned the bishops. Even Rome warned the bishops. So now where is the evidence I requested from you? Put up or shut up.

They warned the bishops? Does that get all the silent Catholic priests off your hook?

And Rome warned them, too. Does that also get all the silent Catholic priests off your hook?

As I said before, I do not accept the logic you propose that failure to protest indicates acceptance.

For every Catholic priest, we may ask, what did you know, when did you know it, and what was your protest? However, even if they remained silent, it does not indicate they approved of the antics of their fellow priests or bishops.

Are you holding Catholic priests to a lower standard than homosexuals? The homosexuals would accept that challenge.

 

[Ptero]

**For every Catholic priest, we may ask, what did you know, when did you know it, and what was your protest? However, even if they remained silent, it does not indicate they approved of the antics of their fellow priests or bishops.

Are you holding Catholic priests to a lower standard than homosexuals? The homosexuals would accept that challenge.**

Ironically, one could easily argue that the priest sex abuse scandel happened in a climate in which some of the seminaries and diocese included *active * homosexuals and other dissenters who supported the sexual revolution and were very much a part of the power structure both in the seminaries and as directors at diocesan vocation offices…sorto of makes you go hmmm.

So, no many of the priests involved in the scandel, even if not actually active homosexuals were part of an entire generation of priests who in many cases had to show agreement with the liberal sexual agenda at seminaries and later at the more liberal parisheses where they were placed or risk being ostracized or even dismissed from being ordained.

Again, I highly recommend reading “Goodbye Good Men.”

Evidently, according to the author Michael Rose, many many potential orthodox men seeking ordination, regardless of their orientation, with a clear calling to the priesthood were thwarted in their efforts to become a priest by the homosexual subculture that had developed in some of the seminaries. If a man did not show approval of the open homosexuality going on at the seminary he did not last there long especially if he protested or complained.

Do you still think there’s no connection between homosxuality and pedophilia (especially sexual relations between teen boys and men)?

And, yes, back in 1988 there was an attempt at reform, both of the seminaries and within the dioceses regarding sex abuse scandels at the parish level. Many more orthodox priests/bishops saw it coming and some diocese did in fact clean up their act. Fall River, MA was cited as a good example, but there were others.

So, it may be a hard pill to swallow, but a priestly/bishopric culture in which homosexuality was accepted is very much a part of the sex abuse scandel.

 

[cestusdei]

Ken, please give the evidence I requested.