Interesting article from a gay man about the abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, this is a ridiculous article, among other excerpts:

"Like many same-sex attracted men, I have at times compulsively engaged in risky anonymous behavior with other men. "

This man has his own experience; but that doesn’t mean he can generalize it. I’m sorry, but being gay does not make one a sex seeking automaton. I’m fully convinced any priest has the same basic ability to control his sexuality as any other.
 
I think a good case can be made that those with SSA are hypersexual. I think this is definitely true of males who live a homosexual life. That being so I absolutely think they could tend to abuse more.
 
If priests had had just as much access to girls as what they did to boys, I think that the abuse victims would be more equally divided between boys and girls.
 
exnihilo said:
I think a good case can be made that those with SSA are hypersexual. I think this is definitely true of males who live a homosexual life. That being so I absolutely think they could tend to abuse more.
Click to expand...
Instead of just saying what you think without providing any evidence to support yourself, why not provide some statistics from reliable sources about how often gay men have sex as compared to straight men if you want to prove your contention that gay men are “hypersexual.” And it’s quite a big leap from your unsupported claim that gay men are “hypersexual” to then say, “That being so…” as if you have already proven your previous statement. Stop trying to blame gay people as a group for the sexual abuse problems in the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
Homosexual at CAF always seem to mean gay men. Any lesbian religious seem to fly under the radar of public attention.
There were statistic work done in connection to the aids epidemic in the 1980s that gay men lived more riskfilled lives compared to gay women. More casual and opportunistic sex, more partners and so on.

This does not translate into pedofile desires. Period.

But it does suggest that similar gender differences could apply in general to persons with societally unaccepted desires. (I could be clearer. Tried to keep the language clean)
 
Is this what you are saying here, that you just cannot accept that someone with a psychological sexual disorder somehow makes them more likely to act in a sexually disordered way?

It is not hard to accept that people with disorders act disorderly. Why is it hard for people to accept? Is it a culture that says that it is okay and not disordered? Or is it a personal matter because some know people who have this disorder?
 
Lea101 said:
psychological sexual disorder somehow makes them more likely to act in a sexually disordered way?
Click to expand...
Only in the modern world would someone need data to back up a claim that a person with a disorder would be more likely to act in a disordered way. I have no data to backup this statement either.
Click to expand...
 
I do not think that homosexuality is a cause of child abuse. The disorder is likely very related to the person’s own idea or inadequacy of masculinity which somehow translates to an attraction to the masculine. If this is a sound theory it doesn’t likely translate to pedophilia. It does however translate to post-pubescent attraction which the vast majority of these cases have been. Is that something that you can accept? Not that it creates a “child abuser” but that it develops an attraction to young men? This is exactly what appears to be the problem here.
 
Let me try…the overall rate of SSA in the general population is 2.2+/- 0.4%…the rate of SSA in those raised by homosexual couples is 33%. Why!!!
Back in the mid-70’s, I worked as lay director at the Newman Center at a to-be-unnamed urban university.Those in campus ministry throughout the diocese were invited to a get-together by a group that met for Sunday worship at the Newman Center of another university.
Long story short, the ‘group’ was made up of sexually active homosexuals who tried to convince the rest of us that they were no different than anyone else. Even back then, the sexual abuse of children was a hot topic. They claimed that 10% [obsolete Masters & Johnson statistics] of the general population had SSA, but only 5% were ‘open’ about it…This 5% was responsible for ‘only’ 30% of child molestation.
I asked if it would be reasonable to assume that the ‘closeted’ SSA people would be responsible for another 30%…“Yes, that’s reasonable.”
One member of the ‘group’ mentioned that he was approached by a 12-year-old male who thought he had SSA…rather than tell him to wait a few years, he suggested joining a Boy Scout troop, and doing a little ‘exploring’…
So, we see that 2.2% of the population is responsible for 60% of child molestation, the rate of SSA among those raised by homosexual couples is 15 times the expected rate, and active homosexuals encourage experimentation among juveniles.
Draw your own conclusions.
 
I think alot of you are ignoring the opportunistic nature of the vast majority of sex crimes. The people accused are those who predominantly only had access to boys and young teenage males and no other legitimate sexual outlet, these are crimes of opportunity created by a culture that represses human sexuality to a dangerous degree.
 
On top of other factors as well.

You would think we know better than to simply blame homosexuality
 
Inquisitor85 said:
I think alot of you are ignoring the opportunistic nature of the vast majority of sex crimes. The people accused are those who predominantly only had access to boys and young teenage males and no other legitimate sexual outlet, these are crimes of opportunity created by a culture that represses human sexuality to a dangerous degree.
Click to expand...
So homosexuality isn’t an inclination or orientation but an opportunistic thing? That isn’t a good answer as far as upholding the notion it is something you are born with or is otherwise out of your control from a young age.
 
Lea101 said:
Wow, you really thought you did something, huh?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I pointed out how ‘scientific data’ isn’t the only way to get knowledge and is in fact itself dependent on other means. Scientism is as bad as any theocracy ever was.
 
Science doesn’t get you every answer there is, but if you’re making a statement about psychology and disorders, it’s only fitting that you back it up with psychological articles instead of opinions, guesses or simple observations.

Same goes if I was making a theological argument, a biological one etc.
 
Last edited:
I did back it up with a study. A study of the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals. Anyone can verify the numbers. In a sense the data doesn’t matter because it is always a question of interpretation. So with the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal people make up reasons for why the fact the overwhelming number of people abused being boys doesn’t mean it is due to homosexuality.

Also psychology is the most political field ever. It isn’t a science at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top