Is promoting homosexuality "social justice"?

[estesbob]

Factually wrong. There have been priests involved with girls and women only.

A very small minority.88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent males.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Let’s see…sodomy is the ramming of the male sexual organ into the lower digestive tract of another person. A common form of gay sex.

Now you are intimating that I, Zoltan, am performing that act with “the language”.

Joie, old sport, I don’t know how to tell you this, but “the language” has no digestive tract at all. So it really can’t work.

I would think that an intelligent writer like yourself could come up with a better analogy than a disgusting, perverted sexual practice.

Actually no, sodomy is all inherently sterile sexual acts (even if both parties involved are of the opposite sex) e.g. anal sex and oral sex although I concede the correct term would be “bugger” in this case not “sodomize” by which I refer to you defiling the English language.

That’s all really special…but it is not a definition.

My DEFINITION is logical, intuitively sound and is in agreement with the Church’s definition as found in the catechism

Actually for homosexuality that is a definition and the word homosexual was defined through usage in the book, but of course since the book was deliberately written to be inaccessible to plebes how could you know that?

You are neither coining a word nor is it a natural evolution of the word.

Another, Joie de Vivre analogy

Actually that’s not an analogy, I used the word in a fashion that it has had since the beginning and that particular meaning of that word is a natural extension of it’s etymological roots.

You don’t know Barney…

Who is Barney? Is he a man of straw? Also, thou shall not have more than three consecutive periods in a row unless it is exactly four and the first one is in fact used as a full stop to denote the end of a sentence.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Promotion of homosexuality is social injustice.
,

 

[SMGS127]

A very small minority.88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent males.

Do you have evidence that shows that 88% of the abuse was men at or above the age of 16? Because I’m pretty sure the vast majority of abuse victims as defined in the Jay report were NOT post-pubescent, and were, in fact, under the age of 15, not having fully developed secondary sexual characteristics yet. If you have some evidence that contradicts the Jay report that the victims were overwhelmingly not post-pubescent, I would like to see it.

 

[estesbob]

Do you have evidence that shows that 88% of the abuse was men at or above the age of 16? Because I’m pretty sure the vast majority of abuse victims as defined in the Jay report were NOT post-pubescent, and were, in fact, under the age of 15, not having fully developed secondary sexual characteristics yet. If you have some evidence that contradicts the Jay report that the victims were overwhelmingly not post-pubescent, I would like to see it.

My statistics came from the Jay Report. Puberty occurs before the age of 16 so I don’t know why that is relevant to the discussion. .One simply can not dismiss the fact the overwhelming majority of those abused were post pubsecent males.

 

[SMGS127]

My statistics came from the Jay Report. Puberty occurs before the age of 16 so I don’t know why that is relevant to the discussion. .One simply can not dismiss the fact the overwhelming majority of those abused were post pubsecent males.

Absolutely not true.

Pre-pubescent males are men under the age of 11. (pedophilia is the attraction here).

Pubescent males are men between ages 11-15 (hebephilia is the attraction here).

Post-pubescent males are men ages 16 and up (ephebophilia/teleiophilia/gerontophilia cover the 3 age groups here).

The Jay Report listed the overwhelmingly majority of abuse victims as under the age of 16, making your claim that they were post-pubescent false.

 

[JimG]

The John Jay Report can be found here:
Breakdown of victims by age and gender can be found in the chart on page 19 of the pdf file.

Also of interest is the graph of the incidence of abuse by year on page 16 of the pdf file.

 

[SMGS127]

The John Jay Report can be found here:
Breakdown of victims by age and gender can be found in the chart on page 19 of the pdf file.

Also of interest is the graph of the incidence of abuse by year on page 16 of the pdf file.

Thank you.

65.44% of the male abuse victims were under the age of 15. And while the 15-17 block isn’t further broken up, if we divided it evenly by age (which it isn’t, since the bell curve means that 15-yos are much more likely to have been abused than 17-yos), the most conservative estimate one could come up with is that roughly 77% of the male abuse victims were, in fact, not post-pubescent.

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely not true.

Pre-pubescent males are men under the age of 11. (pedophilia is the attraction here).

Pubescent males are men between ages 11-15 (hebephilia is the attraction here).

Post-pubescent males are men ages 16 and up (ephebophilia/teleiophilia/gerontophilia cover the 3 age groups here).

The Jay Report listed the overwhelmingly majority of abuse victims as under the age of 16, making your claim that they were post-pubescent false.

Puberty is not defined as being 16 or older You are attempting to start a semantics argument The truth is 88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent males.It’s in the report_the problem was not pedophilic priests-it was homosexual priests. .

 

[SMGS127]

Puberty is not defined as being 16 or older You are attempting to start a semantics argument The truth is 88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent males.It’s in the report_the problem was not pedophilic priests-it was homosexual priests. .

You didn’t say PUBERTAL males. You said POST-pubertal males. There is a HUGE distinction here. The vast majority of abuse was NEITHER pedophilic nor homosexual; it was hebephilic abuse of pubescent (not post-pubescent) male victims.

A 10-yo boy does not gain facial hair, huge muscles, and two feet of height overnight on his 11th birthday.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you.

65.44% of the male abuse victims were under the age of 15. And while the 15-17 block isn’t further broken up, if we divided it evenly by age (which it isn’t, since the bell curve means that 15-yos are much more likely to have been abused than 17-yos), the most conservative estimate one could come up with is that roughly 77% of the male abuse victims were, in fact, not post-pubescent.

So it isn’t homosexual rape if the male is under 15? Again the report shows that 88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubescent makes Rather than admit the obvious-the abuse was almost exclusively carried out by homosexual priests-you want to argue about terminology.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

My statistics came from the Jay Report. Puberty occurs before the age of 16 so I don’t know why that is relevant to the discussion. .One simply can not dismiss the fact the overwhelming majority of those abused were post pubsecent males.

Puberty isn’t an instantaneous thing, it is a process that in males usually finishes 16-17 range.

 

[SMGS127]

So it isn’t homosexual rape if the male is under 15? Again the report shows that 88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubescent makes.

Actually, considering, at a bare minimum, 77% of the male abuse was children under the age of 16, it is literally impossible mathematically for 88% of abuse to have featured post-pubescent males I have no idea where you got that number.

And no it is not homosexual (or heterosexual) rape if the child is under the age of 16 (male) or 14 (female). I really don’t understand why some people are so adamant that 12 and 13-yos are sexually attractive to those with adult attractions. I’ve never personally found a 12-yo girl attractive, and I highly doubt you find 12-yo girls attractive either . It makes no sense to connect gay men to abuse of 12-yo boys.

 

[estesbob]

Puberty isn’t an instantaneous thing, it is a process that in males usually finishes 16-17 range.

At what age does homosexual rape become homosexual rape? Can we set least agree this was not a problem of pedoiphilia in the Priesthood?

 

[SMGS127]

At what age does homosexual rape become homosexual rape? Can we set least agree this was not a problem of pedoiphilia in the Priesthood?

Of course it wasn’t a pedophile problem. It was a hebephile problem. We allowed, through too much trust, hebephiles to infiltrate the Church to get access to young, pubescent boys and girls.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Of course it wasn’t a pedophile problem. It was a hebephile problem. We allowed, through too much trust, hebephiles to infiltrate the Church to get access to young, pubescent boys and girls.

Maybe estesbob has some personal knowledge that men have a natural appetite for pubescent people that we as women simply don’t understand.

 

[SMGS127]

Maybe estesbob has some personal knowledge that men have a natural appetite for pubescent people that we as women simply don’t understand.

I highly doubt it, and I would never insinuate such a thing. I just think gay people are an easy scapegoat for people not wanting to address the fact that we, as a Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood.

 

[Rau]

A very small minority.88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent males.

I suspect by post-pubescent, you mean a person for whom puberty has already commenced. So this refers to upper primary school and beyond. To be clear, we’re talking about a cohort that is comprised, substantially, of children.

Are there any reports around that quantify the extent of adult consensual homosexual relations involving a priest, especially those priests found to have abused children. I wonder what extent of overlap there is? My guess - not much.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually no, sodomy is all inherently sterile sexual acts (even if both parties involved are of the opposite sex) e.g. anal sex and oral sex although I concede the correct term would be “bugger” in this case not “sodomize” by which I refer to you defiling the English language.

Pardon my plebeian status, but to claim that sodomy is sterile is totally absurd.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

In other words…YUK!

Now, if you are alluding to the fact that sodomy will not impregnate a female, while true, that has no bearing on our discussion. Homosexuals obviously do not engage in sodomy for procreation purposes.

Actually for homosexuality that is a definition and the word homosexual was defined through usage in the book, but of course since the book was deliberately written to be inaccessible to plebes how could you know that?

If a word is defined by usage…it can mean anything.

A Homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct.

There, you have it. A definition even a plebe can understand.

You are neither coining a word nor is it a natural evolution of the word.

Your grasp of the obvious is astounding. I was simply defining the word.

Now that we have our terms correctly defined…we can continue our discussion.

Actually that’s not an analogy, I used the word in a fashion that it has had since the beginning and that particular meaning of that word is a natural extension of it’s etymological roots.

As long as it meets our definition. You may use the word in any fashion you like.

Who is Barney? Is he a man of straw? Also, thou shall not have more than three consecutive periods in a row unless it is exactly four and the first one is in fact used as a full stop to denote the end of a sentence.

Barney is not exactly a strawman. He is my example of a gay man. An “every-gay-man” so to say. He can be an unassuming gentleman or a flaming drag queen…a guy who deals with his problems or a radical gay activist. We will see him again.

Oh, sorry about the dots…I’ll work on that.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As am I. Does the size of financial settlement really matter, or are the facts of the crime more pertinent?

Form your own view on what value of law suit the following might be worth in the USA…one abused girl suicides and the other plunged into alcohol abuse and a resulting severe disability. They were sisters in primary school, victims of the same priest.
abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3640045.htm

This priest abused boys too.

I am not counting financial settlements nor am I diminishing the suffering of abused girls.

I was focusing on the hundreds of abuses by gay and pedophile priests. At lease until you began what seems to be a smoke screen.