Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[WilT]

It is an awfully twisted argument. Basically the argument is that people of faith should have no say in the laws of the country unless a check their religion at the door.

Catholics have every much are they right have their moral views encompassed in the law as a do homosexuals.

 

[gianfranco]

A piece published this month in the American Thinker reveals what has long been suspected, even by some proponents of gay marriage themselves:

…This all leads to a recent piece in the Daily Beast by Jay Michaelson, a gay writer who favors same-sex marriage but is wary of a plot to undermine the institution.

** He notes that while “we now know that the sky doesn’t fall when gays get married,” there is validity to the “conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage.” Michaelson describes this change as the “Christian Right’s nightmare” because it eschews fidelity, and thus the sacred bond taken between man and wife. Should gay marriage become the norm, it will turn the institution into a “sex-positive, body-affirming compact” with little regard to the spiritual aspect of man and woman becoming “one flesh.”** He even goes as far as to note that polygamy and infidelity are widely acknowledged and accepted in the gay community.

**I suspect that has been the plan all along. **It’s not enough to gain the right to be married in a church. It’s not even enough to agitate public opinion into such a frenzy that dissent becomes a hatred-driven treason against humanity. The end goal is the total annihilation of the bourgeois vision of marriage.

americanthinker.com/2014/06/dissolving_the_institution_of_marriage.html

These were the main suspicions of many persons opposed to legalizing same sex marriage: That it would alter [intentionally] the very meaning and basis for marriage, and that it would seek to destroy traditional marriage.

Many secular people have found this deeply disturbing. It is not only the Catholic or other religious views which find this tendency to be fatal.

 

[EasterJoy]

If same sex marriage is not the end point - the last consequence we are seeing from a deterioration of standards which began publicly in the late 1960s - then what is right now? Where is the end of the thread to be picked up, to your thinking?

In any case to call SSM a beginning point is to miss what abortion, no-fault divorce, feminism , day care culture did to bring us to this current point…

Consider what C.S. Lewis had to say in #35 of The Screwtape Letters:

*The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere “understanding”. Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.

But the greatest triumph of all is to elevate his horror of the Same Old Thing into a philosophy so that nonsense in the intellect may reinforce corruption in the will. It is here that the general Evolutionary or Historical character of modern European thought (partly our work) comes in so useful. The Enemy loves platitudes. Of a proposed course of action He wants men, so far as I can see, to ask very simple questions; is it righteous? is it prudent? is it possible? Now if we can keep men asking “Is it in accordance with the general movement of our time? Is it progressive or reactionary? Is this the way that History is going?” they will neglect the relevant questions. And the questions they do ask are, of course, unanswerable; for they do not know the future, and what the future will be depends very largely on just those choices which they now invoke the future to help them to make. As a result, while their minds are buzzing in this vacuum, we have the better chance to slip in and bend them to the action we have decided on. And great work has already been done. Once they knew that some changes were for the better, and others for the worse, and others again indifferent. We have largely removed this knowledge. For the descriptive adjective “unchanged” we have substituted the emotional adjective “stagnant”. We have trained them to think of the Future as a promised land which favored heroes attain—not as something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is. *

We have to be very careful to just stick with whether what is being done or proposed right now is righteous, prudent, and possible. There is no “this is the worst it can get” and there is no “we are safe from harm if we just steer as hard in X direction as humanly possible.”

That is why the Lord said, “the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” (Matt. 7:13-14) No one ever found the narrow way that leads to life by steering as hard to the left or as hard to the right as possible. The lie that people of the same sex can have marriages together is on one extreme, but the opposite lie that people who would even desire such a thing are worse sinners than any of the rest of us is on the other. This is why the Popes of our time have always been in trouble: that is, because they speak the truth to people who are on both extremes who believe righteousness is only to be found at an extreme. That is not the way moral discernment works.

We are not in the worst time of all times. There are many evils that have been defended in other times that are rarely tolerated in our own time. Many injustices that used to be accepted as a fact of life are no longer accepted. We ought to be grateful for that. Still, we have our own self-deceptions going on, too, just as every age has. We never run out of them. Most of all, we should never think that giving into despair and conceding ground has ever stopped evil. Appeasement of evil never stops it; it usually encourages it to even greater boldness. That is as true in society as it is in ourselves, and I think that any of us who does an examination of conscience on a regular basis knows how that goes!

 

[WilT]

History teaches us that since the dawn of civilization, under all kinds of societies and all kinds of religions, marriage was between man and woman. Even polygamous marriage was between man and woman. For millenia.

Let’s see, was that because of religious totalitarianism?
No, because it existed under nearly all and no forms of religion.

When did someone—anyone–decide that marriage could ever be between other than sexually complementary persons—i.e. man and woman? Oh, let’s see, within about the past 20 years or so.

Was it religion that made humans man and woman?
Not at all. That’s just biological fact.

Was it religion that invented sexual complementarity between man and woman?
Not at all. That’s just an anatomical fact.

Marriage as a natural institution grew out of those biological facts.
Biology is so totalitarian!

 

[gianfranco]

Thank you for that very apt CS Lewis quote. He was a shrewd observer of human and religious psychology.

I would agree wholly that same sex marriage is neither the sole nor the worst scourge of our times. Its saturation in the mainstream media makes it seem a pressing issue. It will have many consequences, but I do agree there are many other things which are equally worrying, including inside of our own psyches.

 

[theCrow]

A great response/question to the OP:

Originally Posted by atjar:

Again, you never answer how gays being allowed the same legal right to get a marriage license as a man and a woman impacts your ability to marry/be with a womam/marry as a hetero couple and live as such. Does it prevent you from getting married? How are gays gettting married imposing anything on you? For centuries, citizenry was defined a certain way - blacks couldn’t vote and were slaves and only 3/5 a person; women couldn’t vote and society found it right and just to allow rights only to white guys. Those institutio:ns changed because society eventually became more enlightened. This is the same.

 

[Joe_5859]

A great response/question to the OP:

Originally Posted by atjar:

Again, you never answer how gays being allowed the same legal right to get a marriage license as a man and a woman impacts your ability to marry/be with a womam/marry as a hetero couple and live as such. Does it prevent you from getting married? How are gays gettting married imposing anything on you? For centuries, citizenry was defined a certain way - blacks couldn’t vote and were slaves and only 3/5 a person; women couldn’t vote and society found it right and just to allow rights only to white guys. Those institutio:ns changed because society eventually became more enlightened. This is the same.

This is not the same as those civil rights issues. Gay people are not being denied anything. They have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. But that’s not what they want.

There is one level on which gay people getting “married” does not impact my marriage. I will still be married to my wife even if the whole world crumbles down around us. That won’t change based on legislation.

But don’t think for one moment that such a seismic shift in the society’s definition of marriage will somehow only influence a small bubble of people. Social change never works that way. Like it or not, it effects everyone.

In a sense, the definition of marriage has been being undermined long before gay marriage became the issue of the day. People started reducing marriage to the State’s stamp of approval of a loving consensual adult relationship. Children were removed from the equation with contraception. Permanence was removed from the equation with no-fault divorce. And now sexual complementarity is being removed from the equation.

This effects society. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all society. Every human being has a mother and a father. Sure, circumstances might prevent some children from being raised by their biological parents, but we all have them. And the ideal is that our biological parents step up to the plate and raise us. When we start tinkering with that very simple formula, bad things tend to happen. Children are not valued. Commitment is not valued. We cannot insulate ourselves from the consequences of such a severe social experiment. We are all living in the same society, swimming in the same cultural waters. We sink or swim together.

 

[JimG]

Robert R. Reilly has said: “What we are experiencing today is a kind of sexual Marxism. Instead of a classless society, we have a genderless society.”

Then he goes on to say:

“Active homosexuals rationalize their misbehavior in the same way as anyone else rationalizes their immoral acts. We all have disordered desires of one sort or another. If we choose to act upon them, as Aristotle taught in The Ethics, we must present the bad act to ourselves as a good act. Otherwise, we would be incapable of choosing it. In other words, when we lie, we are not really lying or, when we steal, we are not really taking someone else’s property. As J. Budziszewski puts it, we aim “not to become just, but to justify ourselves.”

(from this interview)

It is not of course, only gays who lie to themselves about moral reality. We have all become quite adept at it. Particularly in the wake of the contraceptive sexual revolution, many people have had to tell themselves that what’s bad is good. But when we have all become so good at denying reality, we tend to bring down the whole of society just to keep our moral sense truncated.

 

[EasterJoy]

A great response/question to the OP:

Originally Posted by atjar:

Again, you never answer how gays being allowed the same legal right to get a marriage license as a man and a woman impacts your ability to marry/be with a womam/marry as a hetero couple and live as such. Does it prevent you from getting married? How are gays gettting married imposing anything on you? For centuries, citizenry was defined a certain way - blacks couldn’t vote and were slaves and only 3/5 a person; women couldn’t vote and society found it right and just to allow rights only to white guys. Those institutio:ns changed because society eventually became more enlightened. This is the same.

No, this is not enlightenment. It is a dimming of awareness. It makes marriage into a kind of a benefits racket that caters exclusively to sexual partners for no obvious reason. When marriage was known to be about protecting the biological family, preserving it as the domain of heterosexual partners made sense. Now, when it is purportedly about “people loving and caring for each other and imagining their own way of making a family unit,” it is entirely unclear what sex within the marriage has to do with it at all. If anything, it encourages just what marriage was originally meant to discourage, which was people producing children with the intention that someone else would raise them!

What same-sex marriage does is to further cement a wrong-headed view of marriage and family life, a view in which the two spheres overlap essentially by accident. It further cements the idea that society owes people status and benefits for finding themselves a sexual partner rather than that society deems it in its best interest to give heterosexual couples benefits in order to encourage them to find and stay with the other parent of their children, and to form couples that can provide children with both a male and a female parent. Meanwhile, it still bars some adults from useful benefits reserved for the married from having equally free access to such benefits, not to mention the status that mutually-caring adults of the same sex deserve, which is the status of being adults who care for each other in a committed way, not sex partners.

 

[gianfranco]

Robert R. Reilly has said: “What we are experiencing today is a kind of sexual Marxism. Instead of a classless society, we have a genderless society.”

Then he goes on to say:

“Active homosexuals rationalize their misbehavior in the same way as anyone else rationalizes their immoral acts. We all have disordered desires of one sort or another. If we choose to act upon them, as Aristotle taught in The Ethics, we must present the bad act to ourselves as a good act. Otherwise, we would be incapable of choosing it. In other words, when we lie, we are not really lying or, when we steal, we are not really taking someone else’s property. As J. Budziszewski puts it, we aim “not to become just, but to justify ourselves.”

(from this interview)

It is not of course, only gays who lie to themselves about moral reality. We have all become quite adept at it. Particularly in the wake of the contraceptive sexual revolution, many people have had to tell themselves that what’s bad is good. But when we have all become so good at denying reality, we tend to bring down the whole of society just to keep our moral sense truncated.

Excellent quotes, and the Aristotlean idea of presenting the bad as the good is very telling here, and as relevant now as in his own era.

This is why same sex marriage (among other things) has been able to gain a foothold. So many people are justifying their own behaviors, in a number of areas, so in the end it seems wrong to judge.

It is perhaps a perversion of Jesus’ own: " Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

 

[JimG]

Excellent quotes, and the Aristotlean idea of presenting the bad as the good is very telling here, and as relevant now as in his own era.

This is why same sex marriage (among other things) has been able to gain a foothold. So many people are justifying their own behaviors, in a number of areas, so in the end it seems wrong to judge.

It is perhaps a perversion of Jesus’ own: " Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Indeed, the standard cry of the modern age is “Don’t judge!”

We’ve learned to treat the good as bad and the bad as good, to ignore moral distinctions between right and wrong, and to do just as we please, and whatever we do, no one is to judge us! That’s the worst possible sin!

Maybe the problem is that we’re not judging enough or properly.

 

[estesbob]

Indeed, the standard cry of the modern age is “Don’t judge!”

We’ve learned to treat the good as bad and the bad as good, to ignore moral distinctions between right and wrong, and to do just as we please, and whatever we do, no one is to judge us! That’s the worst possible sin!

Maybe the problem is that we’re not judging enough or properly.

In our culture it appears the only sin is believing in sin.

 

[gianfranco]

Indeed, the standard cry of the modern age is “Don’t judge!”

We’ve learned to treat the good as bad and the bad as good, to ignore moral distinctions between right and wrong, and to do just as we please, and whatever we do, no one is to judge us! That’s the worst possible sin!

Maybe the problem is that we’re not judging enough or properly.

I would wholly agree. The mantra seems now to be, “If they’re happy, who am I to judge?” and this has led to an excessive moral relativism. Discernment is a virtue which has gone underground in our era.

 

[GenerationZ]

This is not the same as those civil rights issues. Gay people are not being denied anything. They have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. But that’s not what they want.

And when interracial marriage was illegal, everyone had the same right to marry a person of the same race, right?

But then those awful activist judges violated state rights by saying that such interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional due to something called discrimination.

Modern societies, for whatever reason, now regard discrimination as a bad thing. People oddly think think that there shouldn’t be any discrimination based off race or gender. That pesky equality thing and all those dumb rules are really inconvenient.

But seriously, partially innate sexual orientation doesn’t even need to be added as a protected class. When a man can marry Sally but a woman can’t marry Sally based off gender alone as the one determinant factor between the two scenarios, then that is gender discrimination in a nutshell. No way around that.

The only way to “STOP gay marriage now!” (as stated in the thread’s title) would be to:

1. Get rid of all legal recognition of marriage, so that no one will have civil marriage rights, thus technically abiding by the standard of equality (and this would be the small government/libertarian approach).

OR

1. Require all married couples to produce children as a condition of their marriage, thus making the civil institution fundamentally unavailable to same-sex couples.

Failure to achieve either of these things will only ensure same-sex marriage recognition throughout the most developed nations of the modern world. It’s only a matter time.

Just take a look at the statistics in the United States.

54% of Americans support marriage equality.
59% of American Catholics support marriage equality.
58% of American women support marriage equality.
50% of American men support marriage equality.
55% of Generation X support marriage equality.
68% of Millennials support marriage equality.

And now that same-sex marriage has become essentially commonplace, the next generation, when eventually polled, will probably have their support around 75%. Such trends cannot be meaningfully reversed.

Trying to defy the tides to social progress is futile. Those efforts are better spent elsewhere, toward something productive that might actually improve society and strengthen the family.

But by all mean, speak out against same-sex marriage in favor of archaic discrimination practices. It doesn’t really matter at this point. In five short years, marriage bans will be inevitably struck down throughout more and more countries, including the entire United States. At such a point, the opinions of the opposition will become permanently irrelevant and inconsequential.

And I’m not going to judge such opinions or the people who hold them. If some people think that discrimination should be enshrined the law of the land, then those people should still be treated with respect, civility, and common decency even if their views differ from the public’s view and national values. I feel, however, it is important for these people know that they are in a rapidly shrinking minority, and the laws will soon no longer reflect their beliefs on this matter.

This is important to acknowledge, since it would be a shame if these people wasted a moment of their lives fighting a losing battle, under the delusion that they could feasibly achieve victory. But they have the freedom and the right to continue in such a pointless pursuit if they so choose. They must be allowed to do what they think is right, and I certainly respect their conviction. But, for those who choose to stay in the fight against equality, please don’t get your hopes up. You’ll only end up being disappointed.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I would wholly agree. The mantra seems now to be, “If they’re happy, who am I to judge?” and this has led to an excessive moral relativism. Discernment is a virtue which has gone underground in our era.

The fact that we aren’t in a position to judge is kind of a basic cornerstone of Christianity. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone and all that.

I mean didn’t the pope himself say something like who am I to judge regarding homosexuality or gay priests or something?

 

[Julianna]

Yes, but you’re talking about stopping LEGAL gay marriage. Which makes this about more than our own faith. It makes it a question of constitutional law. And fairness to everyone, regardless of our beliefs or their beliefs.

We, as Christians, get upset – and rightfully so – when we here about Christians being persecuted in other countries for their faith, which happens because a different faith is running the show there. Why would we then do the same to others, and cause them to suffer because of our beliefs?

Even in the U.S., you realize, Catholics are less than a quarter of the population? If we didn’t have separation of church and state, the Catholic church probably would be in hiding here, too. You can’t enjoy the freedom to live by your beliefs given to you by the separation of church and state while simultaneously trying to impose your beliefs on others.

Well said !

 

[AOE4]

I guess I am confused by some of the replies to the OP.
My bishop speaks in favor of laws that define marriage as “one man, one woman” and encourages Catholics in our diocese to support such.

indeed, and it does state so in the Catechism.This is our belief.

 

[Julianna]

Stop gay marriage now? Why don’t we just try to blow up the Sun while we’re at it? Both pursuits are equally productive uses of one’s own time and energy. The Sun will certainly die out on its own someday, but it definitely won’t be NOW or anytime soon for that matter, and nothing we do can have an impact on hastening that occurrence. Likewise, gay marriage isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and nothing anyone does can change that or reverse the trend, so we’ll just need to wait this one out. Let things run their course… If gay marriage is really that bad, the issue is going to probably resolve itself once everyone sees how bad it is. But as far as the present is concerned, I don’t think it is wise to waste one’s time by trying to achieve the impossible. Life is short, so let’s try to have a positive impact on this world rather than dabbling in pursuits that will yield no results.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some places where gay marriages can be stopped, like the Middle East and most African nations. Then there are some places where gay marriage can’t be stopped, like the United States and many of the most developed nations in the modern world.

Some people might consider the trends in the United States to be especially concerning. Not only does the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, but even the majority of American Catholics seem to be on board with it too. Plus, there is the generational problem, where over two-thirds of young people support same-sex marriage, which will certainly only rapidly increase during the next few years as same-sex couples become commonplace. At this point, nationwide recognition of same-sex relationships is pretty much inevitable.

I don’t say this to condemn or condone any specific type of behavior. I’m just acknowledging the reality of the situation. There are some who are still desperately trying to preserve unconstitutional marriage laws, and in many ways I find their conviction and determination to be admirable. But, the cultural tides have shifted so dramatically that all those efforts will be rendered ineffective.

Rather than focusing so much on such an unnecessary pursuit, maybe all that energy can be channeled toward something more productive… You know, like trying to stop or discourage things that actually cause much more significant harm to the family and society at large.

I mean, clearly those who support marriage bans believe that government should operate paternalistically by banning or discouraging things that cause meaningful harm to the public. So, I think those who are fighting marriage equality should instead try to target the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the gun industry, and so on… you know, things that tear apart families everyday in much more real ways than gay marriage ever could.

Besides, improving these detrimental parts of society may make other issues easier to address down the road. When a house is on fire, do you try to fix the broken plumbing first? No, you put out the fire and then later fix the plumbing. There are more pressing issues that we should be dealing with at the moment. Same-sex marriage is so insignificant and innocuous by comparison, and it would almost be irresponsible to devote so much attention to this matter at the expense of neglecting actual issues of consequence.

We should be trying to strategically tackle issues in society so that our efforts don’t go to waste. At the present, investing time and energy toward opposing marriage equality is an exercise in futility. Let’s get our priorities in order and go after more important issues that we can actually make some progress on. The health of the family depends on such a tactical approach.

Maybe public opinion will change in the marriage debate once the destructive impact of marriage equality becomes obvious… unless there are no apparent negative effects, in which case… well shucks, that would make it even more difficult to win public support, then. But, hey, if marriage equality doesn’t eventually cause widespread societal devastation, then that’s only more of a reason to focus on the other detrimental issues that do undeniably ravage society on a daily basis.

Beautiful just beautiful. …well stated.

 

[gianfranco]

The fact that we aren’t in a position to judge is kind of a basic cornerstone of Christianity. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone and all that.

I mean didn’t the pope himself say something like who am I to judge regarding homosexuality or gay priests or something?

Yes, the Pope did in fact speak to that effect. I think Jesus was correct in telling people not to judge because he did so in the context of *people projecting onto others *(“Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye when there is a board in your own?”).

However, wanting to lead a virtuous life, and asking that one’s culture follow norms and preserve traditions to that end, is not the type of “judging” that Jesus was rebuking. He was rebuking* hypocrisy.*

Here is a fitting story:

I recently read the story of an Australian gay male couple who had adopted a little boy. An Australian journalist was so impressed with this little family, that she rushed to do a feature television story on them: Two loving gay dads and their adorable, doted-on little boy.

Sadly, 15 months after it aired, the two were arrested for trafficking the boy around the globe to men for their sexual use, and filming it. [see the case of Peter Truong and Mark Newton, and Boy 1]

After they pled guilty and were sentenced, another journalist had this to say about the first journalist and her pro-gay idealism:

**Gorman was blinded by her own bias and she was not paying attention. Like her, too many of us simply overlook the glaring signs that should concern us. ** We, too, are blinded by our bias, by what we want to see.

Just because something is different doesn’t mean that it’s bad and should be condemned. **But it also does not mean that it should be embraced mindlessly. Two men and a baby (or two women and a baby for that matter) is far outside the norm. We can’t presume that people with such an unusual relationship will have acceptable views on what it means to “have a family just like any other.” They deserve to have extra scrutiny focused on them. **The children of these unusual unions deserve to have all members of the community help smoke out the predatory psychopaths who are gravitating toward these kinds of relationships for the purpose raising up children into depraved lifestyles.

Boy 1 is now living with relatives in California. But what kind of a life is he going to have? What will he become? And why is the LGBT community so silent?

trhampson.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/boy-1-and-his-loving-parents-the-unimaginable-twisting-of-every-principle-of-parenthood/

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Yes, the Pope did in fact speak to that effect. I think Jesus was correct in telling people not to judge because he did so in the context of *people projecting onto others *(“Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye when there is a board in your own?”).

However, wanting to lead a virtuous life, and asking that one’s culture follow norms and preserve traditions to that end, is not the type of “judging” that Jesus was rebuking. He was rebuking* hypocrisy.*

Here is a fitting story:

I recently read the story of an Australian gay male couple who had adopted a little boy. An Australian journalist was so impressed with this little family, that she rushed to do a feature television story on them: Two loving gay dads and their adorable, doted-on little boy.

Sadly, 15 months after it aired, the two were arrested for trafficking the boy around the globe to men for their sexual use, and filming it. [see the case of Peter Truong and Mark Newton, and Boy 1]

After they pled guilty and were sentenced, another journalist had this to say about the first journalist and her pro-gay idealism:

trhampson.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/boy-1-and-his-loving-parents-the-unimaginable-twisting-of-every-principle-of-parenthood/

Oh dear God – where to begin…

1. Jesus was not talking about hypocrisy in the sense of calling people out for something we ourselves are guilty of, unless your hypothesis is that the crowd at the stoning was full of other adulterers.
2. You say Jesus told us not to judge “in the context of projecting on others” and then say that “asking that one’s culture follow norms and preserve traditions” is not projecting on others. Who do you think society is made of? OTHERS! Our challenge is to live virtuous lives despite what goes on in society – not to force society to be virtuous with us.
3. The example you give, while tragic, is evidence of your clear bias against gay people even if you don’t realize you have it. Statistical analysis of crime data shows gay people are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. Just like Catholic priests aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else – despite the equally chilling stories about them. You, and everyone else who believes that, is falling victim to a common mental trick in which items that are unusual for two reasons (child abuse AND gay people, or child abuse AND a priest) stand out in your memory more and therefore seem more common (than say, child abuse and some straight family member – which is MUCH MUCH MUCH more of a problem).