Should Gay Priests Adopt? by Ann Coulter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Coulter can be funny, but she seems to be unaware that the Boy Scouts are now being charged with covering up for a few pedophiles of their own.
 
markeverett49 said:
Coulter can be funny, but she seems to be unaware that the Boy Scouts are now being charged with covering up for a few pedophiles of their own.
Click to expand...
I see this article theaustralian.com.au/news/world/scouts-pay-over-sex-scandal/story-e6frg6so-1225853767777 about cases that go back to like the 80’s. And it was homosexual abuse again.

They changed their policy to not allow homosexual scout masters in 1991.

I’m not sure what point you’re making. Ann wrote that there’s no “spate” of abuse cases against the Boy Scouts, not that there aren’t a “few”. Are you saying there are loads of cases against the Scouts even after they changed their policy on homosexual scout masters?

Are you saying that the problem would be no worse if they freely allowed homosexuals to be scout masters?
 
markeverett49 said:
In the Oregon case, reportedly 1,000 “perversion files” were introduced, secretly kept at Boy Scout headquarters from 1965 throught 1984.

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpjeTQaNRDPhl23bgYW4RTlWLfmQD9F2OVQG1

I support the Boy Scouts in their ‘no homosexual’ Scout leaders policy.

Of course, the Church DOESN’T have a policy of denying ordination to homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Okay - I understand you a bit more now. But that doesn’t answer the other things.

Again, they changed their policy to not allow homosexual scout masters in 1991. These cases generally go back before the change.

So I’m still not sure what point you’re making. Ann wrote that there’s no “spate” of abuse cases against the Boy Scouts, not that there aren’t a “few”. Are you saying there are loads of cases against the Scouts even after they changed their policy on homosexual scout masters?

If not, then your point doesn’t contradict what Coulter wrote.
 
The headline has absloutley nothing to do with the article. :confused:

I did like this observation of Coulter’s
Blaming celibacy is not only contrary to various liberal dogmas, but contrary to all known evidence about any vice. Total avoidance, not limited temptation, is the only hope for controlling weakness. Alcoholics cannot have a drop of alcohol. Former smokers cannot have just one cigarette. Problem gamblers must avoid the racetrack.
Click to expand...
Only in the case of sex do liberals refuse to countenance abstinence. Small doses of sex are supposed to provide a needed “release.” The “release” theory is disproved every time a child molester’s home is searched, invariably unearthing enormous stockpiles of child pornography. None of this ever gives liberals pause. Celibacy is always bad, sex is always good.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a very good point. I have not heard it articulated like this before.
 
I wasn’t claiming to contradict Coulter. I think she’s funny. I read her. But I think it was unfortunate to use the Boy Scouts as an example here when there’s such hubbub lately about scandals there too.

Also, not allowing any more homosexuals into an organization, as the Boy Scouts sought to do, may not prove sufficient defense in some cases. This goes doubly for the Chruch, where a priest may work into his 70s and 80s.
 
markeverett49 said:
I wasn’t claiming to contradict Coulter. I think she’s funny. I read her. But I think it was unfortunate to use the Boy Scouts as an example here when there’s such hubbub lately about scandals there too.

Also, not allowing any more homosexuals into an organization, as the Boy Scouts sought to do, may not prove sufficient defense in some cases. This goes doubly for the Chruch, where a priest may work into his 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think you had a problem with Coulter but you said it looked like she missed something about the Scouts when you said, “she seems to be unaware that the Boy Scouts are now being charged with covering up for a few pedophiles of their own.”

So, isn’t that kind of contradicting her point regarding the scouts?

The point I made is just that she never said the scouts don’t have a “few” problems. She just said they don’t have a “spate” of problems and I think she’s right, especially after the BSA stopped allowing homosexual scout masters. Your point didn’t didn’t undermine what she wrote, imo. That’s all.

The other thing is that from what I’m reading, the BSA didn’t just stop allowing **more **homosexuals to be scout masters. If a scout master is known to be gay, then they’re supposed to be removed period. Not just new scout masters.

Do you have something different?
 
Joe_5859 said:
The headline has absloutley nothing to do with the article. :confused:
Click to expand...
The headline I put up is the title of the article. She’s being tongue in cheek.
  1. Liberals are big into promoting homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are wonderful parents and no more of a danger to minors than anyone.
  2. Liberals have made it look like Catholic priests are generally a danger to sexually abuse minors.
  3. But most all the abuse of minors by priests was homosexual.
  4. Liberals are totally avoiding #3 just to whack the Church on #2.
So, maybe if homosexual priests wanted to adopt children, liberals would support that?

That kind of thing.
 
Rick09 said:
The headline I put up is the title of the article. She’s being tongue in cheek.
  1. Liberals are big into promoting homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are wonderful parents and no more of a danger to minors than anyone.
  2. Liberals have made it look like Catholic priests are generally a danger to sexually abuse minors.
  3. But most all the abuse of minors by priests was homosexual.
  4. Liberals are totally avoiding #3 just to whack the Church on #2.
So, maybe if homosexual priests wanted to adopt children, liberals would support that?

That kind of thing.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get it now. Thanks!
 
Miss Coulter is a creation. She is designed to appeal to a particular demographic and to create controversy. It is no surprise that she picked this particular time to exploit. After reading one of her books, I tend to ignore anything she writes.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Miss Coulter is a creation. She is designed to appeal to a particular demographic and to create controversy. It is no surprise that she picked this particular time to exploit. After reading one of her books, I tend to ignore anything she writes.
God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Sure, Ed. I roll my eyes at her sometimes and sometimes just ignore her, too (or wish I had after!). But this time the controversy’s already out there. She didn’t create it and I think the point she made is on the mark. So I put her “Coulterishness” aside this time. I haven’t seen anyone make the same points she made in here, at least not this clearly.

But I get your point.
 
edwest2 said:
Miss Coulter is a creation. She is designed to appeal to a particular demographic and to create controversy. It is no surprise that she picked this particular time to exploit. After reading one of her books, I tend to ignore anything she writes.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,

**Please look up satire in the dictionary! (A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm – “in satire, irony is militant”- Wikipedia)

Ann is brilliant! She is a strong, non-PC woman in a weak & sadly emasculated feminized PC world!!**

She uses the propaganda of the “false prophets of progressiveness” to shine the light of Truth on their evil lies.

If you ignore the truth, no matter how painful or “inconvenient”, you will surely be doomed to repeat the failures of all those who chose to do the same.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
There is not a politically correct bone in Ann Coulter’s body & she is forthright in her opinion. She is to be admired for her convictions! & I love her wit/satire; plus she always comes down on the side of unborn babies!
 
markeverett49 said:
Coulter can be funny, but she seems to be unaware that the Boy Scouts are now being charged with covering up for a few pedophiles of their own.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t seen this. Can you please post a link to 10 or 12 of these cases? Maybe not, how about 6 or 7?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top