A Fulda drugstore is not allowed to sell condoms - Germany

Sorry , where is the question here? I just see rubbish and misrepresented points of view - your link :

ok fine, now you're being pedantic. I didn't know you specifically required question marks before giving a response. I've brought up three points which warranted a response:

1) Do you believe the Vatican should be held to a higher moral standard than a secular government? You're earlier reply was simply that they can’t do anything because “they don’t have any official punishments” which is patently false.
2) Does your citing past anti-homosexual legislation mean you do not think the clergy should be held accountable to the laws of their local governments? If not, then what was the point you were trying to make by showing the changing nature of sexual mores in secular society? Do you believe that one day the behavior of the priests will be accessible?

The final point was just me calling bullshit on your attempt to pass the buck by portraying the clergy as victims of incompetent psychologists who advised them incorrectly of the dangers.

De friggin frocked, whoopedeedoo, they need to be tried and (if guilty) then jailed. To abuse children and avoid punishment is despicable, and please do not say being defrocked is punishment, sorry but not in my eyes.

How ignorant can millions of people be to support a church that covers up child abuse.

I wondered how long it would take your nasty little mind to come up with that one. I don't think anyone on TT has said that all priests are child abusers but undoubtedly some gay priests are indeed child abusers. It does not therefore follow that gay=paedophile especially when you consider that the overwhelming majority of child abusers are married heterosexual men like yourself.

@ thefirelane

I'm pedantic? Do you read what you write or does it somehow bypass your brain somehow?

You asked me 5 questions before , I answered all 5.

It is not my MO to dodge questions ,even from you.

As to your assertion that you've brought up 3 points that warranted a response? What kind of response to the third one were you expecting? How would a logical person deal with that if not along the following lines?

1. We've got guys in our midst who we suspect could be sick fucks.

2. We're not experts on this shit , who are the experts - shrinks.

3. Pay them their inflated rates and see what they think.

4. So-called experts say guys are fine now.

Now in every walk of life if you don't know what to do - and I myself am not an expert on sick fucks - perhaps you are - you call in the experts and that's why we have professional negligence lawsuits. I would've thought you had realised that but ho hum.

So back to the first two questions :

1) Do you believe the Vatican should be held to a higher moral standard than a secular government? You're earlier reply was simply that they can’t do anything because “they don’t have any official punishments” which is patently false.


Well that's as clear a case of misrepresentation as I've seen on this board. Congratulate yourself.

2) Does your citing past anti-homosexual legislation mean you do not think the clergy should be held accountable to the laws of their local governments? If not, then what was the point you were trying to make by showing the changing nature of sexual mores in secular society? Do you believe that one day the behavior of the priests will be accessible?

See post #184 - again. What do you mean by "accessible" behaviour?

First two sentences I agree with almost completely :

1 ) thanks for putting in the "if guilty" bit though.

2) To abuse anyone or thing is despicable - regardless of punishment.

3) Your eyes? Sorry dont know you or said eyes.

4) I dunno , u pay tax , live in society? great then u support governments responsible for past atrocities etc etc. Some would argue current atrocities.

Can't wait to see your source for this one.

Better (and far more logical) solution.

2. Report said sick fucks to the police and let them deal with it.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the first point. Although I believe you are basically engaging in convenient finger pointing. I do not believe the Vatican can simply say “we listened to the experts” when it is a process of thousands of cases over decades. After a certain point, they must own up to the fact that they are directly responsible.

However, if you want to use that as a justification, it is at least logically possible. However, I might point out, the Vatican can be at least seen as having “selective hearing” when it comes to whether homosexuals should be priests. Interesting how they are able to trust their own judgment over that of the experts in these cases, wouldn’t you say?

For your response to my moral standard of the Vatican, I didn’t consider it sufficient, because I meant the question to be more specific. My concern was specifically why someone such as Bernard Law, who may or may not have broken US laws, but certainly did break moral codes, is rewarded by the Vatican instead of being punished. I’m not concerned about getting into a debate about “wars for oil” and this line of thinking that the Vatican has to only be slightly better than a secular government.

It would appear that the answer to my concern above is, again, your “blame the experts” defense. Perfectly defensible in a debate, however it doesn’t pass my moral standards, since I believe you can only get away with so much finger pointing.

Please excuse the type for my last point (damn auto-correct!), I meant acceptable. I was just pointing out, quite correctly, that your citing old anti-homosexual laws hints at a believe that clergy should not be beholden to the laws of the secular society in which they live, and that sexual mores might one day change to forgive the priests’ actions. Am I mistaken? Could you clarify?

Be careful what you wish for, this is also something I've heard quite repeatedly.

@Hazza

I do agree with you on that point , but here's the thing - what if you can't PROVE , in a court of law that the guys are guilty? The police can't do shit but does that mean that they're innocent? I think the Church has a higher burden of responsibility on itself.

@ thefirelane
I don't know how to deal with camp people , they make my skin crawl. I know one gay dood who I'm completely ok with - cos he's not camp , the rest piss me off no end. If I had a gay kid , I'd get my ass along to some expert to help me avoid screwing up the kid and the family. I simply don't know what else to do honestly. What would you , in that hypothetical situation do?

On the behaviour of priests being acceptable? Uh the countless acts of charity , kindness etc etc ad finitum I think already are. Paedophilia I hope never will be , I rather think some homosexual and even some heterosexual behaviour is already far too readily accepted , prostitution for example.

EDIT : On being beholden to the laws of the State ... read this first :
http://www.fatherkolbe.com/

There are countless acts in history , unlawful in the secular state of that time which were both heroic and moral. Paedophilia would not , in my view fit that bill however but judgement and not blind acceptance should be the rule.

I suggest you look at the literature. It is so well documented that nearly ewvery statistical evaluation of child sexual abuse attests to it. The statistics vary from publication to publication but the following paper notes that 70% of abusers are related to the abused and of those the majority are biological or step fathers in a parental relationship with the child:

http://www.aaets.org/article31.htm

@ BTC

That's a far cry from what you said thought isn't it :


I've also dug up some facts for you :
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3


To put the above in context this suggests that a homosexual male is at least 8 times more likely to be a child abuser than his corresponding heterosexual counterpart.

Mong the Clueless?

parnell your source isn't creditworthy. Another rabid right-wing fart-tank.


Source

quoting the FRC on homosexuality and child abuse is like quoting the Nazi party on Jewish assimilation. Jeez!

@ Janx Spirit

I don't see anything suspect with the methodology employed by the source :

"According to the FRC, any sexual abuse between an adult and a child of the same sex makes the adult a homosexual."

How could that not be so?

How else could you define sexual attraction between two people of the same sex?

@parnell...

you are way off on this. I would implore you to "refer to the experts" as you are fond of. From my basic understanding of psychology, a lot of sexual abuse is not about sexual gratification, but about a desire to have power over another person.

In that way a hetrosexual man can most certainly abuse a young boy, but still be hetrosexual. To define it another way is just done so out of hateful desire for self assuring statistics.

Besides, even if you were to define it this way, the study would then be useless, because it lacks any measure of predictability. Retroactively defining someone as gay after a crime doesn't help you know what the statistics are for men who proclaim themselves to be gay before committing this crime. It is therefore useless in deciding whether gay men are more likely to commit this crime.

A good analogy would be: 100% of male rapists are not virgins after committing their crime, therefore only male virgins should be allowed to guard young girls' dormitories.

given that most of these men the FRC counts as "homosexual" are also married and have had sex with their wives enough times to have kids, then concluding they are 'homosexual' is specious. Bisexual maybe but actually most of the men who fiddle with boys have absolutely no attraction whatsoever for adult men.

Again BTC do you have a source for that information?

But before you do please find the proof you promised for stating that the overwhelming majority of child abusers are married (point 1) heterosexual men (point 2) . The above certainly does not prove that :

In fact you lie in your phrasing of the above link in stating that 70% are related to the abused - please check this readers and see that this is lying , plain and simple :


and there is certainly nothing about the majority of those being biological or step father.

Christ, this is like like trying to shovel diarrhoea back up your arse with a tea sieve. You equate homosexuality with child abuse or vice a versa? Then more fool you.

@ Janx

Sounds like ur very familiar with that exercise

First up all child abuse is not sexual.

Within sexual abuse of children surely you have the usual : heterosexual and homosexual?

No, please read my post. This is incorrect, and totally useless even if you try to force it.

That's the worst analogy in the history of analogies.

Also your experts seem to suggest sexual abuse is not always sexual???

dear me , poor old English language...

Look at the contradictory content of your own posts. Discussion with you is pointless, you do not have even a basic grasp of social deviancy. Anyway, up for discussion was the wonky moral compass of the Catholic Church and not the intricacies of human sexuality and deviant behaviour.

No, it is a logical equivalent. Think about it, declaring a group of people as members of one group after they commit a crime does not tell you whether self-declared members of a group are more likely to commit a crime.

Think about it, I am right.


Parnell, please think more before replying to my posts. I specifically said it was not about sexual gratification, so the sexuality of the person is not in question when conducting these acts…. The act, although sexual, are fulfilling the perpetrators need for power, not sexual desire.

I really don’t know how to make it any more clear than this.

You are totally wrong in this case, and have taken a pretty indefensible position.

and yet he just keeps on "defending" it. Pathetic really

So what are you suggesting? That we never hand anyone over to the authorities and have our own inept little inquisitions because the official justice system may not work?

for all those puerile twerps who think it is somehow cool to be homophobic, consider this

You're the very last person on this site who should be calling anyone else pathetic.

No you are absolutely wrong. (I rather think posting that is a bit silly but you seem to think it adds something).

I could take out the dictionary here and prove to you that one cannot have sexual abuse without it being sexual but it's rather trivial. Therefore sexuality , BY DEFINITION of that very term is directly in question.

There are , Im sure many kinds of sexual abuse , are you stating that every act of sexual abuse against children has nothing to do with the sexuality of the person concerned , be they homsexual or heterosexual? If so I'd like to see you come up with a back-up source.

If a person , let's say a Scottish quaker on this site , says that he is marvellous , brilliant , highly educated and not bigotted at all but , on occassion posts words to the effect "I hope they (insert your favourite cohort of the moment , let's say Catholics) all die in a terrible plague" then it rather disproves the "not biggotted stance" (we could go into the other attributes but that too is a bit trivial) . The point being self-declaration does not make it so.

At the same time , someone could claim that they are resolutely heterosexual , but if they have acquired a large volume of homosexual pornography...suspicions as to their claims could fairly be raised. So to argue that people engage in sexual relations , with people of the same sex and then claim that such acts have nothing to do with their sexuality is frankly stupid.

In a way yes , handing over Jews during Nazi times seem moral to you? I mean it was the official justice system. Weren't you the one complaining about not being able to open your pub on certain days and stupid laws before?

Again Mr. Pedant... I never said sexual abuse isn't sexual. Obviously by definition it is. I simply said that the motivation behind it isn't sexual gratification but rather gratification of a desire for power over another person.

Regardless, that is the weaker of the two points. My main assertion being, even if I allow you to retroactively assign someone to being homosexual after abusing a child... it is useless for the purposes of knowing what the rate of abuse is amongst persons who are gay before abusing a child, so it doesn't bolster your assertion that filtering out gays is in any way a moral thing.

@thefirelane
Kindly answer the question sweetheart , I make it easy for you by putting question marks at the end of the sentences.

This one? It's a poor trap. Obviously anytime you say the word every the answer is no. However, the assertion made by you, and your linked study is that every instance where a man abuses a boy, that man is gay. This is false. Just as in math, to prove an assertion false you only need supply one counter example.

But again, you can harp on this all you want. That study is crap, and even were it to be true, it doesn't supply any information useful for making predictions about future actions of individuals.

I likes this bit , it proves you have absolutely no place arguing with anyone on any aspect of human behaviour.

Past stats not useful about making predictions of future actions?

You're definitely ahead on dumb things posted today.

Ridiculous... so the Catholic church doesn't want to damage its reputation. At least none of their priests are molesting young children in the USA... oh, no wait...

It's not useful, because the sexuality of the perpetrators is defined retroactivity, after they committed the crime. So you can't use that information to determine whether another person who is gay is more likely to commit this crime in the future. The point being, even if you accept this dubious study, it provides no bearing on the idea of whether screening out homosexual things prevents child molestation.

The logic really isn't that tough.

A useful study would be: Rate of child molestation among people, according to their existing (declared, or what have you) sexuality before the crime occurred.

tsk, which is not at all what I said. Read it again numbnuts:


the one statement qualifies the other and it was meant wrily as in: if the catholic heirarchy are to ban pharmaceuticals then at least we won't be bothered by them for long as they will be succesceptible to the next epidemic. There I've spellt it out for you. Everyone else seems to have understood it except you.

parnell, how do you explain the cases of violent gay bashing where the basher rapes the gay man? Although these cases are not common, they do happen andthe rapists in those cases self-identify as straight. As others have been pointing out, rapine and sexual abuse do not follow the clear divisions of self-identified sexuality which rather suggests it is not sexual attraction per se that drives them.

or prison...

@ BTC

Of course I'm waiting on your admittance that you mis-represented figures from your previous source.Deliberately. That would be the gentlemanly thing. I highlighted it in post #269 so that you'd not miss it. thx. Also kindly refrain from the personal insults since they , as you have hypocritically pointed out in the past - are against board policy.

If you see my last post from the previous page (post #280) , you'll see that self-declaration or self-identification is hardly objective or accurate - a lot like your self aggrandisement on this board. If a guy has sex with another man then that act is homosexual by definition and therefore both of those men could be described as homosexual , again by definition. It matters little if one of the contributing motives (I rather think that humans are a little more complex than just having one) is XXXXXX .

This is simply using the English language as it was designed to be used , not as a political toy.

Dictionary:
homosexuality
(hō'mə-sĕk'shū-ăl'ĭ-tē, -mō-) [img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif[/img]
n.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

i suggest you do some reading about sexology parnell. You're just making a fool of yourself to those of us who know what we are talking about.

ok parnell... then if all persons who engage in sex with other people of the same sex are considered homosexual, and if this means that homosexuals as per your definition, commit a higher rate of child molestation. Do you think filtering out homosexuals from professions with a high degree of interaction with children (or adoption) will lead to a lower rate of child molestation?

@thefirelane

The definition is not mine , and I did not seek credit for it.

Read what you wrote , I've corrected the English for you:


If you reduce the exposure then the conclusion is obvious and requires little thought.

You have spelt it wrongly ;-)

However this sentence is a fallacy. You are using it to bash the church with partial facts.
Try these ones and fill the blanks:

If US officials (as it seems to be their goals) are to send all the Muslim population to Guantanamo...
If all Muslims (as it seems to be their goals) are going to explode when they are next to us...
If all gays (as it seems to be their goals) are to revolt and burn down all churches...

@Sinderbox

LMAO man...

I liked this bit too :


Everyone else = BTC

I'm done, I'm quite sure parnell understands how obtuse he is being, and the obvious logical fallacies he is making.

You obviously can't filter out gays to prevent child molestation, if you can only determine whether they are gay after they have committed the crime... f'ing brilliant.

If he doesn't realize this basic logic, then I honestly feel sorry for him. My goal was to see how he morally justified the various immoral actions and positions of the Catholic church, I now have my answer.

I said this? Where?

What I find hilarious is yourself and BTC lie , misrepresent and bullshit your way through the thread , never admitting your own faults , all things that you accuse the Church of. Which is nice really.

That's not what he said.
You don't realize his basic logic, feel sorry for yourself or read again and again what he wrote.

But to returnto your earlier point:


The earliest studies of child abuse patterns all identified the majority of kids who were sexually abused were abused by biological or step fathers and a certain proportion were abused by mothers or siblings. On occasion friends of the family or uncles/aunts were the perpetrator but only very very rarely was the abuser was a complete stranger. As such, the vast majority of abusers of both young girls and boys were indeed married "heterosexual" men most often in a caregiving role for the child as a parent or guardian. I grant you that in very recent years marriage has fallen out of favour and I would guess that some parents who abuse may not now be as likely to be married as say 20 years ago but as far as I can make out, it has not radically altered the fact that stranger abuse is very rare and that most abusers are heterosexual caregivers and not homosexuals.

the following reference from the respected journal Pediatrics might be useful review for background:

Carole Jenny, et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994)

and I quote:


I don't post this to change parnell's mind. He has anything but an open mind on this subject as far as I can see. But others might be interested.