# So, 80% of Abuse by Priests was by Homosexual Men, Who'da Thunk



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

http://www.catholicleague.org/homosexuality-and-sexual-abuse/

The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church. Popular as this position is, it is empirically wrong: the data show it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is not ambiguous, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship.
Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...e-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals

In spite of the well-deserved acclaim received by the film "Spotlight," which highlights the Boston Globe's investigative work exposing the massive sex abuse cover-up in Boston under Cdl. Bernard Law, the film is not perfect. Namely, it exhibits a distinct discomfort in pointing fingers at homosexuality &#8212; the same discomfort exhibited in large part by the Church hierarchy, which, in spite of tough measures implemented after the sex abuse crisis, fails to look at the root cause: homosexual priests, and the gay-friendly bishops who protect them.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/02/expert-donohues-claim-that-most-abusive-priests/162640

In a March 30 ad published in The New York Times, Donohue described the sex abuse scandal as a "homosexual crisis." Donohue added: "Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay."

During a March 31 appearance on CNN, Donohue elaborated on his claim, specifically citing a 2004 study produced by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which found that 81 percent of the alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests were male. During the CNN segment, Donohue repeated his assertion that "most of the molesters have been gay."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964

Bertone said: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia, but many others have demonstrated that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/27/20040227-111236-5901r/?page=all


Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church&#8217;s sex abuse crisis.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Obviously they were BOTH. Whodathunk it? Most people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Obviously they were BOTH. Whodathunk it? Most people.


100% were *claiming* to be highly devout also.

I bet someone could do a "study" using these numbers to "prove" being very religious makes one "more likely to be homosexual"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I often wondered if the celibate lifestyle of priest drew gay men as their personal penance or way of running away from their proclivities. 

I expect gay priest are very conflicted.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

And further, I'd have said 100%.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Maybe you can't just pray some things away.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I often wondered if the celibate lifestyle of priest drew gay men as their personal penance or way of running away from their proclivities.
> 
> I expect gay priest are very conflicted.


Right. That stupid refusal to change at all costs and allow them to marry is just one of many examples of the irrationality which defines that and all religions. Would be better to just do away with them all and have people start believing in things that are real, not make believe.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Well... someone should speak to former NUNS ... There is a lot of withheld abuses of nuns by priests. I know of two former nuns from Chicago who had been repeatedly assaulted by priests... the problem is bigger than people want to accept.


----------



## suitcase_sally (Mar 20, 2006)

How can I "LIKE" something more than once? Can we set up a column of "Degrees"?


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Agriculture said:


> Right. That stupid refusal to change at all costs and allow them to marry is just one of many examples of the irrationality which defines that and all religions. Would be better to just do away with them all and have people start believing in things that are real, not make believe.


In all fairness to priests (my uncle and great-uncle included), they do study for FIVE YEARS before being ordained. Most who enter seminary drop out.

The ones who make it through know perfectly well what they're getting into.

Besides, there is a misconception that ALL Catholic priests are forbidden to marry. This is a church discipline, NOT a doctrine or dogma, and therefore has the potential to be changed (or exceptions made) at any time. The 22 Eastern Catholic rites all allow priests to marry - it is the Roman rite, which happens to be he most popular in the US, that has this discipline in place.

The reasoning behind it makes sense when you stop and think about. We have two priests for 2,000 families at my parish. That is a LOT of demands on their time for confessions, masses, sick visits, marriage prep classes, and about 2 dozen other ministries they are involved with. If they were married with families, logic tells me (a married man) they would either not have enough for the family, or not have enough for the church.

It is totally unacceptable for ANY priest, EVER, to abuse ANYONE. Anyone convicted of abuse or aiding and abetting should spend life behind bars, regardless of their status as priest or not.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I doubt very seriously that the Catholic church is alone. Actually, I know it isn't, because around the time the church started getting mangled in the media, the big story around my neck of the woods was some protestant (can't remember which sect) youth leader. I'm not defending them. I'm actually just explaining why I am an extremely cynical person. Most people on this earth can't be trusted with any kind of power, IMO. If the machines ever take over, and let's just say they're benevolent for some reason, and their only mission is to stop us from being capital a wholes, they're going to put a shock collar on every person on earth with some fancy analytic devices attached.........and I'm guessing most people will just go insane over all of the things they can't do to other people anymore. Either they'll get shocked until the stress kills them. Or the stress of not being able to do what they want to do will slowly eat them to death.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bubba1358 said:


> In all fairness to priests (my uncle and great-uncle included), they do study for FIVE YEARS before being ordained. Most who enter seminary drop out.
> 
> The ones who make it through know perfectly well what they're getting into.
> 
> ...


Great post. 
My feeling is that if the ruling on celibacy were changed & priests could marry, they'd attract 'family men' to the calling.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church. Popular as this position is, it is empirically wrong: the data show it has been a homosexual crisis all along.


Homosexual is not a synonym for pedophile, as much as you would like to believe. It is a pedophilia crisis. Someone can be a homosexual, a pedophile, or BOTH.

And I don't have time to go back and check your statistics, but how many heterosexuals have had sex with minors? And how many heterosexuals are pedophiles? I don't know the exact numbers, but I know there's no shortage of heterosexual child abusers as well.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Great post.
> My feeling is that if the ruling on celibacy were changed & priests could marry, they'd attract 'family men' to the calling.


Thanks.

probably a lot like this guy:

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/08/05/im-a-catholic-priest-and-im-married/

From the article:


> "Speaking for myself, Iâm simply a man, trying to be faithful to *two all-consuming vocations*."


I think too many married priests would buckle under the pressure of either parish or family, especially in the US where we have a shortage of priests to begin with.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Homosexual is not a synonym for pedophile, as much as you would like to believe. It is a pedophilia crisis.


True. However, there is significant statistical overlap:



> ...the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.


Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Bertone said: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia, but many others have demonstrated that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."


How do they propose the church test priests for homosexuality, or even celibacy for that matter? Ask them?


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Nevada said:


> How do they propose the church test priests for homosexuality, or even celibacy for that matter? Ask them?


You really can't, and it's not what this is about anyway.

For clarification, here is what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic:



> Chastity and homosexuality
> 
> 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
> 
> ...


Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Yes, that's it. Three paragraphs out of 2,865.

Having an orientation is by no means wrong or considered sinful. Folks may have an orientation toward many things. For example, those battling kleptomania face real challenges, yet are still called to practice virtue and not violate the Scriptures (i.e., not steal). It is always the actions, not the tendencies, that are called into question.

There is absolutely nothing in Catholic teaching that prohibits gay men from becoming priests. They are expected to live out their voluntary vow of celibacy just like every other priest.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> How do they propose the church test priests for homosexuality, or even celibacy for that matter? Ask them?


 You can't, this thread just illustrates another risk that young people are required to take in the society we have created for them.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

The worst part of this is that the cover up and conspiracy extended all the way up to the Vatican. 

My opinion is that all the priest are gay and only a percentage of them are pedophiles. 

Over all though, many pedophiles look for positions that give them power over children and adults and that give them private access to children. A religious leader (priest, pastor, muslim cleric, yoga guru, whatever), a teacher, a couch, a scout leader, a police officer, a doctor, a parent, these are all positions that pedophiles use to get at children. Fortunately, people are wiser these days and they have not been raised to blindly obey authority figures anymore like they use to.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

City Bound said:


> The worst part of this is that the cover up and conspiracy extended all the way up to the Vatican.
> 
> My opinion is that all the priest are gay and only a percentage of them are pedophiles.
> 
> Over all though, many pedophiles look for positions that give them power over children and adults and that give them private access to children. A religious leader (priest, pastor, muslim cleric, yoga guru, whatever), a teacher, a couch, a scout leader, a police officer, a doctor, a parent, these are all positions that pedophiles use to get at children. Fortunately, people are wiser these days and they have not been raised to blindly obey authority figures anymore like they use to.


Yes, the worst part was the extensive cover-up.

Both of my ordained uncles would disagree with your second point though.  

But i think you're right about pedophiles secretly looking for positions that work closely with children. There was an article that spoke to this very point:



> "The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children," he said. "These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders."


Also relevant:



> "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades.


source: http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625



MDKatie said:


> It is a pedophilia crisis.


Exactly.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Of course, the data that supports the theory of pedophiles seeking out positions with access to children isn't settled:



> Those who study sexual misconduct, like psychologist Thomas Plante of Santa Clara University, say there is no evidence that sexual predators gravitate to jobs like doctors or priests or volunteer posts like scout leaders or sports coaches, the better to find and groom victims.
> &#8220;There&#8217;s no data to support that theory,&#8221; said Plante, who has edited several academic examinations of priestly abuse.


And one other citation to add:



> Plante said that about 4% of Catholic clergy were sexual abusers in the 1950s through 1980s and that &#8220;this is about the same as it was among other clergy &#8230; and less than it was in the general population of males,&#8221; which was about 8%.
> Statistics are hard to come by, he admits. In fact, the John Jay study on priestly abuse commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is the hardest data available.


Source: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/revealing_statistics/

I do think this throws _a bit of water_ on the idea that Catholic priests are the worst when it comes to being offenders. The available data says they are 50% LESS likely than a male in the general population (4% vs 8%). And it seems those vows of celibacy really don't make the tendencies to abuse any higher.

This is not to excuse anyone. I firmly believe one case of abuse is one too many, and every single one who is convicted of harming a child should be in prison, priest or not.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

I use to be catholic. I was raised that way. I knew some priests diddled kids but I thought they were far and few and that the church took care of them. Then after the depth of the abuse was exposed and how the hierarchy knew of it and did nothing about it I renounced my faith in the church. Clearly god is NOT with them and they are not with god.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

What makes them worse I that they established and broke a sacred trust with individuals and a community at large and that is much worse then Joe-shmo committing the same offense


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

So anyway, does anyone have the statistics on what percentage of straight priests/pastors/ministers/youth leaders molested kids? I realize this is going to be catalyzing, but, is it even studied?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

From Bubba's post above, around 8%. But research I've found claim around 4 - 5% of men are child sexual abusers. And I don't think the profession of the person would make much of a difference. 
I'm not going to chase down links as they all tend to be biased, but from the reading I did several years ago (when I was still a psychotherapist), Roman Catholic clergy who sexually abuse children are more likely to use boys because of the overemphasis on the "sin" of adultery with women and/or girls. Obviously both are wrong, but in some minds, having sex with boys was a lesser evil than with women or girls. It had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the priests.

We find the same in prisons. Lots of sexual abuse going on but the men are not homosexuals. It is the environment that leads to same sex encounters, not orientation.

ETA: I said I wouldn't provide links, but this is a pretty good read on the subject -- scroll down to the last portion to get a summary. The conclusion is there really is no empirical evidence that homosexuals are any more likely abuse children than heterosexuals. http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Homosexual is not a synonym for pedophile, as much as you would like to believe. It is a pedophilia crisis. Someone can be a homosexual, a pedophile, or BOTH.
> 
> And I don't have time to go back and check your statistics, but how many heterosexuals have had sex with minors? And how many heterosexuals are pedophiles? I don't know the exact numbers, but I know there's no shortage of heterosexual child abusers as well.


And so what makes you think I'd like to believe that? Do you think I did the studies? Did you see that 81% of the abusers were GAY? I didn't wish that to be true, it IS true. 
Seems to me the gay men who wanted young boys decided to put up w/rigors of becoming a priest in order to savage boys. 
No where does it say all homosexuals are pedophiles. In fact it speaks to the fact that most who were abused were adolescents.
But no one can deny that there are far more straight people than gay. So it would seem that the majority would be strait, not gay. But 81%!!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bubba1358 said:


> You really can't, and it's not what this is about anyway.
> 
> For clarification, here is what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic:
> 
> ...


Actually one of the links does address this, says they put a moritorium on gays attending the seminary.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

City Bound said:


> I use to be catholic. I was raised that way. I knew some priests diddled kids but I thought they were far and few and that the church took care of them. Then after the depth of the abuse was exposed and how the hierarchy knew of it and did nothing about it I renounced my faith in the church. Clearly god is NOT with them and they are not with god.


I didn't renounce my faith but I stopped supporting the church. And I don't go to Mass. I go to church on my way to the store, go in, kneel & pray. Or make the stations of the cross.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

City Bound said:


> I use to be catholic. I was raised that way. I knew some priests diddled kids but I thought they were far and few and that the church took care of them. Then after the depth of the abuse was exposed and how the hierarchy knew of it and did nothing about it I renounced my faith in the church. Clearly god is NOT with them and they are not with god..





Tricky Grama said:


> I didn't renounce my faith but I stopped supporting the church. And I don't go to Mass. I go to church on my way to the store, go in, kneel & pray. Or make the stations of the cross.


I'm very sorry to hear that. I will pray for healing for you both.  

I've been Catholic all my life. The scandals hit when I was in college, and I had already stopped doing anything except go to Mass and leave during Communion. After my daughter was born in 2003, I became much more serious about my faith. I've been practicing regularly since then.

And heck yeah, I fall short of the ideal - daily. So does everyone. The Bible teaches that "*none are righteous*" (Romans 3:10) and "*all have sinned* and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), and this includes every priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal, and pope. The church is a "hospital for sinners, not a club for saints" (source unknown).

While what the Church TEACHES is fundamentally true, the way her members BEHAVE is another story. I've said it before, but any abuser or cover-up artist should be in jail. Nevertheless, the behavior of a few criminals who've infiltrated the hierarchy doesn't automatically discount the other 90%-plus who are at least trying to do it right.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and *the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it*. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) This quote tells me that in spite of everything, God will still guide the Church. It also clues me in to the fact that the netherworld sure as heck is gonna try, and it might seem at times like they're winning - but they won't. Despite all of the attempts to tear it down, here it is 2,000 years later, 1 billion strong. Despite all of the attacks, from armies without and spies within, Christ will never let the Church fall, or even teach formal doctrine that is contrary to Truth. 

You may also want to look at the principle of _Ex opere operato_. It "is a Latin phrase meaning 'from the work worked' referring to sacraments deriving their power from Christ's work (ex opere operato Christi) rather than the role of humans." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato Basically, Jesus brings us grace despite our fallen nature. Sins of the fathers do not affect the grace of the sons, in other words. This was a hot-button issue with all of the corrupt priests and bishops in the Middle Ages.

On a personal note, I do know a woman who attended a parish in VA where the priest was accused of abuse. She said it was the only time she ever left Mass - she just got a deep chill coming from him as soon as he entered the church. She got up and left halfway through. Nobody knew it at the time, though - he was accused a few months later and found guilty. She went to a different church and has been fine ever since.


Blah. I've gone and said too much now. 

---- 

Please note: I am not attempting to debate religion here. I just wanted to share my belief based on my experiences and interpretation of the Bible. Y'all may disagree, and that's fine - we all have free will and a conscience to do with as we will.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Thanks, Bubba. 
I just feel that the church knowingly covered up SOOO much, harming SOOO many. If I could go back to that time where Christ said "...upon this rock I will build my church..." it would be so much better. Did Peter have the wealth that the popes have had for centuries? The politics of it all? The 'rules'? Hmmm, no. Peter was married, btw.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Great questions. Let's see ......

Wealth

The wealth of the Church exists in many forms. Mostly, it is in the form of donations, land, and historical/art treasures that it has keep safe for centuries (ya know, from folks like ISIS). Here's an inforgraphic about it: https://churchpop.com/2015/08/17/the-truth-about-the-wealth-spending-of-the-catholic-church-in-one-infographic/ 



> "The church is the largest single charitable organisation in the country. Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010."


From http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

It's impossible to donate BILLIONS of dollars to the poor if there's no revenue stream. people look at the what goes in, but seem to miss the parts about where it goes out.

Politics

The Church has always been involved in politics because it has always stood for the dignity of all humans, and for the defense of the most marginalized in society. In today's Western world, these issues are the importance of protecting human life in all stages, the poor, compassion for migrants, and religious freedom. The stances of the Church never change as the winds of society swirl around it. Sure, these stances intersect with political machinations _du jour_. They always will when nations and peoples enact laws contrary to church teaching.

The "Rules"

Oh, this one's fun. I don't exactly know which ones you're referring to. But Jesus himself and the Apostles, as they were all Hebrew, were bound to the 'rules' of Judaism. All 613 of them.  Perhaps you're referring to the Precepts of the Church? Besides the Ten Commandments and Christ's own words, I really don't know of another list of 'rules.'

Peter was married

Yup. And I've pointed out previously, many other priests are married today. The ban on marriage is a discipline (read: policy put in place for a good reason that can be changed), NOT a doctrine. 22 out of 23 of the Catholic rites allow priests to marry. There's one in Austin (although i don't know how close that is to you). Even bishops were married in the early Church:



> "Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
> not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.b
> He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
> for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?"


1 Timothy 3:2-5

Cover-Up

This might be the real heart of the matter (unless it's the 'rules,' which I still don't know what that means), and is more on topic for the thread anyway.

As I've stated before, the cover-up was inexcusable, and those involved who knowingly participated, ESPECIALLY those in authority over the children and perpetrators involved, should be imprisoned. The end.

But to say that ONLY the Catholic church engaged in that is a disservice to reality. Cultural norms existed up to a few decades ago that made many just keep silent. 

Here's an example of non-Catholics participating in it as well:

http://www.cruxnow.com/ap/2016/04/13/i-got-a-tip-about-priests-sexual-abuse-and-sat-on-it/

Does this excuse anyone? Heck no. It is fair to only blame the Church? Again, no. You can't bash one group for a crime and ignore the same crime when a different group does it.


Thanks. This was fun.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

MDKatie said:


> Homosexual is not a synonym for pedophile, as much as you would like to believe. It is a pedophilia crisis. Someone can be a homosexual, a pedophile, or BOTH.
> 
> And I don't have time to go back and check your statistics, but how many heterosexuals have had sex with minors? And how many heterosexuals are pedophiles? I don't know the exact numbers, but I know there's no shortage of heterosexual child abusers as well.


But the fact is if a man has sex with a male child he is a homosexual.
No getting around that one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> But *the fact is* if a man has sex with a male child he is a homosexual.
> No getting around that one.


Not really, since he could be bisexual, or just confused.
Pedophiles are more interested in age than biological "sex"

You can't just toss out labels arbitrarily without more details


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> But the fact is if a man has sex with a male child he is a homosexual.
> No getting around that one.


Not true. See my post above.
Someone who has sex with a minor is committing pedophilia. He may or may not be a homosexual. I cited the example of prisoners having sex with other prisoners. The majority of them are not homosexual -- it is situational. The same applies to many of the Roman Catholic priests.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

There is obviously a "mono-focus" here.

Did Priests (Catholic) and clergy from other religious orgs molest / abuse children, yes.
Are they pedophiles ? Some yes, some no.
Are they gay ? Maybe but pedophilia has nothing to do with orientation, it is as sick preference or obsession.
Have priests / Clergy abused other's (non-children) yes. 

Are you folks aware that Pedophilia is GENDER NEUTRAL ? There are both male & female pedophiles in the world, although female pedo's are minimized in the news but they are out there. Consider the 30 yr old female teacher having sex with a 14 year old boy, or girl, which happens and is reported in news. 

utterly-depraved-female-paedophile-jailed
femalesexoffenders.org/2010/08/female-pedophiles-2
femalesexoffenders.org/2010/09/top ten myths about female sex offenders

Modern Society has many ill's there is no doubt. One of the single biggest problems is the inherent biased targeting looking for the "one bad group" that everyone can focus on, rather then look at the bigger problem that this is an issue that crosses Gender, Race, Religious and even sexual orientation boundaries.

"The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens." - Jimmy Carter 

"Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members". - Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization." - Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities." - John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped." - Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey 

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." - Mahatma Ghandi 

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Well, I see many have not read the links, didn't expect all to be read. 
But one thing is certain-the definition of pedophilia. Sex with a CHILD. A prepubecent. This does NOT mean 14 y/os. 
Therefore, the church has/had a problem w/homosexuals. As in 81% of the abuse came from HOMOSEXUAL priests! 
There are some here who bring up the abuse by priests & the cover up a lot. It was brought up in the thread about the LBGT laws in NC. Totally inapropriate, I'd think, b/c it was gays doing 81% of the abuse!

Great post, Steve S, most all the quotes could refer to abortion...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Steve_S said:


> There is obviously a "mono-focus" here.
> 
> Did Priests (Catholic) and clergy from other religious orgs molest / abuse children, yes.
> Are they pedophiles ? Some yes, some no.
> ...



I agree with most of your post, and thank you for noting that pedophilia is the sexual assault of _children_ and has little or nothing to do with sexual orientation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

While pedophilia is indeed the sexual attraction to children, the FACTS are that 81% of the abuse by priests was by homosexual priests.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Belfrybat said:


> Not true. See my post above.
> Someone who has sex with a minor is committing pedophilia. He may or may not be a homosexual. I cited the example of prisoners having sex with other prisoners. The majority of them are not homosexual -- it is situational. The same applies to many of the Roman Catholic priests.


Exactly. That's what I've found doing a bit of research as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> While pedophilia is indeed the sexual attraction to children, the FACTS are that 81% of the abuse by priests was by homosexual priests.


So does that prove highly religious people are more likely to be gay?


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Belfrybat said:


> Not true. See my post above.
> Someone who has sex with a minor is committing pedophilia. He may or may not be a homosexual. I cited the example of prisoners having sex with other prisoners. The majority of them are not homosexual -- it is situational. The same applies to many of the Roman Catholic priests.


No, it does not apply. Their sexual orientation was known when they entered seminary.

The majority of the abuse was not true pedophilia (although there was some of that). More properly, it was ephebophilia, homosexual priests and teenage boys. 

_Goodbye Good Men_ by Michael Rose explains a lot about this issue and how it came about.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So does that prove highly religious people are more likely to be gay?


Not at all.

If anything, it suggests that, strictly among those who are abusers, the majority also has a same-sex orientation.

If these statistics are accurate, that's the logical conclusion.

Also:


> Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are significantly less likely than non-LGBT Americans to be highly religious, and significantly more likely to be classified as not religious.


From http://www.gallup.com/poll/174788/lgbt-population-significantly-less-religious.aspx


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

vicki in NW OH said:


> No, it does not apply. Their sexual orientation was known when they entered seminary.


Known to whom?


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Known to whom?


The church and seminary, either heterosexual or SSA, not pedophilia. As it stands now, officially, men with SSA are not to be admitted to seminary. However, some dioceses and bishops will admit men with SSA. Of course, there are some men who get through the filters (several psych evals and many references) and lie their way into seminary.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but neither the church nor the seminary would have any idea who is gay or not unless the candidate declared it. And the church accepts gay men as priests as long as they are celibate. There was a short time that self-declared gay men were banned from seminary, but only for a few years right after the sex scandal broke. 

Despite Gramma's links, there is no empirical evidence that gay men sexually abuse minors anymore than heterosexual men do.


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Belfrybat said:


> Despite Gramma's links, there is no empirical evidence that gay men sexually abuse minors anymore than heterosexual men do.


No there isn't.

There IS empirical evidence to support the claim that pedophiles are more likely to *also *be homosexual than hetero. See post #15 for the summary and source.

In spite of  only 3.8% of the gen-pop being gay in the first place, the data suggests that that group is MORE LIKELY to also be pedophillic.

"The ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1". Yet in genpop, the ratio of hetero vs **** is 26:1 (the study I quoted said 20:1, which is generous).

That results in an increased likelihood factor of 2.36.

Based on the data, it seems fair to say that homosexuals are over twice as likely as heterosexuals to be pedophillic.

----
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that gay men are more likely to actually be abusers (see my opening line of this post!). That's not what the data here says. What I AM saying is that is a significant statistical overlap that just can't be swept under the rug.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Belfrybat said:


> I don't know where you are getting your information from, but neither the church nor the seminary would have any idea who is gay or not unless the candidate declared it. And the church accepts gay men as priests as long as they are celibate. There was a short time that self-declared gay men were banned from seminary, but only for a few years right after the sex scandal broke.
> 
> Despite Gramma's links, there is no empirical evidence that gay men sexually abuse minors anymore than heterosexual men do.


Where are you getting your information?

My son is a seminarian. I most certainly do know the process they go through and who is accepted for formation, at least in my diocese.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bubba1358 said:


> Not at all.
> 
> If anything, it suggests that, strictly among those who are abusers, the majority also has a same-sex orientation.
> 
> ...


There can be lots of "logical conclusions" reached from the numbers.
It's just that not all of them are valid, and some will be ignored in order to highlight the others


----------



## Bubba1358 (Nov 6, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There can be lots of "logical conclusions" reached from the numbers.
> It's just that not all of them are valid, and some will be ignored in order to highlight the others


Indeed.

You can use statistics to "prove" anything.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Belfrybat said:


> I don't know where you are getting your information from, but neither the church nor the seminary would have any idea who is gay or not unless the candidate declared it. And the church accepts gay men as priests as long as they are celibate. There was a short time that self-declared gay men were banned from seminary, but only for a few years right after the sex scandal broke.
> 
> Despite Gramma's links, there is no empirical evidence that gay men sexually abuse minors anymore than heterosexual men do.


My links show that of all the abuse, 81% was by gay men. 81%. Yes, the victims were minors but not all were prepubescent. So in this case, overwhelmingly, homosexual men abused minors far FAR more than did heterosexual men.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> My links show that of all the abuse, 81% was by gay men. 81%. Yes, the victims were minors but not all were prepubescent. So *in this case*, overwhelmingly, homosexual men abused minors far FAR more than did heterosexual men.


So you have a sample of one.
Why the obsession with gays?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

From one of the links...

The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term "twink" denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls." This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1&#8211;3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children.

However, some claim 11 yrs as the cut off age to be considered pedophilia-if it were my child-I'd say 11 is STILL a child!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> From one of the links...
> 
> The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle.!


 Ah, the old 'gay lifestyle'. Is this the one that the anti-gay crusaders tell us is so 'tempting'?? If you find anything remotely 'tempting' about being gay, it probably speaks to your own latent homosexual desires more than anything else. Just waiting for the next big anti-gay crusader to come out as gay. Probably Kirk Cameron. 
Obviously if the priests are touching same sex kids, they are both homosexual and pedophiles. One is a crime, the other is not. ALthough i get the feeling many would like to see it made into a crime.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Ah, the old 'gay lifestyle'. Is this the one that the anti-gay crusaders tell us is so 'tempting'?? If you find anything remotely 'tempting' about being gay, it probably speaks to your own latent homosexual desires more than anything else. Just waiting for the next big anti-gay crusader to come out as gay. Probably Kirk Cameron.
> Obviously if the priests are touching same sex kids, they are both homosexual and pedophiles. One is a crime, the other is not. ALthough i get the feeling many would like to see it made into a crime.


BWahaha! Wow, when you have absolutely NO value to add or any credible evidence to disclaim any of the research you attack! Ha! Btw, have never heard of your "tempting" argument, got links? Btw, I've never been anti-gay. Never.
I am, however, tired of the anti Christian folks here who bring up pediphile priests in so many discussions, w/o any documentation on what was done about the horrific happenings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> BWahaha! Wow, when you have absolutely NO value to add or any credible evidence to disclaim any of the research you attack! Ha! Btw, have never heard of your "tempting" argument, got links? Btw,
> *I've never been anti-gay. Never.*
> 
> *I am, however, tired of the anti Christian folks here who bring up pediphile priests *in so many discussions, w/o any documentation on what was done about the horrific happenings.


So to counter that you bring up a study about *more* pedophile priests?

I'm not seeing the logic there



> *I've never been anti-gay. Never.*


I don't believe the "never been anti gay" claim.
I've read too many of your posts on the topic.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> BWahaha! Wow, when you have absolutely NO value to add or any credible evidence to disclaim any of the research you attack! .


 Pretty hard to 'add value' to what was simply an obvious attempt to rebrand a pedophile problem as a 'gay problem'.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So to counter that you bring up a study about *more* pedophile priests?
> 
> I'm not seeing the logic there
> 
> ...


One of the biggest lies yet, links? How many hrs have you logged in, helping, educating, nursing gays? 
Got any posts to show 'anti-gay'? Otherwise, you lie.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> One of the biggest lies yet, links? How many hrs have you logged in, helping, educating, nursing gays?
> Got any posts to show 'anti-gay'? Otherwise, you lie.


How do you nurse gays being a pharmaceutical sales rep? :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you nurse gays being a pharmaceutical sales rep? :facepalm:


I am an RN. I have a bachelor of science degree in nursing. I worked in hospitals & clinics for many years. 
My pharmaceutical sales career came later.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. Nope. Nope. Not worth the effort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> One of the biggest lies yet, links? How many hrs have you logged in, helping, educating, nursing gays?
> Got any posts to show 'anti-gay'? Otherwise, *you lie*.


You know it's the truth, just like you know what Fordy said, but you denied that also. You lost all your credibility there.

I'm not a nurse, so you have more hours *doing your job* than I.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Tricky Grama said:


> My links show that of all the abuse, 81% was by gay men. 81%. Yes, the victims were minors but not all were prepubescent. So in this case, overwhelmingly, homosexual men abused minors far FAR more than did heterosexual men.


I haven't been keeping up, but has anyone thought that an institution which prohibits normal adult heterosexual relationships is going to naturally attract either or both of those who are homosexual or pedophiles? Many are lying to themselves if not the institution. Of course statistics will show a higher percentage of homosexuals _from that population_, since it already attracts those who are looking for a socially acceptable place for themselves, where they don't have to explain away their lack of desire to be married or come out. Sexual behavior is very powerful, and it is going to manifest somehow. This is one of many things that the catholic church in all of it's hypocrisy has refused to acknowledge. If they would allow priests to marry it would eliminate one of the few havens where men could go to not have to explain away their sexuality. Some homosexuals who can't be honest with themselves will have to start to make other choices, but also those with pedophile tendencies will also, and then will be just as closely monitored or at least suspected as any other single man who chooses to work with children.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

These men ruined many lives and in my opinion, worrying about affixing labels is nothing more than a need to transfer blame. 

Instead of accepting responsibility for the actions of priests who did molest, they broke a few commandments and carried on with business as usual and even now, they seem keen on hiding behind labels rather than worrying about the lives that were ruined.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

As far as I am concerned, the men and women that perpetrated these offenses should be punished harshly by the laws of this world. 

They will indeed be punished if they happen to slip by. While it might be callous to say, I trust that there will be no free passes. 

Is it that they are drawn to the religious community by the spirit or are they drawn because of the easy pickings? It kind of follows along with the people that we give absolute authority over us, those that might kill us. I know and have known LEOs that were the salt of the earth, I sincerely lean towards believing that there are more of them than there are of the trouble makers. 

What happens when we cannot believe this of either crowd? What happens if those that would destroy us, that they might be handed the keys? 

We see, in both of the proffered examples, people that would do this...


And what of the infrastructure that allows this to happen? Does this pollute the core?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You know it's the truth, just like you know what Fordy said, but you denied that also. You lost all your credibility there.
> 
> I'm not a nurse, so you have more hours *doing your job* than I.


Unless you can prove the LIE you said about me, its just more lies. I'm an advocate of gay health. I have friends & neighbors who are gay. 

If I've lost cred w/you its a good thing. You & a few others have NOTHING to add but attacks on the messenger. Typical. Must be of the ilk who yell racist when folks post facts that 72% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, or the stats on how many 'single mom kids' end up in jail. 

To mock Fordy in the post you are referering to was insulting.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Agriculture said:


> I haven't been keeping up, but has anyone thought that an institution which prohibits normal adult heterosexual relationships is going to naturally attract either or both of those who are homosexual or pedophiles? Many are lying to themselves if not the institution. Of course statistics will show a higher percentage of homosexuals _from that population_, since it already attracts those who are looking for a socially acceptable place for themselves, where they don't have to explain away their lack of desire to be married or come out. Sexual behavior is very powerful, and it is going to manifest somehow. This is one of many things that the catholic church in all of it's hypocrisy has refused to acknowledge. If they would allow priests to marry it would eliminate one of the few havens where men could go to not have to explain away their sexuality. Some homosexuals who can't be honest with themselves will have to start to make other choices, but also those with pedophile tendencies will also, and then will be just as closely monitored or at least suspected as any other single man who chooses to work with children.


You & I aren't the only ones who think this way. Seems if marriage were allowed the priesthood would attract another type of individual. However the John Jay study said otherwise...not in those words but it said there wasn't a correlation or something to that effect.
And one of the studies states the church tried to stop gays entering the seminary for a time but doesn't say why they stopped that practice.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Unless you can prove the LIE you said about me, its just more lies. I'm an advocate of gay health. I have friends & neighbors who are gay.
> 
> If I've lost cred w/you its a good thing. You & a few others have NOTHING to add but attacks on the messenger. Typical. Must be of the ilk who yell racist when folks post facts that 72% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, or the stats on how many 'single mom kids' end up in jail.
> 
> To mock Fordy in the post you are referering to was insulting.


bwahaha! Oh, you were serious? :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> These men ruined many lives and in my opinion, worrying about affixing labels is nothing more than a need to transfer blame.
> 
> Instead of accepting responsibility for the actions of priests who did molest, they broke a few commandments and carried on with business as usual and even now, they seem keen on hiding behind labels rather than worrying about the lives that were ruined.


Hundreds were 'defrocked', hundreds were sent to communities where nothing but 'penance & sacrifice' went on. Yeah right. I cannot understand why hunreds are not in prison. 
There was a huge network of gay priests & bishops/cardinals who protected them, even congregated at a spa one of the most prolific abusers owned.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> bwahaha! Oh, you were serious? :facepalm:


Lets see your examples.
BWhaha. Oh, that's right, there are none.
Attack, call names, atatck. No links.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Lets see your examples.
> BWhaha. Oh, that's right, there are none.
> Attack, call names, atatck. No links.


At least I post to you where you have a chance to respond. 

Let's see- the catholic church covered up the pedophile molestation of many, many kids. There isn't anything to spin, they were absolutely wrong. Anyone involved in the cover up should be in jail. No need for labels, examples, nothing...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

And its been determined that gays were the majority of the problem. And its been determined that pedophilia -as determined by the college of pediatrics as well as psychologists-means the sexual abuse of children under the age of puberty. And the majority of those abused were above that age.
Many here can refute this, all are entitled to an opinion but the definition is what it is.

I don't think anyone thinks the offenders should not be punished.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I guess this proves that people who believe in God are more likely to be gay and sexually abuse children.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I guess this proves that people who believe in God are more likely to be gay and sexually abuse children.


Or that people that believe in god are more likely to be pedophiles and molest children, depending on which studies you believe.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I guess this proves that people who believe in God are more likely to be gay and sexually abuse children.





Irish Pixie said:


> Or that people that believe in god are more likely to be pedophiles and molest children, depending on which studies you believe.


What a nice thing to say. I'm sure it will not be seen as insulting in any way by the moderators of this forum.

:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It was simply another way to interpret Tricky's links, anyone can see that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> What a nice thing to say. I'm sure it will not be seen as insulting in any way by the moderators of this forum.
> 
> :facepalm:


My point was that the OP was just as insulting. I don't believe that my conclusions are any more real that the ones in the OP. I think they are both wrong. Taking bits and pieces from several studies that look at only a small sample of a situation don't give you accurate results.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> To mock Fordy in the post you are referering to was insulting.


Fordy's post was almost surreally racist. The fact that you're defending it is very worrisome.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Fordy's post was almost surreally racist. The fact that you're defending it is very worrisome.


Par for the course for both of them.

Fordys posts are infamous for their racist content. On other boards too.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Well its time to add some wisdom to this discussion - there is no doubt if you are a young homosexual male catholic the priesthood would seem like a good vocation - since you have no desire to get married and have a family - and then because of the influence a priest has some take advantage of it by harming children - this whole issue was a great tragedy for the church and will never be forgotten - many good priests have to suffer because of the misdeeds of these homosexuals 

Now let's take about punishment - in many cultures homosexuals are put to death just for being one - I read recently that ISIS was throwing them off the top of buildings - I would have no problem with handing the death sentence to a pedophile when caught molesting little innocent children - I don't think a person can do anything more despicable


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JoePa said:


> Well its time to add some wisdom to this discussion -


Is that what you call it? You do seem to have a great deal of difficulty differentiating between "homosexuals" and "pedophiles". Are you aware they aren't the same thing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Unless you can prove the LIE you said about me, its just more lies. I'm an advocate of gay health. I have friends & neighbors who are gay.
> 
> If I've lost cred w/you its a good thing. *You & a few others have NOTHING to add but attacks on the messenger.* Typical. Must be of the ilk who yell racist when folks post facts that 72% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, or the stats on how many 'single mom kids' end up in jail.
> 
> *To mock Fordy in the post you are referering to was insulting.*


To *deny* what he said was a lie.
To *deny* the comments you've made against gays in the past is a lie.
To *pretend* you don't spend lots of time "attacking" is a lie.

Just admit reality instead of always passing the blame and pretending you're innocent :shrug:

I didn't see you complain about this "lie":


> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> Oh no...CDC reports that *82%* of syphilis cases are from *homosexual* men.


I pointed out *the numbers were incorrect*, and then was called a "liar" (among other things) when the *reworded* "proof" was claimed again, but still with no link, because the link says something different

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-2014-among-gay-men-where-sex-sex-partner-was


> CDC: *75.5%* of Syphilis Cases in 2014 Among Gay Men 'Where Sex of Sex Partner Was Known





> In 2014, reported the health agency, &#8220;men accounted for 91% of all cases of P&S syphilis. And, of those male cases for whom sex of sex partner was known, 83% were MSM.&#8221;
> 
> 83% of 91% equals 75.53%, which means that *75.53%* of syphilis cases in 2014 were among* homosexual* men.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

basketti said:


> Par for the course for both of them.
> 
> Fordys posts are infamous for their racist content. On other boards too.



Is he the guy that lives in an RV park and is trying to get a job at McDonalds ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> What a nice thing to say. I'm sure it will not be seen as insulting in any way by the moderators of this forum.
> 
> :facepalm:


It's a logical conclusion based *on the numbers* presented.
100% of those in the study claimed to be highly religious.
Is that not true?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was simply another way to interpret Tricky's links, anyone can see that.





painterswife said:


> My point was that the OP was just as insulting. I don't believe that my conclusions are any more real that the ones in the OP. I think they are both wrong. Taking bits and pieces from several studies that look at only a small sample of a situation don't give you accurate results.


Well, thank you for including me on the parties that deserve to be insulted, since I believe in God.
I was foretold that this would happen, so it's nice to know that what I've been foretold, is the truth.

:thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Is he the guy that lives in an RV park and is trying to get a job at McDonalds ?


That would be the one


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

How anyone can be insulted over the internet I'll never understand. They must not have any self esteem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> How anyone can be insulted over the internet I'll never understand. They must not have any self esteem.


It's feigned indignation in many cases


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, thank you for including me on the parties that deserve to be insulted, since I believe in God.
> I was foretold that this would happen, so it's nice to know that what I've been foretold, is the truth.
> 
> :thumb:



I believe in God and wasn't insulted anymore than a gay man would be insulted by TG's ridiculous conclusion given the same data.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, thank you for including me on the parties that deserve to be insulted, since I believe in God.
> I was foretold that this would happen, so it's nice to know that what I've been foretold, is the truth.
> 
> :thumb:


I'm in favor of insulting everyone.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> To *deny* what he said was a lie.
> To *deny* the comments you've made against gays in the past is a lie.
> To *pretend* you don't spend lots of time "attacking" is a lie.
> 
> ...


That's not the link.
I was clear it was CDC. Their website.
I'll stand on the 83%.
Homosexual...bisexual...men that have sex with other men.
Regardless of the terms that any person wants to use to describe themself....83% are directly from a homosexual act.
The new one...men having sex with other men...now what is this about? Possibly confused...made a mistake...thought he was a woman because he was wearing a skirt?
That would be homosexual.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I guess this proves that people who believe in God are more likely to be gay and sexually abuse children.


I guess it never occured to you that those who did the abuse were ONLY there for that & that alone. Almost all the gay priests had their own little (no-so little) group of protection-they even had special "spas" they went to.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

We've been trying to say that homosexuals & pedophiles aren't the same. But many want their own definition of pedophile, even tho it is not correct. 

Therefore, the offending priests, over 80% who were gay, abused adolescent boys, and technically those were not pedophiles. But it WAS the FAR majority of the abuse.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> To *deny* what he said was a lie.
> To *deny* the comments you've made against gays in the past is a lie.
> To *pretend* you don't spend lots of time "attacking" is a lie.
> 
> ...


And your point is? Those are not links I found, don't care about 'em.
How long are you going to lie about me?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess it never occured to you that those who did the abuse were ONLY there for that & that alone. Almost all the gay priests had their own little (no-so little) group of protection-they even had special "spas" they went to.


Did it occur to you? it is the exact reason that your stats are not of any consequence to the world in general. You started a thread just to try to needle someone who's discussion you did not like and proved nothing about what she has said in the past.

Curious ? Are you going to admit what you posted about this thread on another forum or are you going to ignore it like you did when you accused Basketti of posting Fordy's words as hers? You never did apologize for that.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Bask' - I know the difference but I'll tell you something - the difference isn't much - most of the priests that were caught molesting children were homos - there isn't anyway you can spin that - yes - I'm for the death penalty - I'd give them a choice - getting hanged or shot -


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Are you going to admit what you posted about this thread on another forum [/B]or are you going to ignore it like you did when you accused Basketti of posting Fordy's words as hers? You never did apologize for that.


Glad you brought that up. I was going to ask this on the other thread but found it locked.

Are you a member on the Country Conservatives board? There is a member named 'painterswife', whose first post sounds very much like you and who, coincidentally, logged on around the time that you claimed you were sent an 'anonymous' message about what Tricky had posted.

So, are you a member or has someone joined using your name?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Glad you brought that up. I was going to ask this on the other thread but found it locked.
> 
> Are you a member on the Country Conservatives board? There is a member named 'painterswife', whose first post sounds very much like you and who, coincidentally, logged on around the time that you claimed you were sent an 'anonymous' message about what Tricky had posted.
> 
> So, are you a member or has someone joined using your name?


I am a member. That is common knowledge. Are you saying that what Tricky posted is on that forum? I could not find it there. Could you send me a link.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JoePa said:


> Bask' - I know the difference but I'll tell you something - the difference isn't much - most of the priests that were caught molesting children were homos - there isn't anyway you can spin that - yes - I'm for the death penalty - I'd give them a choice - getting hanged or shot -


I'll bet every single one of those priests caught molesting children drinks water and breathes air. I do too. Do you think that makes me a child molester?
Do you drink water and breathe air? Are you a child molester?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> I'll bet every single one of those priests caught molesting children drinks water and breathes air. I do too. Do you think that makes me a child molester?
> Do you drink water and breathe air? Are you a child molester?


I don't think that anyone could make that connection. And I think that the missing connection is Gay+Church here, do they join the church because they have felt the higher calling and intend to Glorify God with their lives or do they join the church because there is an unknown culture operating within? There seems to be enough instances to be able to qualify it as one or the other. For to have the protection of higher ups when it is clearly unacceptable behavior would seem that there is a devotion elsewhere. 

There are a number of clergy persons found within my family line, no reports of this type of behavior. 

I did have an uncle that would recharge people's Lightning Rods with a car battery every spring for a nominal fee...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> I don't think that anyone could make that connection. And I think that the missing connection is Gay+Church here, do they join the church because they have felt the higher calling and intend to Glorify God with their lives or do they join the church because there is an unknown culture operating within? There seems to be enough instances to be able to qualify it as one or the other. For to have the protection of higher ups when it is clearly unacceptable behavior would seem that there is a devotion elsewhere.
> 
> There are a number of clergy persons found within my family line, no reports of this type of behavior.
> 
> I did have an uncle that would recharge people's Lightning Rods with a car battery every spring for a nominal fee...


I already made the connection. The point is, that correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> I don't think that anyone could make that connection. And I think that the missing connection is Gay+Church here, do they join the church because they have felt the higher calling and intend to Glorify God with their lives or do they join the church because there is an unknown culture operating within? There seems to be enough instances to be able to qualify it as one or the other. For to have the protection of higher ups when it is clearly unacceptable behavior would seem that there is a devotion elsewhere.


I suspect that they were sincere in joining the priesthood, if for no other reason that it's not an easy way to get close to youths. Volunteering to be a boy scout leader would have been a much easier route.

But I can't help but believe that priests having no sexual outlet plays a part.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> I already made the connection. The point is, that correlation does not imply causation.



hence, my question as to that causation...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> hence, my question as to that causation...


I didn't see you question anything.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess it never occured to you that those who did the abuse were ONLY there for that & that alone. Almost all the gay priests had their own little (no-so little) group of protection-they even had special "spas" they went to.


I hadn't heard that or at least not heard of it happening in my province but I have heard plenty from a friend who has lived with horrible effects of being physically abused and the misery of the church trying to shame him into silence. 

I don't know if the abusers were there for easy pickings because I don't think anyone can see into another person's heart but the end result for many remains the same. They were abused and the church tried to bully them into remaining silent while the abusers continued harming young people. 

In my opinion, a priest is in a position of trust and abusing that trust is the worst kind of abuse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> I guess it never occured to you that those who did the abuse *were ONLY there for that & that alone*.


So their claims about being devoutly religious were lies they told to get what they wanted?

They had to go that far to find victims?

That seems pretty illogical to me


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That's not the link.
> I was clear it was CDC. Their website.
> *I'll stand on the 83%*.
> Homosexual...bisexual...men that have sex with other men.
> ...


Then you'll still be mistaken.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> And your point is? Those are not links I found, don't care about 'em.
> How long are you going to lie about me?


I have neither a desire nor a need to lie about you.
You own words show the truth
I do realize you don't care about links unless you found them


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you'll still be mistaken.


Nope....not gonna do it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a logical conclusion based *on the numbers* presented.
> 100% of those in the study claimed to be highly religious.
> Is that not true?






oneraddad said:


> How anyone can be insulted over the internet I'll never understand. They must not have any self esteem.






Bearfootfarm said:


> It's feigned indignation in many cases





basketti said:


> I believe in God and wasn't insulted anymore than a gay man would be insulted by TG's ridiculous conclusion given the same data.





Matthew Ch. 10.........


*Persecutions Are Coming
16 &#8220;Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

21 &#8220;Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22And you will be hated by all for My name&#8217;s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 &#8220;A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub,[d] how much more will they call those of his household! 26 Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.

*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

What's with the scripture lesson? My comment was tongue in cheek. I would never persecute a Christian or any other sect for any reason. That's kind of our side of the argument after all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I had a totally different reply typed out for each person, yours was in there with my agreement, basically stating that was fine as long as it was equally enforced.
And then.............some One gave me a far better answer than I could come up with. 
(I'll edit yours out now)

However, you may want to consider the motivations of those whose "side" you run with here.
Notice the words in red, it isn't necessarily a physical "persecution", it's also a deep hatred of anything or anyone that is called "Christian". (For my name's sake)
They will say it isn't so, but it's as plain as day.

And the last verse was encouragement to all those who DO believe.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Notice the words in red, it isn't necessarily a physical "persecution", it's also a deep hatred of anything or anyone that is called "Christian". (For my name's sake)
> They will say it isn't so, but it's as plain as day.


 If you and some others get grief for discrimination, you can bet its got nothing to do with Jesus, so you can stop with the martyr thing already.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I guess some may hate everything to do with anything or anyone that is Christian but I think that is because of their actual life situations in the religion.

I don't hare anything about Christianity. It serves a need for many people. I do have a problem with how so many use it as a battering ram to try to prove they are better.

Hating Christians would mean I have to hate so many people I love. I can't do that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Did it occur to you? it is the exact reason that your stats are not of any consequence to the world in general. You started a thread just to try to needle someone who's discussion you did not like and proved nothing about what she has said in the past.
> 
> Curious ? Are you going to admit what you posted about this thread on another forum or are you going to ignore it like you did when you accused Basketti of posting Fordy's words as hers? You never did apologize for that.


There's 'bout 20 pages on the other website regarding this one...tell me how you have the authority to force folks to tell what they have posted there? That's rich!
Plus you lied, I never said I posted the gay priest facts to 'get back' at anyone. 
But it's just like your group. Lots of hate, lots of lies.

The stats may be of no consequence to you, b/c you have an agenda, but those facts are meaningful to many.

Apologies?! When has anyone apologized to me?!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> There's 'bout 20 pages on the other website regarding this one...tell me how you have the authority to force folks to tell what they have posted there? That's rich!
> Plus you lied, I never said I posted the gay priest facts to 'get back' at anyone.
> But it's just like your group. Lots of hate, lots of lies.
> 
> ...


Thank-you for answering my question. I appreciate that.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> I didn't see you question anything.



That would have been this sentence:
And I think that the missing connection is Gay+Church here, do they join the church because they have felt the higher calling and intend to Glorify God with their lives or do they join the church because there is an unknown culture operating within?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I guess some may hate everything to do with anything or anyone that is Christian but I think that is because of their actual life situations in the religion.
> 
> I don't hare anything about Christianity. It serves a need for many people. I do have a problem with how so many use it as a battering ram to try to prove they are better.
> 
> Hating Christians would mean I have to hate so many people I love. I can't do that.


Exactly.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> That would have been this sentence:
> And I think that the missing connection is Gay+Church here, do they join the church because they have felt the higher calling and intend to Glorify God with their lives or do they join the church because there is an unknown culture operating within?


Oops, sorry.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> I had a totally different reply typed out for each person, yours was in there with my agreement, basically stating that was fine as long as it was equally enforced.
> And then.............some One gave me a far better answer than I could come up with.
> (I'll edit yours out now)
> 
> ...


No one's persecuting Christians. They're still one of the most powerful political groups in America. And, while we're at it, I think many Christians need to work on their deep hatred for anything _not_ Christian.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Notice the words in red, it isn't necessarily a physical "persecution", it's also a *deep hatred of anything or anyone that is called "Christian*". (For my name's sake)
> *They will say it isn't so*, but it's as plain as day.


You should get over that persecution complex.
No one cares what you call yourself.

It's how one acts that really matters, and *according to the OP* "christians" sometimes lie to get their way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> There's 'bout 20 pages on the other website regarding this one...tell me how you have the authority to force folks to tell what they have posted there? That's rich!
> Plus you lied, *I never said I posted the gay priest facts to 'get back' at anyone*.
> But it's just like your group. Lots of hate, lots of lies.


So are you now saying the quote from that site was fabricated?
Or are you just mincing words?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So are you now saying the quote from that site was fabricated?
> Or are you just mincing words?


I don't recall seeing the words 'get back at Pixie' anywhere in her post. 

I do see her thread here as refuting what Pixie has posted. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Or is there?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I don't recall seeing the words 'get back at Pixie' anywhere in her post.
> 
> I do see her thread here as refuting what Pixie has posted. And there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Or is there?


So it's "word mincing"...Thank you.
I don't agree that it "refutes" anything though since it's limited to priests, while other studies (even some she linked) say no real conclusions can be drawn


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So it's "word mincing"...Thank you.
> I don't agree that it "refutes" anything though since it's limited to priests, while other studies (even some she linked) say no real conclusions can be drawn


Word mincing?
From the king of mincing..turning anybody's post inside out and upside down.
To make it what you want it to be.
Add...twist...make a post say what you want.
You gotta lot of nerve to be on anybody's back.
Pot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Word mincing?
> From the king of mincing..turning anybody's post inside out and upside down.
> To make it what you want it to be.
> Add...twist...make a post say what you want.
> ...


It's the truth whether you like it or not.
Put me on ignore if you don't want to read it


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the truth whether you like it or not.
> Put me on ignore if you don't want to read it


You have great difficulty with truth.
I would never put you on ignore.
The insanity is too good to pass up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> You have great difficulty with *truth.*
> I would never put you on ignore.
> The insanity is too good to pass up.


The *truth* is I posted a link which showed your "83%/homosexuals" claim was mistaken, like I told you, and ever since you've been attacking me personally instead of once showing anything as evidence of what you said.

Isn't *that* the "truth"?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *truth* is I posted a link which showed your "83%/homosexuals" claim was mistaken, like I told you, and ever since you've been attacking me personally instead of once showing anything as evidence of what you said.
> 
> Isn't *that* the "truth"?


That's what he does. Nothing substantive to say so he hurls insults hoping he'll get the thread shut down. Not worth any thoughtful response.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

basketti said:


> That's what he does. Nothing substantive to say so he hurls insults hoping he'll get the thread shut down. Not worth any thoughtful response.


Several like to use that tactic


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *truth* is I posted a link which showed your "83%/homosexuals" claim was mistaken, like I told you, and ever since you've been attacking me personally instead of once showing anything as evidence of what you said.
> 
> Isn't *that* the "truth"?


Went over that before.
CDC website is the truth not your news link.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> That's what he does. Nothing substantive to say so he hurls insults hoping he'll get the thread shut down. Not worth any thoughtful response.


Did you not ask on another thread if I was a "shorty"?
I almost asked if you were fat.
But I did not.
Pot.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Did you not ask on another thread if I was a "shorty"?
> I almost asked if you were fat.
> But I did not.
> Pot.


I wont even say what I almost asked you. 

Pan.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> I wont even say what I almost asked you.
> 
> Pan.


Size 13 shoes.
Good enough?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> CDC website is the truth not your news link.


You believe scientists who work for the government? I thought you would believe neither...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nevada said:


> You believe scientists who work for the government?


Who said their scientists?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> Who said their scientists?


The talking heads for the scientists.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> That's not the link.
> I was clear it was CDC. Their website.
> I'll stand on the 83%.
> .


83% was the percentage of men who had syphilis that were gay. That is not the total percentage of syphilis cases. In total, gay men accounted for 75% of ALL new syphilis cases. 
The CDC website oversimplified the data, the full numbers are in their report, which the 'CSN' links to. Its the same data, just a little more detailed. 



> In 2014, reported the health agency, âmen accounted for 91% of all cases of P&S syphilis. And, of those male cases for whom sex of sex partner was known, 83% were MSM.â
> 83% of 91% equals 75.53%, which means that 75.53% of syphilis cases in 2014 were among homosexual men.


 Not a huge difference between 75% and 83%, but the data points to an emerging epidemic among gay men. Hopefully those pedophilic priests we were originally talking about didn't spread too much disease among their victims.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Size 13 shoes.
> Good enough?


As long as you can get them back out of your mouth, that's all that matters. :thumb:


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

greg273 said:


> 83% was the percentage of men who had syphilis that were gay. That is not the total percentage of syphilis cases. In total, gay men accounted for 75% of ALL new syphilis cases.
> The CDC website oversimplified the data, the full numbers are in their report, which the 'CSN' links to. Its the same data, just a little more detailed.
> 
> 
> Not a huge difference between 75% and 83%, but the data points to an emerging epidemic among gay men. Hopefully those pedophilic priests we were originally talking about didn't spread too much disease among their victims.


Hopefully they didn't.
Not a glowing statistic for homosexual men regardless.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> 83% was the percentage of men who had syphilis that were gay. That is not the total percentage of syphilis cases. In total, gay men accounted for 75% of ALL new syphilis cases.
> The CDC website oversimplified the data, the full numbers are in their report, which the 'CSN' links to. Its the same data, just a little more detailed.
> 
> 
> Not a huge difference between 75% and 83%, but the data points to an emerging epidemic among gay men. Hopefully those pedophilic priests we were originally talking about didn't spread too much disease among their victims.


Just a minute while I jump on the other side of the fence real quick: Doesn't this mean gays are contracting more diseases that straights?


----------

