Man oh man do liberals get upset if you bring up the fact that the victims were overwhelmingly adolescent males targeted by homosexual priests. How many news reports have you read that point this out? Few. Being gay does not incline a priest to abuse children; however, most of the priests who abused children were gay and most of their victims were boys
9 comments
Every anti-gay fundie like Tom W: "If a child is sexually abused by a same-sex adult, it's blatantly obvious that the abuser is homosexual! But if the abuser is of the opposite sex, that does NOT mean said abuser is a heterosexual!!! Because NORMAL people don't sexually abuse children! Ergo, the abuser is a closet homosexual."
"Being gay does not incline a priest to abuse children..."
...said this fundie. The other fundie said that being gay means you are a pedophile. Yet another fundie chimed in and said that being a pedophile means you are gay.
Then they all put on boxing gloves and beat the hell out of one another. Everyone lost.
Off topic, I'm having a bit of trhone posting new comments (I had one in mind regarding a ex gay orlando survivor) but it says I need to fill in an archive.
I tried to fill in everything but it failed to post twice. So where can I find "Archive".
@Chloe
Exactly, because male priest are seldom put in direct charge of girls, of any age, and there's a church policy of that. One of nuns responsibilities is to always have a presence when priests are around girls.
@Don
I'm glad to hear there was infighting on this, different churches and fundie cliques have there own fantasies built around any world issue or doctrine. They usually all wrong is the main problem
"Man oh man do liberals get upset if you bring up the fact"
is getting to be their main reason for any approach to a topic.
Being gay does not incline a priest to abuse children; however, most of the priests who abused children were gay and most of their victims were boys
All true, but you're trying to push a connection between gay and pedophile. The reason that priests abused boys was because they were easily available. They'd have molested girls if they were close, and some of them did.
A friend of mine was guarding the payroll building in Okinawa on his way back from Viet Nam. Long, boring, midnight to 0600 shift.
Same time a Marine unit had their pay interrupted. The entire unit. Some of them decided to firebomb the building in protest.
Dave didn’t care, really. Except he was in the building at the time. So he shot the perpetrators.
The military was segregated at the time, so everyone in the Marine unit was black. So everyone he shot WHILE THE BUILDING WAS BURNING was black.
Some people took it as racially significant. But he swears he’d have cheerfully shot any white man trying to set him on fire. There just weren’t any in the parking lot that night.
Most minors, there’s just not that much difference between boys and girls. But the Catholic church just makes altar boys more available than altar girls. Anyone who does NOT have a hard-on for demonizing gays might look to see if there’s an alternate interpretation of the stats. That’s not an issue, here.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.