Vatican plan to block gay priests

[whypikonme]

So the Vatican is to ban gay priests, does this mean there will be a severe shortage? Or will they let the ones they already have, stay?

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1558063,00.html)

Gay men will be in good company, women are also discriminated against.

[ahctlucabbuS]

No surprise there,

when you elect a bigot with a collar to run your empire.

[j2k4]

So the Vatican is to ban gay priests, does this mean there will be a severe shortage? Or will they let the ones they already have, stay?

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1558063,00.html)

Gay men will be in good company, women are also discriminated against.

While acknowledging the apparent irony of the statement as well as the opportunities it creates for sardonic humor, I must ask:

Are you Catholic?

(I am not)

Do you urge anti-Catholic discrimination in light of the statement?

Are you as picky about the mores and behaviors of Islamists or Buddhists as you are about Christians/Jews?

Do you think your views are consistant?

[JPaul]

So the Vatican is to ban gay priests, does this mean there will be a severe shortage? Or will they let the ones they already have, stay?

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1558063,00.html)

Gay men will be in good company, women are also discriminated against.

While acknowledging the apparent irony of the statement as well as the opportunities it creates for sardonic humor, I must ask:

Are you Catholic?

(I am not)

Do you urge anti-Catholic discrimination in light of the statement?

Are you as picky about the mores and behaviors of Islamists or Buddhists as you are about Christians/Jews?

Do you think your views are consistant?

You can't be bigoted against everyone, that would just be mental .... oh right.

At least he isn't being obvious .... sorry my mistake again.

[Busyman]

So the Vatican is to ban gay priests, does this mean there will be a severe shortage? Or will they let the ones they already have, stay?

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1558063,00.html)

Gay men will be in good company, women are also discriminated against.
I don't understand how you can be a gay priest anyway.

Aren't priest supposed to abstain from sex? Or is it just the feeling?

Are they blocking priests that were gay before the priesthood?

Will they block priests that have shown the propensity for having straight sex too?

Btw I wouldn't say this is a bigoted move in light of all the pedophiles that have permeated the Catholic Church.

However, to make it fair, they need to block priests that are having straight sex.

[j2k4]

While acknowledging the apparent irony of the statement as well as the opportunities it creates for sardonic humor, I must ask:

Are you Catholic?

(I am not)

Do you urge anti-Catholic discrimination in light of the statement?

Are you as picky about the mores and behaviors of Islamists or Buddhists as you are about Christians/Jews?

Do you think your views are consistant?

You can't be bigoted against everyone, that would just be mental .... oh right.

At least he isn't being obvious .... sorry my mistake again.

You are forgiven, my Son. :)

[JPaul]

Btw I wouldn't say this is a bigoted move in light of all the pedophiles that have permeated the Catholic Church.


I don't want to pick you up wrong here, however are you suggesting that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

[JPaul]

You can't be bigoted against everyone, that would just be mental .... oh right.

At least he isn't being obvious .... sorry my mistake again.

You are forgiven, my Son. :)
Mea Maxima Culpa.

[Rat Faced]

I dont think he is JP...

The point is.. as they are supposed to be above sins of the flesh altogether, as they say...

How would you know they were Gay, unless they partook as it were..

If they partook in those sins.. shouldnt they be defrocked anyway, ir-respective of whether it was with a man, woman, child or sheep..

They broke their vows whoever or whatever they slept with. :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Btw I wouldn't say this is a bigoted move in light of all the pedophiles that have permeated the Catholic Church.


I don't want to pick you up wrong here, however are you suggesting that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Yes if a priest likes sex with boys. :dry:

[GepperRankins]

if a priest gets away with fucking kids, will he get away with fucking dudes?

[JPaul]

The point is.. as they are supposed to be above sins of the flesh altogether, as they say...

Who told you that, let me assure you they were wrong.

The Lord himself was not above sin, what would make anyone think that Priests (of any denomination) were.

[JPaul]

if a priest gets away with fucking kids, will he get away with fucking dudes?
Are there any levels of idiocy which you are not willing to sink to.

[GepperRankins]

i was just trying to rephrase busymans question. fuck up

[JPaul]

i was just trying to rephrase busymans question. fuck up
I'm taking that as a No.

[Busyman]

The point is.. as they are supposed to be above sins of the flesh altogether, as they say...

Who told you that, let me assure you they were wrong.

The Lord himself was not above sin, what would make anyone think that Priests (of any denomination) were.
Are priests allowed to marry or have sex with women?

[GepperRankins]

Who told you that, let me assure you they were wrong.

The Lord himself was not above sin, what would make anyone think that Priests (of any denomination) were.
Are priests allowed to marry or have sex with women?
if JP says so :P

[JPaul]

Who told you that, let me assure you they were wrong.

The Lord himself was not above sin, what would make anyone think that Priests (of any denomination) were.
Are priests allowed to marry or have sex with women?
Yes, Anglican Priests are, Catholic Priests are not.

[whypikonme]

l wonder why the Vatican would come out against gay priests, when they are all supposed to be celibate. Sounds like blind eye turning to me, as long as you're heterosexual, the ultimate hypocrisy. Maybe gays are getting the blame for the huge number of paedophile priests.

[JPaul]

Could be, Busy certainly seems to think so.

I wonder if that is a common perception, that gay people are more likely to also be pedophiles.

Is there any statistical evidence for this, or is it merely a thing that some people assume.

[Busyman]

Could be, Busy certainly seems to think so.

I wonder if that is a common perception, that gay people are more likely to also be pedophiles.

Is there any statistical evidence for this, or is it merely a thing that some people assume.
How's that?

As far as what's seen in the headlines, it's priests with boys....not girls (I'm sure it exists though).

[Rat Faced]

Are priests allowed to marry or have sex with women?
Yes, Anglican Priests are, Catholic Priests are not.


The Vatican has nothing to do with Anglican Priests (and no one calls them priests either :P )

The Catholic Priests are supposedly celibate, if they break that vow then they should be defrocked... If they dont, how would anyone know if they were Gay?

I wasnt talking about the old "wanking by christ" you seem to have implied there.. :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

Yes, Anglican Priests are, Catholic Priests are not.


The Vatican has nothing to do with Anglican Priests (and no one calls them priests either :P )

The Catholic Priests are supposedly celibate, if they break that vow then they should be defrocked... If they dont, how would anyone know if they were Gay?
Then it's settled then...

Any Catholic priest found to be in a sexual relationship (gay or not) should be defrocked.

Sounds like a case of "it was already a rule to begin with". :dry:

The focus on gays is a target 'cause of the sex with boys doohicky.

The Vatican needed to clean that shit up a long time ago instead of covering it up. :ermm:

[JPaul]

Yes, Anglican Priests are, Catholic Priests are not.


The Vatican has nothing to do with Anglican Priests (and no one calls them priests either :P )

I believe that the Anglican Church refers to them as Priests. It certainly does so on it's website.

[GepperRankins]

i got tought at school that the anglican church was invented just it didn't have to follow the vaticans rules.

i'm sure that's wrong though eh JP?

[JPaul]

The Vatican has nothing to do with Anglican Priests (and no one calls them priests either :P )

The Catholic Priests are supposedly celibate, if they break that vow then they should be defrocked... If they dont, how would anyone know if they were Gay?
Then it's settled then...

Any Catholic priest found to be in a sexual relationship (gay or not) should be defrocked.

Sounds like a case of "it was already a rule to begin with". :dry:

The focus on gays is a target 'cause of the sex with boys doohicky.

The Vatican needed to clean that shit up a long time ago instead of covering it up. :ermm:

Catholic Priests do indeed take a vow of celibacy, as do various others within the Church, for example Nuns.

Whether they would be "de-frocked" if they were found to have broken that vow is another matter. We do have the concept of forgiveness.

I am quite sure that there are Catholic Priests who are sexually active. Just as I am sure that there are Anglican Priests who have affairs and that some of the clergy from other religions break their respective rules.

It is my understanding that Islam considers homosexuality to be a sin. Given that, I would assume that they would not knowingly employ sinners as their holy men. I believe the same is the case with Judaism.

The bottom line is that if a religion considers something to be wrong, then one would only expect it to preclude, as it's holy men, people who think that the thing is OK. Anyone who disagrees with them is perfectly free to find a religion or path which is more in line with their own beliefs.

With regard to the place of women within the Catholic Church. Once again I would venture that religions such as Islam and Judaism are not known for promoting woman's place within their organizations. In fact as I understand it some religions insist that women take a inferior role, both in matters religious and secular. The women are told how to act, how to dress, how to behave 24 hours a day.

[JPaul]

i got tought at school that the anglican church was invented just it didn't have to follow the vaticans rules.

i'm sure that's wrong though eh JP?
That's pretty much my understanding of it.

Tho' I have little or no knowledge of how the Anglican Church was formed.

So we could both be talking pish.

[whypikonme]

We do have the concept of forgiveness.

By 'we', l take it you mean the church? The problem there is, the church forgives these excuses for human beings, and then moves them on. This begs the question of who should be forgiving who. Are the victims forgiving the paedophiles? The victims get nothing, they are harassed, threatened and generally treated like they are in the wrong. The Catholic problem goes right to the top, this pope is guilty of cover ups too.

But if Catholics are no worse than all the other religions l guess that's OK then. l'll just go and Google sexual offenses committed by these religions and see what l can come up with.

[JPaul]

Please do, tho' I don't see what it has to do with your original point re the Catholic Church's position re ordaining gay men.

[Rat Faced]

The Vatican has nothing to do with Anglican Priests (and no one calls them priests either :P )

I believe that the Anglican Church refers to them as Priests. It certainly does so on it's website.


Touche.. The Church refers to them as such. Everyone else distinquishes by calling Catholic Clergy "Priests" and the rest "Vicars" ;)

Makes me laugh that many are in debt though, considering their stipend is about £18,500 pa in the UK.

This would be low for a professional; until you add in that they live rent free, get low cost loans @ 5% for any large purchase and can claim most of their utility bills back as "expenses", and the pension is non contributary..

That means the £18,500 is for food and clothing, holidays etc..

That measn they have a bloody good wage, erm; I mean standard of living...

I have a mortgage, maintainance and have to pay full bills on the same amount :snooty:

[JPaul]

Join the Priesthood, sorry Vicarhood then man. You know it makes sense.

The hours are great too, but you have to work weekends. And Christmas day. Easter as well.

Feck is it worth it, your working all the public holidays.

[Rat Faced]

And can choose as many of the other 5 days a week off as you want; merely by saying "Im busy then". ;)

It'd be hard for me to go through seminary without asking awkward questions and making statements that would show that i didnt believe though.. such as "There was no Virgin Birth"..


Wait a minute, that makes me Bishop of Durham though.. wonder what the top brass are paid; erm i mean given to meet their living expenses... :ph34r:

[JPaul]

And can choose as many of the other 5 days a week off as you want; merely by saying "Im busy then". ;)

It'd be hard for me to go through seminary without asking awkward questions and making statements that would show that i didnt believe though.. such as "There was no Virgin Birth"..


Wait a minute, that makes me Bishop of Durham though.. wonder what the top brass are paid; erm i mean given to meet their living expenses... :ph34r:
Do the C of E do the semenary thing as well. I had no idea.

Tho' that does make sense. To just get a degree in theology and then say, right that's me applying for jobs as a Vicar does seem a bit strange.

What was I thinking.

How long's the course and what's the entry requirements, have you looked into this.

[Rat Faced]

How the hell would i know? :P

I always thought they went to the College of the Resurection in Yorkshire or something :ph34r:

[JPaul]

How the hell would i know? :P

I always thought they went to the College of the Resurection in Yorkshire or something :ph34r:
The ressurection was in Yorkshire :ohmy:

Why was I not informed.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Could be, Busy certainly seems to think so.

I wonder if that is a common perception, that gay people are more likely to also be pedophiles.

Is there any statistical evidence for this, or is it merely a thing that some people assume.
How's that?

As far as what's seen in the headlines, it's priests with boys....not girls (I'm sure it exists though).

So there's a link between heterosexuality and sex with young girls then? You're not making sense....

To be sure I'm making myself understood:

Pedophilia and heterosexuality/homosexuality are two opposite dimensions, you can't compare pedophilia with either of the other terms used to describe sexual activity between two consenting adults.

Pedophilia is a deviate monstrous activity in itself and can't be labeled within terms used to describe "normal" sexual activity, IMO.

[GepperRankins]

How's that?

As far as what's seen in the headlines, it's priests with boys....not girls (I'm sure it exists though).

So there's a link between heterosexuality and sex with girls then? You're not making sense....
i'd say so :blink:

[ahctlucabbuS]

i'd say so :blink:

See my edit for a better understanding of what I were trying to imply.

[GepperRankins]

peadophilia is the same as sex with over 16s, just the second person isn't old enough.


a man having sex with underage boys is gay
a man having sex with underage girls is straight

that's not to say gay people are peadophiles or straight people are peadophiles

[ahctlucabbuS]

I don't agree.

Having sex with children doesn't label as either straight or gay. There's a reason the term pedophilia exist.

[Busyman]

How's that?

As far as what's seen in the headlines, it's priests with boys....not girls (I'm sure it exists though).

So there's a link between heterosexuality and sex with young girls then? You're not making sense....

Sure...it's the opposite sex. :1eye:

If a fella has sex with a 16 yr old girl but wouldn't with 16 yr old boy.

He's a straight pedophile. DUH.

Singer R Kelly seems to be a prime example. :dry:

[ahctlucabbuS]

So there's a link between heterosexuality and sex with young girls then? You're not making sense....

Sure...it's the opposite sex. :1eye:

If a fella has sex with a 16 yr old girl but wouldn't with 16 yr old boy.

He's a straight pedophile. DUH.

Singer R Kelly seems to be a prime example. :dry:

No. You're a pedophile, nothing more.

[Busyman]

I don't agree.

Having sex with children doesn't label as either straight or gay. There's a reason the term pedophilia exist.
There's a term homosexual and heterosexual also.

You are not making any sense.

A priest fucking little boys is a gay pedophile. It's the opposite sex ffs. :dry:

[Busyman]

Sure...it's the opposite sex. :1eye:

If a fella has sex with a 16 yr old girl but wouldn't with 16 yr old boy.

He's a straight pedophile. DUH.

Singer R Kelly seems to be a prime example. :dry:

No. You're a pedophile, nothing more.
What's a pedophile?

[GepperRankins]

are kids asexual until their 16th birthday then?

[ahctlucabbuS]

I don't agree.

Having sex with children doesn't label as either straight or gay. There's a reason the term pedophilia exist.
There's a term homosexual and heterosexual also.

You are not making any sense.

A priest fucking little boys is a gay pedophile. It's the opposite sex ffs. :dry:

Labeling someone as a gay pedophile doesn't have any more practical use than as to further stigmatize the gay community.

You wouldn't label someone "a straight pedophile"....

[GepperRankins]

There's a term homosexual and heterosexual also.

You are not making any sense.

A priest fucking little boys is a gay pedophile. It's the opposite sex ffs. :dry:

Labeling someone as a gay pedophile doesn't have any more practical use than as to further stigmatize the gay community.

You wouldn't label someone "a straight pedophile"....
it doesn't stagmatize the gay "community" dick'ed


how else should he point out that someone is a gay peadophile without saying he's a gay peadophile?

[ahctlucabbuS]

Labeling someone as a gay pedophile doesn't have any more practical use than as to further stigmatize the gay community.

You wouldn't label someone "a straight pedophile"....
it doesn't stagmatize the gay "community" dick'ed


how else should he point out that someone is a gay peadophile without saying he's a gay peadophile?

I see you didn't take JPauls advice.

You simply point out that he's a pedophile having sex with young boys... :blink:

And if you can't see how using the term 'gay' together with 'pedophile' is harmful towards the gay community I'm not even going to bother.

[GepperRankins]

hehehehe

i can see your point but a gay peadophile is a gay peadophile, you cannot dispute that

[Busyman]

There's a term homosexual and heterosexual also.

You are not making any sense.

A priest fucking little boys is a gay pedophile. It's the opposite sex ffs. :dry:

Labeling someone as a gay pedophile doesn't have any more practical use than as to further stigmatize the gay community.

You wouldn't label someone "a straight pedophile"....
Why not?

There's a fella that I played basketball with that I found on the sex offender website for my area.

If I found out he fucked a seventeen year old girl, he's pedophile but as far as I know, he's straight.

If he fucked a seventeen year old boy. He's gay.

The same would go for a rapist.

[Busyman]

it doesn't stagmatize the gay "community" dick'ed


how else should he point out that someone is a gay peadophile without saying he's a gay peadophile?

I see you didn't take JPauls advice.

You simply point out that he's a pedophile having sex with young boys... :blink:

And if you can't see how using the term 'gay' together with 'pedophile' is harmful towards the gay community I'm not even going to bother.
Gay pedophile shortens it a bit.

If the fact that the priest is fucking boys versus girl wasn't worth mention then I'd agree with you.

Yet it is mentioned so the priest is a fucking gay pedophile. Jeez. :dry:

If I'm not supposed to say gay when it actually is then you make no sense.

[ahctlucabbuS]

[QUOTE=ahctlucabbuS]
If the fact that the priest is fucking boys versus girl wasn't worth mention then I'd agree with you.

Yet it is mentioned so the priest is a fucking gay pedophile. Jeez. :dry:

If I'm not supposed to say gay when it actually is then you make no sense.

It isn't worth mentioning, it's irrelevant. The relevant part is that he's a pedophile.

If nothing else, the fact that he's a pedophile exceed his status as gay which shouldn't need mentioning.

Then again, as mentioned earlier, I don't believe someone beeing a pedophile to be gay or straight.. he's a man enjoying sex with children (a pedophile) which doesn't fit within the terms gay/straight.

If that isn't reason enough not to use the term "gay pedophile", the fact that it do infact work stigmatizing towards one group of people should.

End of discussion for me.

[whypikonme]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.

[Biggles]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.


This is heading towards the old

"I hear Carruthers has shacked up with a gorilla"

"What! a female gorilla?"

"Of course a female gorilla you blithering idiot ... nothing queer about old Carruthers"

PS I have nothing to sensible to say because as a non-Catholic I do not feel in position to say how they should run their religion. The whole celibacy thing seems mad to me but that is as an outsider.

[JPaul]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.


This is heading towards the old

"I hear Carruthers has shacked up with a gorilla"

"What! a female gorilla?"

"Of course a female gorilla you blithering idiot ... nothing queer about old Carruthers"

PS I have nothing to sensible to say because as a non-Catholic I do not feel in position to say how they should run their religion. The whole celibacy thing seems mad to me but that is as an outsider.


Indeed.

If you and your Wiccan chums wish to dance naked in some local dell that's a matter for you. You will hear no objections from this corner.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]

It isn't worth mentioning, it's irrelevant. The relevant part is that he's a pedophile.

If nothing else, the fact that he's a pedophile exceed his status as gay which shouldn't need mentioning.

Then again, as mentioned earlier, I don't believe someone beeing a pedophile to be gay or straight.. he's a man enjoying sex with children (a pedophile) which doesn't fit within the terms gay/straight.

If that isn't reason enough not to use the term "gay pedophile", the fact that it do infact work stigmatizing towards one group of people should.

End of discussion for me.
If it isn't worth mentioning then simply say, "The priest has sex with children".

It is noted, however, that they have sex with boys.

A man sexing a boy is a gay pedophile. What you want to do is sugar coat it by saying "No, no, no...the priest had sex with boys." I simply say the priest is a gay pedophile.

Same fucking thing. :dry:

To make it sound betta, I'll say "pedophile that's gay".

[Busyman]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.


This is heading towards the old

"I hear Carruthers has shacked up with a gorilla"

"What! a female gorilla?"

"Of course a female gorilla you blithering idiot ... nothing queer about old Carruthers"

PS I have nothing to sensible to say because as a non-Catholic I do not feel in position to say how they should run their religion. The whole celibacy thing seems mad to me but that is as an outsider.

And to be crude.....

If Caruthers wanted to get banged in the ass by a male gorilla..

he's gay. :sick:

[Busyman]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.
If you are talking sexuality, straight is the opposite of gay.

In today's age, most folk consider straight the norm and it usually isn't mentioned.

Example, if a fella raped a female. He's a rapist.

If a fella raped another man. He's still a rapist. He's also gay. :sick:

[j2k4]

How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.

Isn't categorizing sexual deviance difficult enough without throwing "sugar-coating" into the bargain?

Would you add "chocolate-coating" as well?

I suppose statisticians would have a field day...or a nightmare, depending on their own particular bent... :huh:

[Busyman]

What's a pedophile?

[j2k4]

What's a pedophile?

Apparently, a pedophile is a person who has an unhealthy affinity for candy-coated children... :huh:

I was not aware of this.

[JPaul]

What's a pedophile?
I believe it's an alternate spelling of paedophile.

[Busyman]

What's a pedophile?

Apparently, a pedophile is a person who has an unhealthy affinity for candy-coated children... :huh:

I was not aware of this.
Does the definition of what's deemed a child (as far as consensual sex) differ by state and even country for that matter?

[j2k4]

Apparently, a pedophile is a person who has an unhealthy affinity for candy-coated children... :huh:

I was not aware of this.
Does the definition of what's deemed a child (as far as consensual sex) differ by state and even country for that matter?

As no one seems too sure of how why...me defines anything, I suggest you ask that person at the next opportunity.

[clocker]

[QUOTE=Busyman]

It isn't worth mentioning, it's irrelevant. The relevant part is that he's a pedophile.


Yes, I agree.
The point you have been trying to get across might be subtle but is worth making.
You may use the term "gay" or "straight" ( or whatever the term du jour might be) to describe sexual orientation, but paedophelia is all about power, control and abuse...sex is not the goal.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=ahctlucabbuS]
Yes, I agree.
The point you have been trying to get across might be subtle but is worth making.
You may use the term "gay" or "straight" ( or whatever the term du jour might be) to describe sexual orientation, but paedophelia is all about power, control and abuse...sex is not the goal.
I disagree. I've heard the same about rapists.

Sometimes it's just the fact that the person is trying to get their rocks off. :dry:

As an aside, the mere fact what's deemed pedophilia differs by country makes who a pedophile is fuzzy (in the upper teens that is). Is a 20 year old that has sex with a 17 year old a pedophile? The law here says yes. Is he a sick deviant? Probably not.

The point is that the Vatican is focused on gays in the priesthood 'cause that's who's been fucking up and making news. (add to that being gay goes against the religion)

So it's not irrelevent whether someone like attchhssd wants to sugar coat it or not.

(just like it's not irrelevent as to who's primarily a terrorist)

[clocker]

I disagree. I've heard the same about rapists.

Sometimes it's just the fact that the person is trying to get their rocks off. :dry:

Granted, but you are using the exception to prove the rule.
So it's not irrelevent whether someone like attchhssd wants to sugar coat it or not.
No one is "sugarcoating" anything.
I should think that being labeled a paedophile would be condemnation enough without the inaccurate/superfluous addition of "gay".

(just like it's not irrelevent as to who's primarily a terrorist)
Lost me here.

[Busyman]

I disagree. I've heard the same about rapists.

Sometimes it's just the fact that the person is trying to get their rocks off. :dry:

Granted, but you are using the exception to prove the rule.
So it's not irrelevent whether someone like attchhssd wants to sugar coat it or not.
No one is "sugarcoating" anything.
I should think that being labeled a paedophile would be condemnation enough without the inaccurate/superfluous addition of "gay".

(just like it's not irrelevent as to who's primarily a terrorist)
Lost me here.
Lost you yet you conveniently left out what was in bold. Riiiiight. :dry:

The point is that the Vatican is focused on gays in the priesthood 'cause that's who's been fucking up and making news. (add to that being gay goes against the religion)


I doubt the Vatican is doing this because all of a sudden it just occured to them.

It ain't a smack against gay rights either. It's against their rules.

So mediawise, you can NOT label "priests who have sex with little boys as gay pedophiles" but ignoring the fact that lots of gays flock to the priesthood and the fact that "priests who have sex little boys" came off as being an epidemic, doesn't get at the problem. So it ain't superfluous in the least and it is highly accurate. :snooty:

It's just not what you would hear on the nightly news....gay pedophile

[whypikonme]

The Catholic Priests are supposedly celibate,

Aren't ALL Catholics supposed to be celibate, unless they're procreating that is?

l'm sure any good Catholic will tell you they haven't had sex since their last child was conceived. :lol:

l would imagine that would make them rather cranky at times, wouldn't it?

[Barbarossa]

peadophilia is the same as sex with over 16s, just the second person isn't old enough.


a man having sex with underage boys is gay
a man having sex with underage girls is straight

that's not to say gay people are peadophiles or straight people are peadophiles

What a load of crap.

Sex between two consenting adults of whatever gender, is totally different from an adult having sex with a minor.

The second one is akin to rape. It's an emotional as well as a physical rape by someone preying on a weak, vulnerable or impressionable child.

Being a paedophile is more than just having under-age sex. A 15 year old boy who has sex with a 15 year old girl is not a paedophile. A paedophile is a sexual predator who abuses a child, be it boy or girl, for their own perverted pleasure.

Gay and straight doesn't really make any sense when you're talking about paedophiles. Same sex or mixed sex, it's simply abuse.

This brings to mind a report I once heard about male rape in prisons. Quite often, the rapist doesn't even consider himself to be gay, but uses the act of rape as a means of demonstrating his power and domination over weaker prisoners. I think the same is true of paedophiles.

[JPaul]

The Catholic Priests are supposedly celibate,

Aren't ALL Catholics supposed to be celibate, unless they're procreating that is?

No, but don't let the fact that you don't know what you're talking about stop you.

[whypikonme]

No, but don't let the fact that you don't know what you're talking about stop you.

In successive encyclicals and other statements, culminating in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the church has taken a consistently intransigent stand against all manifestations of permissiveness. Chastity is a requirement for all Catholics, whether married or single. The Church explicitly forbids, under pain of mortal sin, all forms of premarital or extramarital sex, masturbation, oral or anal sex, contraception and abortion, coitus interruptus and homosexual acts.


.. and this from somewhere else ...

These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

It says here that the church once taught it, and no longer do, however, they have never officially stated that fact.

[Busyman]

peadophilia is the same as sex with over 16s, just the second person isn't old enough.


a man having sex with underage boys is gay
a man having sex with underage girls is straight

that's not to say gay people are peadophiles or straight people are peadophiles

What a load of crap.

Sex between two consenting adults of whatever gender, is totally different from an adult having sex with a minor.

The second one is akin to rape. It's an emotional as well as a physical rape by someone preying on a weak, vulnerable or impressionable child.

Being a paedophile is more than just having under-age sex. A 15 year old boy who has sex with a 15 year old girl is not a paedophile. A paedophile is a sexual predator who abuses a child, be it boy or girl, for their own perverted pleasure.

Gay and straight doesn't really make any sense when you're talking about paedophiles. Same sex or mixed sex, it's simply abuse.

This brings to mind a report I once heard about male rape in prisons. Quite often, the rapist doesn't even consider himself to be gay, but uses the act of rape as a means of demonstrating his power and domination over weaker prisoners. I think the same is true of paedophiles.
Oh in prison it can't possssibly be that the more powerful convict is horny too. :dry:

If a male friend of mine decides to fuck a fourteen year-old BOY. He's a pedophile and also gay as fuck. He also wouldn't be my friend no mo'.
One 'cause he's a pedophile and two 'cause if he's gay, hangin' together just wouldn't be the same. :( It's a one, two punch.

Btw what's a minor?

[manker]

What's a minor?In the context of logic:

1. A minor premise.
2. A minor term.

You don't have a point so you're attempting (poorly) to obfuscate the issue by focusing on a triviality.

[Busyman]

What's a minor?In the context of logic:

1. A minor premise.
2. A minor term.

You don't have a point so you're attempting (poorly) to obfuscate the issue by focusing on a triviality.
Dismissed

Anywaysss

What's considered a minor?*

*don't define the word with the same word

[manker]

In the context of logic:

1. A minor premise.
2. A minor term.

You don't have a point so you're attempting (poorly) to obfuscate the issue by focusing on a triviality.
Dismissed

Anywaysss

What's considered a minor?*

*don't define the word with the same wordYup, I was bang on.

A minor is a person under the age of sexual consent in that particular locality. Now that's cleared up, you'll need a different angle to occlude matters.

To deflect from your piss poor (non) point, as it were.

[Busyman]

Dismissed

Anywaysss

What's considered a minor?*

*don't define the word with the same wordYup, I was bang on.

A minor is a person under the age of sexual consent in that particular locality. Now that's cleared up, you'll need a different angle to occlude matters.

To deflect from your piss poor (non) point, as it were.
So pedophiles, these sexual deviants, are considered such based on where they commit the act. (you were bang on yet decided to define it...again) :unsure:

Oh my main point was in bold.....


The point is that the Vatican is focused on gays in the priesthood 'cause that's who's been fucking up and making news. (add to that being gay goes against the religion)

Gay pedophiles....a nice one two punch for the Vatican to (finally) take action.

edit: I just got finished reading the source. Pretty goes along with what I thought.

[clocker]

Oh my main point was in bold.....


The point is that the Vatican is focused on gays in the priesthood 'cause that's who's been fucking up and making news. (add to that being gay goes against the religion)


Your main point is flawed.
The Vatican is "focused on gays" because of increased activism by gays and women to increase their (accepted) presence in the heirarchy.
The paedophile crisis is another matter altogether.

While sex is a component of paedophilia, "paedophilia" is not defined as a sexual orientation...it is a crime.

If you would like to disagree with this assertion feel free to consult with NAMBLA...they agree with you.

[JPaul]

No, but don't let the fact that you don't know what you're talking about stop you.

In successive encyclicals and other statements, culminating in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the church has taken a consistently intransigent stand against all manifestations of permissiveness. Chastity is a requirement for all Catholics, whether married or single. The Church explicitly forbids, under pain of mortal sin, all forms of premarital or extramarital sex, masturbation, oral or anal sex, contraception and abortion, coitus interruptus and homosexual acts.


.. and this from somewhere else ...

These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

It says here that the church once taught it, and no longer do, however, they have never officially stated that fact.


Post all the crap you wish to "google" for. You're still wrong.

The Catholic church does not require it's members to be celibate.

[Busyman]

Oh my main point was in bold.....




Your main point is flawed.
The Vatican is "focused on gays" because of increased activism by gays and women to increase their (accepted) presence in the heirarchy.
The paedophile crisis is another matter altogether.

While sex is a component of paedophilia, "paedophilia" is not defined as a sexual orientation...it is a crime.

If you would like to disagree with this assertion feel free to consult with NAMBLA...they agree with you.
Of course I know pedophilia is a crime....look at how what pedophilia is differs from country to country and state to state. In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

I never said pedophilia is defined as a sexual orientation either. I said gay pedophile....gay describing the orientation (or the act) of the pedophile.

[whypikonme]

The Catholic church does not require it's members to be celibate.

l didn't say it did, but don't let that stop you.

[Busyman]

In successive encyclicals and other statements, culminating in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the church has taken a consistently intransigent stand against all manifestations of permissiveness. Chastity is a requirement for all Catholics, whether married or single. The Church explicitly forbids, under pain of mortal sin, all forms of premarital or extramarital sex, masturbation, oral or anal sex, contraception and abortion, coitus interruptus and homosexual acts.


.. and this from somewhere else ...

These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

It says here that the church once taught it, and no longer do, however, they have never officially stated that fact.


Post all the crap you wish to "google" for. You're still wrong.

The Catholic church does not require it's members to be celibate.
Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out. :dry:

Awww SillyHillBilly what name will you come back as next time...

UKResident, RioDeLeo, whypikonme, ?????????

[JPaul]

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

Only if it's a blood relative and your name be BillyBob.

[Busyman]

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

Only if it's a blood relative and your name be BillyBob.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[whypikonme]

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.

[whypikonme]

In some places, I'd imagine that consensual sex os ok at 15.

In Iowa and South Carolina it's 14 , so l take it that's redneck country?

In some places, like Chile, Malta, The Philipines, among others, it's 12.

[JPaul]

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.
FFS you even mis-quote your own quote. :lol:

[whypikonme]

FFS you even mis-quote your own quote. :lol:

Really? How did that happen when l cut and pasted it? You must be confused. :lol:

But keep going, l'm sure you can find a grammatical error somewhere if you really try, it beats coming up with intelligent answers. :angel1:

[JPaul]

" .... they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception."

is not the same as

"So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception."

See it's in the words "open to" is not the same as "in the act of".

The Catholic Church does not teach that it's members must be celibate other than to procreate.

Is http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm an official Catholic doctrine website, I only wonder as you appear to have used it a a source for the Catholic Church's teachings.

[Busyman]

Exactly....what will the church do....kick every member out.

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.

So, sex only between married couples in the act of conception.

You really should do something about that thar red neck BusyPerson.
Wtf?!! :blink:

So I take it that there is no sin by members of the Catholic Church. What's the point of church then? :dry:

[manker]

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

[JPaul]

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.
Oh FFS stop thinking, "google" stuff from the interweb then put your own spin on it. That's the ticket.

[GepperRankins]

what's with the anti google sentiment? :(

[manker]

what's with the anti google sentiment? :(Googling for statistics or something, is fine.

Googling for an opinion because you lack one yourself is teh suck.

That's the way I see it :lookaroun

[JPaul]

The truth is out there (http://zgp.org/linux-elitists/Pine.LNX.4.31.0105081332360.30931-100000@emperor.deirdre.org.html)

[whypikonme]

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

l take it you're referring to the owner of those words when you make that remark Manky, you wouldn't just be looking for another excuse to insult someone, would you?

[whypikonme]

So I take it that there is no sin by members of the Catholic Church. What's the point of church then? :dry:

Members of the Catholic church are allowed to sin all they want Busy, as long as they confess, this was why so many converted when the Romans made the religion up. So in a way you're right, there is no sin Catholics cannot commit without being forgiven by the church. In a way, it's a bit like Devil worship, isn't it?

[manker]

Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

l take it you're referring to the owner of those words when you make that remark Manky, you wouldn't just be looking for another excuse to insult someone, would you?I don't need an excuse but posting someone else's pish normally does it for me. Thanks for that.

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

[whypikonme]

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

So why do you do it then?

You should stick to your grammar-nazi persona, at least we know where we stand then.

[manker]

Taking the time to google and copy/paste drivel is just as reprehensible as making it up and posting it yourself.

So why do you do it then?

You should stick to your grammar-nazi persona, at least we know where we stand then.You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

Remember:

But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.

Please, feel free to do the same, should I ever post drivel akin to that.

I wouldn't expect any less and certainly wouldn't try to skirt around the point - as you appear to be doing.

[whypikonme]

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.

[manker]

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.Dry your eyes, mate.

You posted drivel and I deigned to let you know. I didn't have to but thought it wise to enlighten you to your folly lest you repeat this drivel elsewhere - like on a Big Brother forum that you admin, or something.

Now pick your toys back up and put them back in the pram, there's a good lad.

[whypikonme]

You posted drivel and I deigned to let you know.

You keep telling yourself that, everyone on this forum knows the truth about you, you fool no-one. When someone posts drivel, as you put it, it's usual to come up with a counter argument, which you fail to do, ever. You nit-pick and insult, nothing more.

[manker]

To be fair, I didn't think my initial post was insulting nor nit picking.

Also, I posted a watertight counter-argument, which you will absolutely not address. Preferring instead to revel in precisely what you chastise me for - flinging insults. Do I really have to use the hypocrite word again.

Ah, too late.

I am going to presume this is because you now realise that you've posted pish, or drivel, if you prefer.



But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception.Since there isn't a 100% method of contraception, I'm presuming that you're talking pish.

A combination pill is something like 98% so technically a sexual act while using this form of contraception is still open to conception, albeit to a lesser degree - yet I'm sure that the Catholic church doesn't advocate this.So, refute what I've written.

[whypikonme]

So, refute what I've written.

Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.



These beliefs are grounded in their concept of natural law. The church once taught that the sole purpose of sex -- and marriage -- was procreation. They have modified this stance in recent decades by admitting that also has a unitive function; it bonds married couples closer together and strengthens their relationship. But, since the Church still regards the main purpose of sex to be procreation, they insist that any ethical sexual act must be open to conception. On this basis, they forbid the use of artificial methods of birth control, and consider any sexual behavior other than intercourse between a husband and wife to be a grave moral sin. Forbidden practices include masturbation, pre-marital sex, post-marital sex, extra-marital sex and all same-sex behaviors.

Here you go, Captain Doodoo. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm)

[DanB]

You posted drivel, so I pointed out that it was drivel.

No, you did what you always do, you read the post, then decided what nasty remark you could make. That's all you do, it's all you've ever done, you're a nasty, vindictive piece of work. But that's OK, every forum needs someone like you, you perform a duty, we should all be grateful you grace us with your presence.

Just like every forum needs a Billy Dean? :unsure:

[whypikonme]

Just like every forum needs a Billy Dean? :unsure:
Isn't he a mate of yours Dan?

[manker]

So, refute what I've written.Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Wouldn't you say.



Funny tho' - you truly are the king of cut-and-paste, with the added string to your bow that you have the gall - when you get caught posting drivel - to say 'Wasn't me, guv'.

Btw, when I say funny, you'll realise I mean that in a 'dog with two legs' kinda way.

[JPaul]

Why should l? You refuted someone else's words, as you've been told. So go and refute it to them, it's nothing to do with me.It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Wouldn't you say.



Funny tho' - you truly are the king of cut-and-paste, with the added string to your bow that you have the gall - when you get caught posting drivel - to say 'Wasn't me, guv'.

Btw, when I say funny, you'll realise I mean that in a 'dog with two legs' kinda way.
With the two legs on a different axle.

[whypikonme]

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Don't be stupid Manky, just think over what you just said ... then admit you've been PWNED again! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[whypikonme]

With the two legs on a different axle.

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:

[GepperRankins]

With the two legs on a different axle.

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:
seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

[JPaul]

Who has the collar out of you two, and who has the lead? :lol:
seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself
Don't be cruel.

How sad is someone who posts what he did and laughs at it himself.

More to be pitied than scorned.

[whypikonme]

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

Who's mang?

[whypikonme]

More to be pitied than scorned.

Woof, woof!

[JPaul]

More to be pitied than scorned.

Woof, woof!
Thanks, that actually made me laugh. At you, obviously.

Why do people even bother with you, you really are so good at making an arse of yourself. In fact that's probably the answer, to see just how stupid you are willing to make yourself look. New record methinks.

[whypikonme]

Thanks, that actually made me laugh.

:lips:

[manker]

It's a bit mental to go and copy/paste words to use in a discussion if you don't agree with their meaning.

Don't be stupid Manky, just think over what you just said ... then admit you've been PWNED again! :lol: :lol: :lol:Please explain so us lesser mortals can understand what you mean.

You posted drivel, I said it was drivel, you said someone else wrote it, I said it was mental for you to use someone else's words in a discussion if you didn't agree with what they'd wrote.

Sounds fair enough to me. However, as always, I stand to be corrected. Maybe you're not mental. In the absence of reasoning tho' - I'll assume you are.


Btw, a good barometer of how much someone has got to you seems to be your use of the :lol: smiley.

I'm winning :happy:

[GepperRankins]

seriously mang. don't laugh with yourself

Who's mang?
it's how the cool kids spell man :snooty:

[whypikonme]

I'm winning :happy:

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.

[manker]

I'm winning :happy:

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.You didn't understand, eh.

I'm winning in this thread but JP's probably made you look like a bigger twat elsewhere.



So, I digress, are you going to address what I've written above in post #118.

[JPaul]

Careful manker, he may hunt you down in real life and leave you a mangled mess.

You would only have yourself to blame.

MODS, this must be due for the Lounge by now, we seem to have strayed rather far from Billy's latest fascination with the Catholic Church.

[Cheese]

I'm winning :happy:

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.

http://www.starcostumes.com/prodimages/MR100022.jpg

[enoughfakefiles]

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.

http://www.starcostumes.com/prodimages/MR100022.jpg

None shall pass. :ph34r:

[maebach]

l'll bet you were one of those little kids at school who never knew when they were beaten, the ones who bite your ankles as you walk away, leaving them in a bleeding mess on the ground.

http://www.starcostumes.com/prodimages/MR100022.jpg


When I first saw it, it reminded of the knight(who got cut in pieces) in MP the holy grail.

[whypikonme]

When I first saw it, it reminded of the knight(who got cut in pieces) in MP the holy grail.

You mean this one ..

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3977/img10044482136md.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[manker]

Careful manker, he may hunt you down in real life and leave you a mangled mess.

You would only have yourself to blame.Indeed.

I simply cannot resist the urge to point out drivel - it is to my detriment, since it appears likely I'll now be beaten to a bloody pulp - however, as has been pointed out by that mental bloke, the forum is lucky to have a person like my good self that puts the forum's interests before my own personal safety.

[whypikonme]

I simply cannot resist the urge to point out drivel -

- or talk it.

[Gemby!]

are you new or an old member in a new name ?

[Cheese]

are you new or an old member in a new name ?

He's a new member with an old name.

[Gemby!]

are you new or an old member in a new name ?

He's a new member with an old name.

goddam no0bs

[whypikonme]

are you new or an old member in a new name ?

He's a new member with an old name.

l'm a new name with an old member.

[Gemby!]

He's a new member with an old name.

l'm a new name with an old member.

your with an older member ?? :O

who is it ??

whats the age gap ??

are they dead ? :lookaroun :naughty: :pinch:

[JPaul]

however, as has been pointed out by that mental bloke, the forum is lucky to have a person like my good self that puts the forum's interests before my own personal safety.
You, Sir are a credit to your race, your gender, your occupation and your sexual orientation.

[whypikonme]

You, Sir are a credit to your .. sexual orientation.

Shouldn't this be kept to PMs?

[JPaul]

Shouldn't this be kept to PMs?
That's a matter for you, it's you who posted it.

[GepperRankins]

You, Sir are a credit to your .. sexual orientation.

Shouldn't this be kept to PMs?
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=100581


they made new rule since you were last here.


it seems a pity that you can never keep your identity secret for more than 2 posts. do you not even try?

[Gemby!]

this is kinky. please continue.

[manker]

I simply cannot resist the urge to point out drivel -

- or talk it.I talk loads of drivel, each and every day. However, what I tend not to do is copy and paste drivel written by other people to use in a discussion.

The reason for that is because to do so is mental.

[Gemby!]

im sure i can interpret that as kinky if i really try ...

[manker]

im sure i can interpret that as kinky if i really try ...
I knew I should have posted a :naughty: smiley :naughty:

[Gemby!]

double :naughty: is a good compensation - no regrets manker :P

[whypikonme]

I talk loads of drivel, each and every day.

Well there you go then, you have me at a distinct disadvantage, as l'm not full of drivel to begin with.

You have a unique gift there, use it wisely.

[JPaul]

I talk loads of drivel, each and every day.

Well there you go then, you have me at a distinct disadvantage, as l'm not full of drivel to begin with.

You have a unique gift there, use it wisely.
Yer talkin' out yer clacker, blue.

[whypikonme]

Yer talkin' out yer clacker, blue.

Try this one ...
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/9237/orange20scale20carved20tail20l.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[JPaul]

Yer talkin' out yer clacker, blue.

Try this one ...
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/9237/orange20scale20carved20tail20l.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Dag