Vatican plan to block gay priests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

are kids asexual until their 16th birthday then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"....

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

hehehehe

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

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.

[QUOTE=Busyman]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

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.

[QUOTE=ahctlucabbuS]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

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:

What's a pedophile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

What's a pedophile?

---

I believe it's an alternate spelling of paedophile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

[QUOTE=ahctlucabbuS]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

[QUOTE=clocker]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 word

---

Yup, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Dismissed

Anywaysss

What's considered a minor?*

*don't define the word with the same word

---

Yup, 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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.