Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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.
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
[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.
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
How the fuck can someone be considered "straight" if they fuck kids? They're fucking paedophiles, don't sugar coat them.
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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.
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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.
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
[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".
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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:
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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:
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
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:
Re: Vatican plan to block gay priests
