defrocked priest Shanley jailed for rape of boy

[green lantern]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=W0CHBM4SJK5UICRBAE0CF EY?type=topNews&storyID=7639126


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - Defrocked priest Paul Shanley was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison on Tuesday for raping a boy in the 1980s in one of the most high-profile cases to stem from a U.S. Catholic clergy abuse scandal.

During a sentencing hearing, Shanley's accuser, now a 27-year-old firefighter, described the convicted former priest as a "monster" and "the lowest of the low." Judge Stephen Neel ordered the 74-year-old Shanley to serve 12 to 15 years in prison, followed by a decade of probation.

good !!!!

[jamesrage]

Personally I think these priest who abuse their power should recieve more time than that.
I also think churches should make public examples out of these priest who abuse their power.

[green lantern]

Personally I think these priest who abuse their power should recieve more time than that.
I also think churches should make public examples out of these priest who abuse their power.agreed

[::Major_Baker::]

They should revise the Catholic doctrine to exclude sexual repression--that would greatly reduce this pattern.

[jamesrage]

They should revise the Catholic doctrine to exclude sexual repression--that would greatly reduce this pattern.

What I wonder if occurrences like this only happen in the U.S.?

[Draft Dodger]

What I wonder if occurrences like this only happen in the U.S.?No, and not only in Catholicism. Teachers, politicians, mail carriers, police and fire personell, every area of society has this problem. It is just more visible in the Catholic church.

[Churlant]

No, and not only in Catholicism. Teachers, politicians, mail carriers, police and fire personell, every area of society has this problem. It is just more visible in the Catholic church.

And yet one with a more critical eye might question whether the incidence of child abuse in this particular sector is a bit higher than normally found in other professions...

-JC

[jamesrage]

What I am wondering is if these priest child molestation cases happen outside the U.S.

[Churlant]

What I am wondering is if these priest child molestation cases happen outside the U.S.

Oh, sure... but it's easier to cover them up outside of the U.S. (as if it weren't demonstrably easy enough in the U.S. to begin with).

At least, this would be my theory.

-JC

[jamesrage]

You might have a point but as liberal as some of those countries are I doubt that theory.

[Levi_NI]

What I am wondering is if these priest child molestation cases happen outside the U.S.

They happen all over the World.. here in Northern Ireland there have been quite a few high profile ones recently, and in the Republic of Ireland there have been a lot as well. It all has to do with the changing views of people, this generation no longer see the Priest as the next best thing to God, who can do no wrong... but, as said before, it isn't just the Catholic Church, it is every profession that deals with kids.. The biggest thing in regards to the RC Church, IMO, is the way the Church used to cover up such things, and move a Priest on, rather than deal with it and help prosecute.. to me, that is the biggest disapointment.

[Confucius]

Dam. Always Catholic Priests

[eugene40]

Personally I think these priest who abuse their power should recieve more time than that.
I also think churches should make public examples out of these priest who abuse their power.


Oh he will,, believe me... In Prison he will learn the meaning of an eye for an eye.... Or in his case and Arse for an Arse...

Sorry but it had to be said...

[Confucius]

Why is it always Catholic priests????????????????

[jamesrage]

Oh he will,, believe me... In Prison he will learn the meaning of an eye for an eye.... Or in his case and Arse for an Arse...

Sorry but it had to be said....

I feel it is not enough.The Catholic church needs to publicly make an example out of peope like this.Like maybe hold "a shame on you" t.v. special to embarass and humiliate individuals like these.

[eugene40]

I feel it is not enough.The Catholic church needs to publicly make an example out of peope like this.Like maybe hold "a shame on you" t.v. special to embarass and humiliate individuals like these.


I don't know,,, having a bunch of large convicted felons run a train on your arse seems pretty suitable to me.

[Churlant]

I feel it is not enough.The Catholic church needs to publicly make an example out of peope like this.Like maybe hold "a shame on you" t.v. special to embarass and humiliate individuals like these.

For once I'm agreeing with James. Sexual assault on a child is bad enough in general, but when someone as iconic as a Priest does it, there is the very real possibility of completely destroying a person's spirituality for years if not for life. For many people their individual identity is wrapped in that faith, and to have someone in such a position of power as a leader in the Church act in this way may be the most anti-religious experience a person can suffer.

Then again, as far as I'm concerned, you can give anyone who sexually abuses a child the Chair.

-JC

[jamesrage]

I don't know,,, having a bunch of large convicted felons run a train on your arse seems pretty suitable to me.

Yes but once his *** is behind bars we never hear about it.The catholic church needs to publicly show that this kind of behavior from a priest is not exceptable and is not afraid to make harsh examples out of people.Priest represent the chruch and the faith and therefore should be held to very high standards and be severly punished for not upholding those standards.When the it publicly appears that the Church is trying to conceal these incidences it appears as though they are endorsing this kind of behavior.

[Simba]

I don't know,,, having a bunch of large convicted felons run a train on your arse seems pretty suitable to me.

I never could understand any of this ****. Something about a man who doesn't like nothing more than the feel of a fine, mature woman's soft round bottom in his hands.

Then to go and join a group that gives you unlimited access to pedophilia. What surprises me most is all those people who usually champion homosexual rights. They sure are quiet on this subject. Funny, how they keep saying its pedophilia, but, most of the boys molested were just that, boys, of the same sex as the perpetrator, and adolescent or more......hardly pedophilia.......definitely homosexual in nature.

Where are all those people to condemn this.

Hahaaaaa....OooooooRah! Hypocrites!

[Churlant]

I never could understand any of this ****. Something about a man who doesn't like nothing more than the feel of a fine, mature woman's soft round bottom in his hands.

Then to go and join a group that gives you unlimited access to pedophilia. What surprises me most is all those people who usually champion homosexual rights. They sure are quiet on this subject. Funny, how they keep saying its pedophilia, but, most of the boys molested were just that, boys, of the same sex as the perpetrator, and adolescent or more......hardly pedophilia.......definitely homosexual in nature.

Where are all those people to condemn this.

Hahaaaaa....OooooooRah! Hypocrites!

I can never quite tell if you're serious or if you're... how to put this nicely.. you know, missing a beer from your sixpack or something.

-JC

[Simba]

I can never quite tell if you're serious or if you're... how to put this nicely.. you know, missing a beer from your sixpack or something.

-JC


I am always serious, but with a smile and a glimmer in my eye. No use sweatin' over small stuff.

All this. It's small stuff.

How's your portfolio looking?

[Churlant]

I am always serious, but with a smile and a glimmer in my eye. No use sweatin' over small stuff.

All this. It's small stuff.

How's your portfolio looking?

Well then I'm sure you can understand the serious difference between consensual adult homosexuality and child rape - right? Maybe I just misunderstood your implications...

-JC

[jamesrage]

Well then I'm sure you can understand the serious difference between consensual adult homosexuality and child rape - right? Maybe I just misunderstood your implications...

Yes one involves consensual adults performing homoxeual acts and the other involves an adult performing a homosexual act on a child.

[Churlant]

Yes one involves consensual adults performing homoxeual acts and the other involves an adult performing a homosexual act on a child.

Yep.. of course, one is legal and one is not. One is also extremely harmful (that would be the illegal one ;) )

-JC

[Simba]

Well then I'm sure you can understand the serious difference between consensual adult homosexuality and child rape - right? Maybe I just misunderstood your implications...

-JC


Ah...I see your line of thinking now. Only.....do you question that a man who rapes a woman is not heterosexual?

The definition of pedophilia is of children....most of these boys were older than just children.....many into adolescents.

They are homosexuals first, by their actions. If it is a crime we seek, it should be for what it is in most of these cases, statutory rape, just as it would be for a man who lusts for underage girls.

Either way, it is wrong. We should not cover the true nature of these acts, however, to spare those possessed with some misgotten sense of guilt for their own similarities of credo and mores.

[Churlant]

Ah...I see your line of thinking now. Only.....do you question that a man who rapes a woman is not heterosexual?


One person who rapes another is not working under sexual interest as a primary motive. If you knew anything about rape, you would know that much.


The definition of pedophilia is of children....most of these boys were older than just children.....many into adolescents.


If they were minors, they were children. You're going to play the semantics game because someone was 15 instead of 5?


Either way, it is wrong. We should not cover the true nature of these acts, however, to spare those possessed with some misgotten sense of guilt for their own similarities of credo and mores.

Why don't you try it with me now?

Adult, consensual, homosexual actions are legal.
Homosexual acts with minors, whether consensual or not, are illegal.

Drawing a parallel between the two is a game for homophobes (yes, I used the other "H" word) to play. Rational people need not apply.

-JC

[Simba]

One person who rapes another is not working under sexual interest as a primary motive. If you knew anything about rape, you would know that much.



If they were minors, they were children. You're going to play the semantics game because someone was 15 instead of 5?



Why don't you try it with me now?

Adult, consensual, homosexual actions are legal.
Homosexual acts with minors, whether consensual or not, are illegal.

Drawing a parallel between the two is a game for homophobes (yes, I used the other "H" word) to play. Rational people need not apply.

-JC

What in God's name are you talking about? The original point that I was trying to make was where is the outcry from the Gay Community. Not too concerned about this one are they, nor is North American Man Boy Love Association.

And there is a big difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old. You sink to name calling sir. OooooRah! And semanitics is relavent, because it is necessary to use to cut through the fog of obscurity that many would wield to hide behind. They were homosexuals, and pedophiles, both. What is so hard to understand about that? Its not like they chose teenage girls.

OooooRah!

[green lantern]

For once I'm agreeing with James. Sexual assault on a child is bad enough in general, but when someone as iconic as a Priest does it, there is the very real possibility of completely destroying a person's spirituality for years if not for life. For many people their individual identity is wrapped in that faith, and to have someone in such a position of power as a leader in the Church act in this way may be the most anti-religious experience a person can suffer.

Then again, as far as I'm concerned, you can give anyone who sexually abuses a child the Chair.

-JC agreed

[Churlant]

What in God's name are you talking about? The original point that I was trying to make was where is the outcry from the Gay Community.

OooooRah!

The point, if you are so inclined to understand it, is that the Gay Community doesn't need to present to you an "outcry" any more than the Straight Community. They have done nothing wrong and they are not involved in these incidents under any stretch of the rational imagination.

You attempt to link the morality of an act such as pedophilia with homosexuality - and you are completely and painfully wrong.



-JC

[jamesrage]

You attempt to link the morality of an act such as pedophilia with homosexuality - and you are completely and painfully wrong.

So blatently stating the obvious is wrong?What kind of ****ed up **** is that?Lets see male priest + molesting little boys = a gay pedophiler.describing the situation of three devaint sexual acts(rape,homosexuality,and pedophiling) with say the basic statement "that screwed homosexual who likes little boys" is not directly linking the three deviant behaviors together as the same thing.But mearly he was pointing out that in almost all these cases the priest is usually a homosexual,because the last time I checked the catholic church did not have any female priest,nor where did they have any incidences involving a Nun and little boys and you hardly ever hear of a catholic priest molesting little girls.Now lets look at websters definition of homosexuality-ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.
So if a male priest molest or sodomizes little boys that indeed makes that priest a homosexual.
Now lets look at webster's definition of sodomy so you do not get things confused.
sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
- sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
Now lets look at the defintion of pedophilia

pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.


Just because stating the obvious "that screwed homosexual priest who likes little boys" does not mean that one is directlky linking those deviant behaviors together.Stating that maybe the Catholic Church needs to screen for homosexuals is not directly linking one deviant behavior with another.It is basicly stating that maybe the Church should do a better job of who they pick to be priest.

[JoeR]

"You attempt to link the morality of an act such as pedophilia with homosexuality - and you are completely and painfully wrong."

He means using the pedophilia as a reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

[Churlant]

So blatently stating the obvious is wrong?What kind of ****ed up **** is that?Lets see male priest + molesting little boys = a gay pedophiler.describing the situation of three devaint sexual acts(rape,homosexuality,and pedophiling) with say the basic statement "that screwed homosexual who likes little boys" is not directly linking the three deviant behaviors together as the same thing.But mearly he was pointing out that in almost all these cases the priest is usually a homosexual,because the last time I checked the catholic church did not have any female priest,nor where did they have any incidences involving a Nun and little boys and you hardly ever hear of a catholic priest molesting little girls.Now lets look at websters definition of homosexuality-ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.
So if a male priest molest or sodomizes little boys that indeed makes that priest a homosexual.
Now lets look at webster's definition of sodomy so you do not get things confused.
sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
- sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
Now lets look at the defintion of pedophilia

pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.


Just because stating the obvious "that screwed homosexual priest who likes little boys" does not mean that one is directlky linking those deviant behaviors together.Stating that maybe the Catholic Church needs to screen for homosexuals is not directly linking one deviant behavior with another.It is basicly stating that maybe the Church should do a better job of who they pick to be priest.

:rolleyes: Doesn't bigotry get old after a while? I would think you'd get bored with such a mentality...

My only objection here is there seems to be thinking along the lines of, "Well of course they raped kids - they're obviously GAY, what would you expect???"

And yes, thinking like this really is some ****ed up ****.

-JC

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Churlant
Doesn't bigotry get old after a while? I would think you'd get bored with such a mentality..

Bigotry? What the hell does stating what is so blatently obvious have to do bigotry?Did they teach you that useless idiotic tactic in debate class?Did they
teach that if you can not really counter a debate or argument that you should call someone a bigot or accuse them of bigotry?


Originally Posted by JoeR
He means using the pedophilia as a reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

I thought There are other reasons why homosexuality is wrong.But pedophiling is not exclusive to just homosexuals.I am supprised though that Churlant did not make the accusation that Simba was suggesting that Catholic use sexual preferance profiling when apointing priest/clergymen.

[Churlant]

Bigotry? What the hell does stating what is so blatently obvious have to do bigotry?Did they teach you that useless idiotic tactic in debate class?Did they
teach that if you can not really counter a debate or argument that you should call someone a bigot or accuse them of bigotry?


:shrug: You make one blatantly obvious statement, and I was simply doing the same. I notice you happened to ignore my main point in that reply, however... I'll help:


My only objection here is there seems to be thinking along the lines of, "Well of course they raped kids - they're obviously GAY, what would you expect???"




I thought There are other reasons why homosexuality is wrong.But pedophiling is not exclusive to just homosexuals.I am supprised though that Churlant did not make the accusation that Simba was suggesting that Catholic use sexual preferance profiling when apointing priest/clergymen.

This may come as a shock... but homosexual acts and sexual identity are not equivelant. You could attempt a system of profiling clergy based on whether they are gay or straight, but I'm willing to bet the majority of the guys doing this stuff would identify themselves as straight. Individuals who sexually abuse others are not primarily motivated by thoughts such as "oooh, he/she is soo sexy! I've just gotta rape them!"

And personally, I don't care. Maybe they should just castrate all members.. they aren't supposed to be having sex anyway, right?

-JC

[jamesrage]

This may come as a shock... but homosexual acts and sexual identity are not equivelant. You could attempt a system of profiling clergy based on whether they are gay or straight, but I'm willing to bet the majority of the guys doing this stuff would identify themselves as straight. Individuals who sexually abuse others are not primarily motivated by thoughts such as "oooh, he/she is soo sexy! I've just gotta rape them!"

Do we need to bring up the definition of Pedophilia.At what part of that defintion
did you not read?Did you somehow miss this part" sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"So this is not a issue of a power trip.
Rape is teid in with pedophilia because Rape-2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.Homosexuality is tied in with that because usually the priest is a closet homosexual who has a thin for little boys.

Homosexuality-1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex.

Homosexual-1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

Now lets look at a few other keys word in those defintions
.sexual-1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict>
2 : having or involving sex <sexual reproduction>

Direct-: in a direct way: as a : from point to point without deviation : by the shortest way <flew direct to Miami>

desire-1 : to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for.

So homosexual acts and homosexuality are indeed linked together.

I could make the cliam I am filthy rich,but that does not mean it is true.The same applys to these homosexual pedophilers who claim to have a heterosexual orientation.

You make one blatantly obvious statement, and I was simply doing the same. I notice you happened to ignore my main point in that reply, however... I'll help:
No you were trying throw attention away from the fact you could not produce a valid counter argument to what I or someone else said so you cried bigotry

[Churlant]

Do we need to bring up the definition of Pedophilia.At what part of that defintion
did you not read?Did you somehow miss this part" sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"So this is not a issue of a power trip.
Rape is teid in with pedophilia because Rape-2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.Homosexuality is tied in with that because usually the priest is a closet homosexual who has a thin for little boys.

Homosexuality-1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex.

Homosexual-1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

Now lets look at a few other keys word in those defintions
.sexual-1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict>
2 : having or involving sex <sexual reproduction>

Direct-: in a direct way: as a : from point to point without deviation : by the shortest way <flew direct to Miami>

desire-1 : to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for.

So homosexual acts and homosexuality are indeed linked together.

I could make the cliam I am filthy rich,but that does not mean it is true.The same applys to these homosexual pedophilers who claim to have a heterosexual orientation.


Cling to your dictionary for dear life, it will not change the psychological realities of rape and sexual abuse. It IS a power trip, as well as many other complex interactions - it is NOT simply a question of desire and opportunity. "Homosexual acts" are just that - actions. The actual sexual orientation of an individual is separate from those actions, like it or don't.


No you were trying throw attention away from the fact you could not produce a valid counter argument to what I or someone else said so you cried bigotry

Nonsense. What I am doing is questioning whether the logic here seems to be that pedophilia is inherent to homosexuality, which is no more correct than assuming pedophilia is inherent to heterosexuality.

So as long as you continue to try and imply that being gay makes a person more likely to abuse little kids, I will contradict you.

-JC

[jamesrage]

So as long as you continue to try and imply that being gay makes a person more likely to abuse little kids, I will contradict you:

I never implied that.Perhaps you did not read post #33 where I said "But pedophiling is not exclusive to just homosexuals."Which that statement would imply that there are heterosexuals who molest children.

The actual sexual orientation of an individual is separate from those actions, like it or don't.
That is like the logic I heard from this one idiot in Basic training who said"Recieving a ******* from another man doesn't make you gay"

Bull**** that is why homosexuals are called homosexuals and heterosexuals are called heterosexuals.It is because of the sexual acts that they prefer that makes one of a certian sexual orientation.
Two guys hanging out playing pool,or fishing does not make them gay.Sexual orientation is about who a individual wishes to have sex with.
Now lets look at the defintion of Homosexual
1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
2homosexual
Function: noun
: a homosexual person and especially a male


So wouldn't that mean sexual acts are linked to sexual orientation?
Because if we combine the difinition of the two words Sexual Orientation-"a usually general inclanation of relating to or associated with sex or the sexes. that would indeed link sexual acts with sexual orientation".

The priest played out some homosexual desire on little boys.Now he would not have homosexual desires if he was straight.Now if the preist only molested little girls that would make him a heterosexual pedophiler.If the priest molested both little girls and boys that would make him a bi-sexual pedophiler.
If you for some reason had desires to have sex with persons of the same sex or do something sexual with persons of the same sex that would make you homosexual.

Cling to your dictionary for dear life, it will not change the psychological realities of rape and sexual abuse. It IS a power trip, as well as many other complex interactions - it is NOT simply a question of desire and opportunity
Oh trying to equavilate rape or sexual abuse to a wolf or dog showing dominance over another wolf or dog.

[Churlant]

I never implied that.Perhaps you did not read post #33 where I said "But pedophiling is not exclusive to just homosexuals."Which that statement would imply that there are heterosexuals who molest children.


Then we have nothing to argue about. My comments were more directed to Simba in general, but if he also declines an insistance on this type of comparison, then it's all cool.


That is like the logic I heard from this one idiot in Basic training who said"Recieving a ******* from another man doesn't make you gay"


It doesn't. You need to understand the world is not so cut and dried as 1/0 thinking. This might be a funny thing to consider: if a Priest engaging in homosexual acts is gay due to those actions, does that make his victim gay as well? I mean, the kid WAS involved in homosexual sex... right? So the kid must be gay. Unless homosexual actions somehow don't make you gay if you don't request it, eh? ;)

Your logic is the equivelant of saying that because I support X policy, I must have a Y ideology. Like I said... doesn't work that way. Someone who is 100% straight is capable of engaging in gay sex and while the sex may be homosexual in nature, their sexual orientation is not. Of course, I know you view homosexuality as a "choice", which may be part of what is holding you up on understanding this logic.



The priest played out some homosexual desire on little boys.Now he would not have homosexual desires if he was straight.Now if the preist only molested little girls that would make him a heterosexual pedophiler.If the priest molested both little girls and boys that would make him a bi-sexual pedophiler.
If you for some reason had desires to have sex with persons of the same sex or do something sexual with persons of the same sex that would make you homosexual.


Oh trying to equavilate rape or sexual abuse to a wolf or dog showing dominance over another wolf or dog.

Rape IS about dominance. This analogy is actually quite correct, though I know you didn't intend as much ;)

-JC

[jamesrage]

It doesn't. You need to understand the world is not so cut and dried as 1/0 thinking. This might be a funny thing to consider: if a Priest engaging in homosexual acts is gay due to those actions, does that make his victim gay as well? I mean, the kid WAS involved in homosexual sex... right? So the kid must be gay. Unless homosexual actions somehow don't make you gay if you don't request it, eh?

Of course not.If for some reason only fat chicks are attracted to you does that mean you like fat chicks?Being an unwilling participant does not make one gay.
The priest is a willing participant,the child is not.

Rape IS about dominance. This analogy is actually quite correct, though I know you didn't intend as much

Not in the case of pedophilia.It is purely sexual for the pedophiler.

[Churlant]

Of course not.If for some reason only fat chicks are attracted to you does that mean you like fat chicks?Being an unwilling participant does not make one gay.
The priest is a willing participant,the child is not.


Well I dunno. According to your definitions of a homosexual, if an individual is involved in such activities, they are definitely gay. Willing or not it makes no difference.


homosexuality-ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.


Now, under definition 2, anyone involved is gay. Since we're thinking in black and white terms, we don't have the luxury of determining whether or not someone being forced into homosexual acts is exempt from the definition.


Not in the case of pedophilia.It is purely sexual for the pedophiler.

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea you were studied in the realm of kiddie sex. you came to this conclusion how? :)

-JC

[Strel]

Actually most pedophiles were themselves subjected to childhood sexual abuse, or even just straight up abuse (which is not to say that all people who suffer this turn out to be pedophiles).

Take Michael Jackson for instance. There is some compelling evidence that Joe Jackson was not the best father. A person growing up being abused by adults is, in some cases, going to find themselves unable to have meaningful relationships with other adults and will feel more comfortable around children. They cannot tolerate intimacy or trust with adults but can with children, and after a while certain feelings develop, etc., etc., next thing you know they have a sexual obsession with children. They need intimacy just like anyone else, unfortunately they get it by victimizing kids. Some are downright sociopaths, others are just pathetic - like Jackson.

NOT that I have any sympathy for these people - as adults they ought to recognize this problem and do something about it instead of perpetuating the cycle. They certainly have to be dealth with harshly to set an example for society.

[Churlant]

Actually most pedophiles were themselves subjected to childhood sexual abuse, or even just straight up abuse (which is not to say that all people who suffer this turn out to be pedophiles).

Take Michael Jackson for instance. There is some compelling evidence that Joe Jackson was not the best father. A person growing up being abused by adults is, in some cases, going to find themselves unable to have meaningful relationships with other adults and will feel more comfortable around children. They cannot tolerate intimacy or trust with adults but can with children, and after a while certain feelings develop, etc., etc., next thing you know they have a sexual obsession with children. They need intimacy just like anyone else, unfortunately they get it by victimizing kids. Some are downright sociopaths, others are just pathetic - like Jackson.


Who asked YOU?? :P

Err, what I mean is... completely correct Strel, as usual :p I was kind of waiting to see what James put out before tossing in something similar to the above.

One very interesting corrolation to the above would be to look at how many people turn solely to religion to solve this psychological damage. I could imagine a good number of people might realize they have a problem, but instead of seeking psychiatric help, they try and heal themselves by entering the Church. Somewhat counter-productive considering the proximity to children, of course.

Or maybe not... still an interesting question - to me anyway. I somehow doubt they'll put out a survey to Priests requesting childhood abuse history, however ;)

-JC

[JoeR]

I thought There are other reasons why homosexuality is wrong.

Nothing that doesn't rely on old religious texts

[jamesrage]

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea you were studied in the realm of kiddie sex. you came to this conclusion how?

Well if you look at the defintion of pedophilia it clearly states "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"Which would mean that the pedophiler is indeed attracted sexually to children.Pedophiling is nothing more than a sick and twisted ****ed up fetish.


Now, under definition 2, anyone involved is gay. Since we're thinking in black and white terms, we don't have the luxury of determining whether or not someone being forced into homosexual acts is exempt from the definition.


So now you are trying to argue that the children are perhaps gay and deserved to be ****ed in the *** and molested by a homosexual priest?
Is this what you are insinuating?Just kidding I know you are not that ****ed up,I just decided to try out a liberal tactic.

Defintion 2 clearly states the physical part of homosexuality.Those children were involved in a homosexual act against their will.Considering it is rape that
in turn disqualaifies the children as being homosexuals.However that still means that the priest is a homosexual who has homosexual desires for little children.

[jamesrage]

Nothing that doesn't rely on old religious texts

Lets see humans did not evolve that way.
Unnatural human behavior.
The country could face a population shortage crises in the long run.
Rebelious teens could be encouraged to do this dangerous behavior.
Confusion in sexual identity amoung young people.
Parental rights issues involving children and adults who are not related by gentics.
With the rise of STDs homosexuality is a dangerous behavior.

I know that is not good enough for you since my views are not the same as yours so you will immediatly call it a slippery slope arguement since there is some logic to those views and proably proceed to call me a bigot or homophobe.Perhaps you will also criticise me for not carring enough to use propper grammer or spelling and maybe you might even try to insult where I live and my upbringing too while you are at it. Now if you are really ignorant you might even try to make a ludacris statement that according to the bible homosexuality is not a sin or bring up some dumbass fake Dr.Lara letter or say something stupid by making the comparison of the of struggle of Americans of African desent in the past to that of homosexuals.But maybe I am wrong you might be able to actually bring something new to the debate instead of the same old liberal nonsense.

[jamesrage]

Nothing that doesn't rely on old religious texts

Lets see humans did not evolve that way.
Unnatural human behavior.
The country could face a population shortage crises in the long run.
Rebelious teens could be encouraged to do this dangerous behavior.
Confusion in sexual identity amoung young people.
Parental rights issues involving children and adults who are not related by gentics.
With the rise of STDs homosexuality is a dangerous behavior.

I know that is not good enough for you since my views are not the same as yours so you will immediatly call it a slippery slope arguement since there is some logic to those views and proably proceed to call me a bigot or homophobe.Perhaps you will also criticise me for not carring enough to use propper grammer or spelling and maybe you might even try to insult where I live and my upbringing too while you are at it. Now if you are really ignorant you might even try to make a ludacris statement that according to the bible homosexuality is not a sin or bring up some dumbass fake Dr.Lara letter or say something stupid by making the comparison of the of struggle of Americans of African desent in the past to that of homosexuals.But maybe I am wrong you might be able to actually bring something new to the debate instead of the same old liberal nonsense.

[Churlant]

Well if you look at the defintion of pedophilia it clearly states "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"Which would mean that the pedophiler is indeed attracted sexually to children.Pedophiling is nothing more than a sick and twisted ****ed up fetish.


The definition of 'rape' doesn't include the psychological factors involves either, but that doesn't mean the action and motives are limited to a few words on a page in Webster's. I'm not sure when you gained a built-in dictionary, but it's time to throw it out. The world is not so simple.


So now you are trying to argue that the children are perhaps gay and deserved to be ****ed in the *** and molested by a homosexual priest?
Is this what you are insinuating?Just kidding I know you are not that ****ed up,I just decided to try out a liberal tactic.

Defintion 2 clearly states the physical part of homosexuality.Those children were involved in a homosexual act against their will.Considering it is rape that
in turn disqualaifies the children as being homosexuals.However that still means that the priest is a homosexual who has homosexual desires for little children.

Sorry James, but I'm only using your reasoning here. If we're going to be slaves to the dictionary here, then we must accept the actual definition. According to the dictionary, if you are involved in sexual activities which are between yourself and another of the same gender, then you are gay. The dictionary doesn't say anything about willingness and, because we all know there is nothing beyond the typed word, the only conclusion we can reach is that a boy raped by a man is gay. :shrug:

Of course, this is an attempt at pointing out the ridiculousness of relying on a dictionary to give us the final word on issues such as these... but that point is just sailing on over, isn't it? Before you just dismiss this out of hand, I would like to know how you figure it's fine to use black and white thinking while deciding the motives for pedophilia, but when it comes to homosexuality we get to expand our horizons and move beyond strict definitions of the words? Hmm?

[Churlant]

(1)Lets see humans did not evolve that way.
(2)Unnatural human behavior.
(3)The country could face a population shortage crises in the long run.
(4)Rebelious teens could be encouraged to do this dangerous behavior.
(5)Confusion in sexual identity amoung young people.
(6)Parental rights issues involving children and adults who are not related by gentics.
(7)With the rise of STDs homosexuality is a dangerous behavior.


Numbers added by me, of course... so let's see...

1 - Since our society maintains gay individuals, as does the rest of the animal kingdom, I would have to say you are incorrect. Assuming we've evolved into who we are today, then we have indeed evolved separate sexual identities as well.
2 - Your opinion. To a gay man these feelings and actions are completely natural and, as I said above, we're not the only species who engages in homosexuality.
3 - Considering the ratio of straight to gay in our country, I somehow doubt this very much. I'm interested to hear your evidence that proves your theory, however. (Evidence... not opinion)
4 - I'm not sure how old you are James, but when I was a teen, being gay wasn't exactly accepted by other teens. I believe a few terms ("******" anyone?) are quite popular as overall insults to kids these days. There is also nothing suggesting a straight individual sees a couple of gay guys making out and decides to switch teams. Again - I'm interested to hear your evidence on this one...
5 - The massive prejudice directed at gays, up to and including murder, is a primary reason why so many tend to debate their sexual identities for so long. Indeed some individuals get married, have kids, and only later sort out their true selves. Perhaps if we lives in a more open, enlightened society, people wouldn't be so afraid about just being themselves.
6 - Come again? Ever heard of adoption? How is there an "issue" if the parents are not genetically related to their children and how does this apply to the gay community exclusively?
7 - Not relevant. Heterosexuals spread STDs. Some are amazingly good at it.



I know that is not good enough for you since my views are not the same as yours so you will immediatly call it a slippery slope arguement since there is some logic to those views and proably proceed to call me a bigot or homophobe.Perhaps you will also criticise me for not carring enough to use propper grammer or spelling and maybe you might even try to insult where I live and my upbringing too while you are at it. Now if you are really ignorant you might even try to make a ludacris statement that according to the bible homosexuality is not a sin or bring up some dumbass fake Dr.Lara letter or say something stupid by making the comparison of the of struggle of Americans of African desent in the past to that of homosexuals.But maybe I am wrong you might be able to actually bring something new to the debate instead of the same old liberal nonsense.

I don't need to claim 'slippery slope'. Nor do I need to throw around labels - you know who you are, and so do I. Spelling and grammar are useless as I'm not perfect (most of the time) either. Where you live isn't relevant and your upbringing, while it actually is important to things such as prejudice and perception, is unknown to me - thus also not relevant.

I don't need to bring up the Bible, the authors of which believed Earth to be the center of the Universe, and were no doubt quite wrong about a lot of other items as well. Their ignorance is understood and their fears were based on that lack of knowledge. Dr. Laura can be dealt with another day. The African-American struggle for equality is very much a mirror to these arguments, but the specific point can be left out if it pleases you.

As for "liberal nonsense"... sorry James, I'm a Liberal, so I guess to you that is all I've got. I could try and give you some Conservative nonsense instead, but I'm afraid I've left my dictionary in my other pair of pants. :sorry:

-JC