[DiogenesLamp]

In other circumstances, we'd call this "grooming" ? And this article ... how and why is it not called "homophobic" ? How can this article be used to raise wider questions about the acceptance of homosexuality? (Clicking on the link within the article, to the case of the boy who was assaulted by two homosexual prostitutes hired by school staffers, who then assulted the boy *themselves*, once the prostitutes were done with him...) NO cheers, unfortunately.

The first thing I looked for in your excerpt was the word "Homosexual" because that is exactly what I was expecting given the stated circumstances. I didn't see it, but your commentary leaves me no doubt that this is once more a case of homosexuals molesting people.

Just as the media typically excludes the race of perpetrators when the truth is not politically helpful, so too do they exclude the fact that more homosexuals are molesting/raping people.

Once more, the greatest problem this nation faces is how to sweep away all the censors of the truth in the national information streams.

[Boogieman]

Here’s one interesting bit they somehow left in the article:

“The school, which was all-male until 1975, was, like many independent schools in that era, something of a refuge for gay teachers who could not find work in the public schools. Most of the gay teachers behaved entirely appropriately, but a few succumbed to their attraction to some of the boys on campus. “

A few of these “gay teachers” “succumbed to their attraction”? Gee, that sounds like an admission that all “gays” are attracted to young boys and have to actively resist the impulse to act on it. I’m surprised they didn’t edit that out or paraphrase it instead of putting the quote in directly, because it’s pretty damning.