The Homosexual Link To Pedophilia

Perhaps you meant to use "in lieu" (lieu is a foreign word that has been adopted in the english language and thus there is no need to italicize).

If not perhaps you thought "en lieu" was a foreign phrase and therefore it would need to be italicized.

Grammar gotcha is a silly game to play on a thread site. That is why I pointed out the self-proclaimed grammarian's less than best word choice - and mind you I did not write that he was wrong - I noted instead that better word choices exist.

NB: I know english should be capitalized.

Like I said, grammar gotcha is a silly game to play.

Nevertheless I am glad you consider grammar important, generally.

Long before the 60s, there were only two options for good Catholic boys who wanted to please their good Catholic mothers: marriage or priesthood. Service in the priesthood offered homosexual men (and yes, homosexuality is not a recent phenomenon) a socially accepted vocation in which their lifestyle choices were honored and validated rather than suspiciously questioned. In many cases these young men never even concsciously accepted the fact they were gay, they just knew they were attracted to "the calling" more than they were attracted to women. To deny this aspect of Catholic culture is to be selectively blind.

I had not considered this aspect... Very good point.

In many cases these young men never even consciously accepted the fact they were gay, they just knew they were attracted to "the calling" more than they were attracted to women. To deny this aspect of Catholic culture is to be selectively blind.

Wittingly or unwittingly, I believe you have just put your finger on the heart of the whole problem of homosexuality (properly called heterophobia), pedophilia, and the plague of these within the Catholic Church.

All of these result from the irrational and evil belief that what one is attracted to is justification for what one chooses to do. Desires and attractions are non-cognitive, and never morally or rationally justify what one chooses to do.

So long as the evil principle that what one is attracted or drawn to is justification for one's moral choices, the problems of homosexuality and pedophilia will only become worse. Until we insist that moral choices are determined by what is true and right, and that each of us have the moral character to choose according to objective truth, no matter what one desires or is, "drawn to," there can be no solution to the problem if the victimization of innocent children and the self-destructive behavior of homosexuals.

Hank

**I know a lot of good and holy Catholic people who cannot bear to go to Church right now - and who are ashamed, shocked and horrified at the homosexual abuse of so many teenage boys.**

But they can find a different parish with a different priest and attend Mass there.

With every adversity comes an equal or greater opportunity -- this will be true with the Catholic Church growing beyond our wildest expectations and dreams.

You heard it first on FR from Salvation! LOL!

You have no idea how sad it makes me to ask this question. I mean no offense by it, and you do not have to answer at all.

You said: My Church puts kids last.

My question, why is it your Church if this is true? Doesn't that, in a way, make you an accomplice? If you support that which protects such evil, what is it you are supporting, and why?

Hank

You have no idea how sad it makes me to ask this question. I mean no offense by it, and you do not have to answer at all. You said: "My Church puts kids last." My question, why is it your Church if this is true? Doesn't that, in a way, make you an accomplice? If you support that which protects such evil, what is it you are supporting, and why?

Hey Hank, I'll be glad to answer your question - though the whole subject makes me greatly sad as well. I don't know if you're Catholic or not - but Catholics believe in the sanctity of their Church - that is, that the institution itself is protected by the Holy Spirit, that it will always prevail over time in truth and goodness, and will stay true to Christ's teachings and will - even if it goes through periodic cycles of corruption at the hands of evil and sinful leaders (and I pray that we are at a low in that cycle now). Catholics believe that the institution - while able to be attacked by Satan and his minions, will always prevail against the forces of evil. So believing that (as I do), I must remain faithful to my Church and its divine mission. However, I FULLY recognize the horrendous and disgusting evil which has infiltrated it, and not wishing to be an accomplice to that, I stand ready to fight that evil with all the energy and ability I have. And I am further energized in the knowledge that the evil in the Church has turned toward children - one of the most horrendous forms of evil there is. In short, I believe it is far better to fight Satan with faith and truth than to turn tail and run.

With every adversity comes an equal or greater opportunity -- this will be true with the Catholic Church growing beyond our wildest expectations and dreams.

The Church WIll grow dramatically once it returns to faithfulness in its own beliefs and message.

Hey Hank, I'll be glad to answer your question - though the whole subject makes me greatly sad as well. I don't know if you're Catholic or not - but Catholics believe in the sanctity of their Church - that is, that the institution itself is protected by the Holy Spirit, that it will always prevail over time in truth and goodness, and will stay true to Christ's teachings and will - even if it goes through periodic cycles of corruption at the hands of evil and sinful leaders (and I pray that we are at a low in that cycle now)....

Thank you for your long and sincere answer.

I am not Catholic. I do not, therefore, share you conviction that the Catholic Church (or any organization for that matter) can be infected by and even protect evil without itself being evil. This is not meant as an argument against your position, only as a statement of mine.

I fully sympathize with your consternation at what is currently going on in some Catholic churches, and in that, at least we can agree. I also commend you on not glossing over the fact that what has happened is evil, as some have seemed to do.

I cannot agree with you in your convictions regarding the Catholic church, but I am in total agreement with you that ultimately, the truth will prevail, but only if those who believe in the truth will stand and defend it.

Hank

Tim Dailey of the extreme conservative political activist group Family Research Council (FRC) is most certainly an antigay activist, NOT a qualified or objective researcher.

Why, because you… a homosexual, or the HRC… a homosexual activists group says so? After I stop laughing again, can anyone say HYPOCRITE? He’s written a rather convincing research paper, unlike what the APA committee did by voting, that’s supported by proper research from many pro-homosexual researchers. Funny how conclusions can be political but DATA doesn’t lie. All you’ve got is OPINION and Dr. Groth fails to support any of his.

Thank you for PROVING ME RIGHT once again, oh predictable one: (blah, blah, blah, A review of that website will show that it has not been updated for more than two years.) Sometimes this is just TOO easy.

You’re right it is TOO east, almost embarrassingly. Post#128

… sell their totally unsupported theories as a product to a gullible public. So much for NARTH.

Theories??? It’s called well supported HISTORY and it wasn’t from NARTH. But if you want it to be I’ll be happy to wear that hat. Can you cite ANY reseach that debunks any research from NARTH. Anything? I’ll give you some time and you get back to me, OK?

See my above re: “Doctor” Dailey’s complete lack of qualifications to conduct ANY such “study.”

Sorry, where exactly has Dr. Dailey failed to follow scientific method? Should you have some research that debunks his findings let me know. Otherwise we’ll have to assume your unsupported biased opinion is just that, OPINION.

NARTH’s wacky theories may APPEAL to those with an 8yo’s mentality.

Ummm…it’s Freund’s research DATA that an 8-year old can objectively understand, do you have reading comprehension problems?

blah, blah, blah, you can also believe that a tiny, outré, group of “therapists” with outdated, radical theories are correct; and the overwhelming mounds of evidence that prove them wrong (including millions of people on a daily basis) simply don’t exist.

“overwhelming mounds of evidence”, what evidence proves homosexuality is NOT a disorder? What???

“including millions of people on a daily basis”, hehehe…it’s just like you to use public opinion in place of science. I guess your Santa Clause theory has some legs.

You’ve got that backwards, bub. YOU are the one inferring that NAMBLA is viable by leading us to a stagnant website. The burden of proof is on you. You’re looking at a years-old photograph and claiming that something is still alive, even though you haven’t got a shred of evidence to support that claim. Who is REALLY engaging in the “hopeful wishing?” For that matter, why do you so desperately want to believe that NAMBLA is STILL alive?

A web site is a pretty good indication for starters, then there’s the resource information like Membership New and Noteworthy Boys Speak Out What People Are Saying The Prisoner Program What Can Science Tell Us? Publications Selected Readings, and of course there’s the CONTACT INFORMATION! But you can pretend it doesn’t exist, I’d be in denial too if I had a pathology that made me more likely to commit such behavior. As for wanting it here, I want it destroyed!

So NO, yendu, the average citizen does NOT believe as you do. The “gays are monsters” rhetoric has been steadily backfiring for some time now. Real people know better.

C'mon, madg. You're raising a completely different issue than the one I did. It's a nice (but shallow) try. Most people know that putting homosexual men in close quarters with other people's teenage boys is BAD news. And it is - as several thousand molested teenage boys in the Catholic Church can attest to. What's backfiring is the steady desire of homosexual organizations to insinuate homosexual men into position of authority over and close quarters to teenage boys - as well as the constant attempts to lower the age of consent for man/boy sex. As I say - I have no problem with homosexuals leading their own lives as they see fit. But I do NOT agree with them on issues of sexual morality. I do NOT want them teaching my kids things I don't believe are true. And I do NOT want my sons in close quarters with homosexual men. I believe most Americans would be in my camp on those things. Here's a test - go to any representative meeting of American parents with teenage boys - and tell them that you as a homosexual man want to be their sons' mentor, and that you want to take their sons out for the day. In most places, as you well know, you wouldn't get very far. And THAT is not because parents are bigots. It's because they're prudent.

and tell them that you as a homosexual man want to be their sons' mentor, and that you want to take their sons out for the day. In most places, as you well know, you wouldn't get very far. And THAT is not because parents are bigots.

Are those the "real" people mad "gay" was refering to?

Are those the "real" people mad "gay" was refering to?

No, in madg's world, people are stumbling over themselves to find homosexual mentors, coaches, Boy Scout scoutmasters, Big Brothers, priests, etc. etc. to take a special personal interest in their teenage sons. (NOT!)

Do you remember the recent case where the gay guy killed the woman from the funeral home? Off the top of my head, I think it was Robert Knight of CWA that referred to him as a "gay activist." How would Knight know something like that? I read every article about that case and not one them mentioned that the killer was politically active in any fashion. So how did Knight know?

The obvious answer is that Knight did NOT know, and was just indiscriminately applying the term for the sole purpose of inflammatory rhetoric.

Robert Knight said no such thing. Peter LaBarbera did say this:

"This woman, Mary Stachowicz, was killed evidently because she was sharing the truth about homosexuality to a gay activist," LaBarbera said. "We will be waiting to see, now, if the media treats this case like it treated the Matthew Shepard case."

I could find no independent information about whether or not the killer -- Nicholas Gutierrez -- was an activist of any stripe. You couldn't find anything indicating that he wasn't. But it really doesn't matter, because stating that the killer was an activist doesn't qualify as "inflammatory rhetoric." This is yet another example of your penchant for accusatory language when referring to your opponents.

Even heterosexual parents of gay children get branded as "gay activists" simply for doing what ANY parent should do for their children.

That's clear as mud.

So, no, I am not the "imbecile." The "imbeciles" are those that use a term that has been misused for years whilst expecting someone else to know exactly what they're talking about.

It is to laugh. I wasn't "misusing" a term, you suggested that the term itself had no clear meaning. I made a reference to "gay activists" and you replied, "First, I’m not sure what you mean by 'gay activists'..."

And? What's your point? "Pitiful caricature." "The far end of a spectrum." That hardly suggests that he represents the mainstream, Knight's rather obvious self-victimization notwithstanding.

You think you're clever, don't you, quoting someone other than the gay activist in the article. Well, that's why the stuff Cathy Renna said was in red font -- so you wouldn't miss it.

Let's review, shall we?

madg: But even among those that can genuinely be called “gay activists,” I don’t see any orchestrated attempt to imply that Phelps is representative of anyone aside from himself. So if you’re suggesting that Phelps is used in an organized attempt at “Christian-bashing,” then I must say “no.” I don’t think that mainstream “gay activists” do that.
Cathy Renna, GLAAD attack dog: "If you scratch away at the compassionate ex-gay campaign, you're going to find out all these flowers came from the same seeds... Homophobia is homophobia is homophobia."

That's the Renna quote I used. Here's the one I didn't, just in case you suggested that Renna wasn't "[using Phelps] in an organized attempt at 'Christian-bashing'":

Conservative Christians, she believes, are capitalizing on Phelps to promote their agenda. As she put it, "They can point to him and say, 'He's a bad guy. We're compassionate.' "

In a nutshell, what Renna and other rabid gay activists are saying is, 'When you see Phelps, you've seen them all,' which is one of the larger of the Gay-stapo's big lies.

When I pointed out that Renna urged journalists not to be fair to people who disagree with them, you said:

Well, duh, GLAAD is a media watchdog. That’s their job, it’s why they exist.

What a steaming pile that is. Media watchdogs are not for stifling the speech of others -- which is just what Robert Knight accurately accused Renna and GLAAD of doing -- they are for making sure that one side is heard clearly and reported about fairly. The Anti-Defamation League nor Accuracy in Media nor Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting nor the American Family Association nor the Media Resource Center or any number of left, right, and center watchdogs have ever suggested that their viewpoint should be the only one considered in news stories.

Do words have the power to influence actions in other… yes or no?

Absolutely, words have power. Absolutely, words can influence action. No one understands this better than the Gay-stapo does.

If words didn't have power, the radical gay activists wouldn't find it necessary to get their pro-homo textbooks, novels, and curricula into grade school. They wouldn't be trying to convince children who have only the vaguest idea about sex that there isn't something abnormal about having attraction to the same gender. They wouldn't be trying to get youngsters to sing songs and write romantic stories about two men or two women.

The homosexual lobby is heavily invested in furthering the notion that every word spoken that is not in its favor is contributing to an atmosphere of hatred. Not only is such a stance slanderous, it is insulting to the intelligence. Fred Phelps and his tiny church are just, at most, a few dozen abhorrent individuals, and the vast majority of people who oppose the endless promotion of homosexuality to children agree. If people like Cathy Renna think that people like Phelps are everywhere, maybe someone should begin an investigation to see if homosexuality and paranoia have a link!