Posted on 12/18/2002 11:00:51 AM PST by zingzang
The Catholic Bishops made two big mistakes in their handling of the sex scandal hitting the church. One, they didn’t get rid of priests who sexually abused children. A new policy of no tolerance may fix that. But the other, more basic, problem, is that too many homosexuals became priests in the liberal climate of the 1960s and ‘70s. The Vatican may fix that problem, and this is what has some in the media worried. On the CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts said, "While the church tries to close the door on one sex scandal, another is brewing. The Vatican is now drafting a document that could ban homosexuals from the priest hood."
That’s another sex scandal? Since the homosexual lifestyle is frowned upon by church teaching, why would that be controversial? It’s only controversial if you’re a homosexual or if you try to maintain the fiction that there is no link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. This is what Byron Pitts tried to say in his one-sided treatment of this very serious matter.
He presented a retired priest and psychotherapist named Richard Sipe, who estimated that 30 percent of Catholic priests are gay. That’s a high number. But Sipe didn’t want them kicked out. In fact, he told Pitts that a ban on homosexuals in the priesthood would be "like a gay bar refusing to serve homosexual patrons. It doesn’t make any sense." This has got to be one of the strangest analogies ever offered in defense of homosexuals as priests. His rationale is that since gay bars serve gays, the church should keep its homosexual priests. But the church is not supposed to be an arm of the homosexual movement.
Pitts presented the Reverend Jim Morris of a homosexual Catholic group called "Dignity," who assured the audience that homosexual priests are not prone to abuse kids. As Pitts reported, "Homosexuality and pedophilia, he says, are not related." A homosexual activist was supposed to be an objective source of information.
The expert who was missing from the CBS News report was Dr. Timothy Daily of the Family Research Council, who has written about a definite link between homosexuality and child abuse. He says, "Despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners."
Daily notes that the homosexual movement accepts pedophilia. The North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, has been a proud member of the so-called "gay rights" movement, and pedophile themes abound in gay literature. Dailey notes that the late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile, whose poetry contained explicit references to man-boy sex. Ginsberg was a member of NAMBLA. When Ginsberg died in 1997, journalists praised him as a cultural icon. Some mentioned he was a homosexual, but they concealed his perverted sexual preference for boys.
Reed Irvine can be reached at ri@aim.org
C'mon, madg. This is one of your most preposterous posts - and I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to answer what you know to be total obfuscation. A minority of priests (the homosexual ones) brought about 90% of the molestations in the Catholic Church scandal (almost all against teenage boys). This clearly demonstrates that homosexual priests are much more likely to molest teenage boys than hetersexual priests teenage girls. Almost the entire scandal is HOMOSEXUAL in nature - as you well know.
I'm glad! But you know as well as I what the results of such a challenge would be. Look, madg - you know as well as I that many homosexual men are sexually attracted to teenage boys and that putting homosexual men in charge of or in close quarters with teenage boys runs the risk of homosexual molestation of those boys. If you can't acknowledge that (or that the Catholic Church scandal primarily concerns homosexual molestors of teenage boys), I will not consider you honest enough to continue with this debate.
The reason the age of consent for man-boy sex in Holland is 12 and in New Mexico is 14 is from pressure from gay organizations. This kind of thing is an obscenity.
Yes, they are. Since the Boy Scouts has not capitulated to what they want, and since the vast majority of scout parents do NOT believe it prudent to have homosexual scoutmasters in close quarters with their kids on overnight campouts, they now seek to intimidate funding sources, to vilify all those who disagree, and to smear people with honest differences on this. I've seen this first hand, in several places. I've never seen such intolerant people in my life.
That doesn’t make Any of his research wrong or inaccurate. Should you like to offer any RESEARCH that debunks his findings, I’ll be happy to consider it. Otherwise your self-serving opinion is still just OPINION.
It's clear that he is an employee of FRC, a... well, like I said... an "extreme conservative political activist group."
Extreme to an activist homosexual, like you, is anyone who makes the truth of your pathology known.
The fact that he is compensated by that group is more than enough to call his objectivity into question. I would sooner rent a car from Hertz because OJ once said so...
Sophesty, sophistry, sophistry.
More important than that, however, is his COMPLETE lack of experience or training in clinical analysis, sciences, etc.
Asked and answered, that STILL does make his findings wrong.
Smuggling Bibles doesn't make one a sociologist. A doctorate (and a personal history) in theological pursuits doesn't make one a scientific researcher. In fact, one would be uniquely UNQUALIFIED in that regard.
As long as anyone adheres to scientific method, unlike the APA didn’t do to remove your pathology from the DSM, still makes their research accurate. AGAIN, where’s your reseach that proves it wrong? You’re a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Face it, when it comes to homosexuality, Tim Dailey is a sock puppet. It's the only reasonable conclusion.
NO, that would be the sock puppets of the APA, like the HRC who’s sole purpose is political. NARTH is about helping those who want the best, and nearly only alternative for treatment, treatment denied by the puppet masters called the APA.
BTW... what's with your new fascination with the "HRC?" Is it because I exposed you as a one-source wonder [IE: NARTH]?
It’s not new, ever since they came knocking on my door asking for donations, like the lame political organization that they are, it’s been clear what their agenda is.
So now, in order to obfuscate, you feel obliged to accuse ME of being a one-source wonder [IE: HRC]?
No I didn’t, you are a many one hit wonder.
As with most empty allegations, you have revealed more about yourself than about me. You tacitly acknowledge your own limited resources, but you haven't got a chance of demonstrating that I am so limited.
OH? Then where is the research that proves homosexuality is NOT a disorder? C’mon cough it up!
The HRC? You've got to be kidding. Not only do I NOT rely upon them for my opinions, BUT... they are an openly acknowledged POLITICAL LOBBYING GROUP. Unlike tiny NARTH, the HRC does not PRETEND to be a "scientific" group. They are unabashedly political, and nobody questions that. Once again... still... your attempt to sling mud has thoroughly missed the target.
Yes, the homosexual lobby is vast and wide, mainly due to public apathy and the lemming-esc intelligence of LIBERALS. The big lie from the APA has gone unchallenged by the liberal media and therefor accepted by our ignorant society. Yes NARTH may be “little,” but like Fox News and the Washington Times, the truth will eventually seep out.
(Can anyone say: "Oh my God I need a distraction really FAST before anyone has a chance to say: 'Hmmm. wait a second?'")
Addresing your hypocricy with sacrcasim is sophestry in motion. Good job.
No he hasn't... he's not a researcher... not in any scientific manner... he's blather, blather, a PROFESSIONAL HOMOPHOBE!!!
Again, again, that still doesn’t prove his research is wrong. Gotta try harder than that. Maybe if you repeat it a few more times it will miraculously become true. And do you really think Dailey has latent tendencies he’s in denial of? Otherwise try not to use big words you don’t really understand.
(I've worn my fingernails down to the nub by clawing through your posts looking for something relevant...)
History is relevant. The political agenda of Spitzer is relevant. A VOTE of 40% of the psychiatric membership against the political findings of the APA committee is relevant. How do you define relevance? Is it in your illogical world of justifying your perversion? Give me a break.
blah, blah, blah, Groth demanded that they STOP MISREPRESENTING HIM!!! His RESEARCH was the friggin BASIS of his complaint!!! The evidence supported him BEFORE it was distorted! It's HIS friggin work, for Heaven's sake! (GOD, this is so tiresome.)
God will help you if you ask Him. And again, like Freund’s research, like many of the other pro-sodomy researchers Dailey cited, the truth is in the DATA an 8 year old can see and understand, why can’t you?
Already answered and put to bed. This reference is just further obfuscation. (If you are "true to form," you will now accuse me of obfuscating in your next message. It's happened repeatedly, and it is CLASSIC distraction technique. "Accuse the opponent of that of which you are guilty." (Go ahead... prove me wrong...)
OK, let’s for an experiment, you write to the NAMBLA contact address and ask for information. I’ll take your word for it if they don’t respond, honestly I will. I mean that and will respect your integrity to tell the truth, OK? Please let me know.
You poor thing. You don't even realize that NARTH's very existence relies upon old (and dismissed) Freudian theories from the great man himself.
First of all, I’ve never cited anything from Freud. As far as NARTH is concerned maybe you can point to some NARTH reseach that cites Freud and has been debunked, then maybe the rest of your diatribe has merit. I suspect you can’t. As far a Freud dismissing his own research, it seems too reminiscent to Freund dismissing his own DATA.
To imply that NARTH relies totally around Freud theory is a red herring at best, a lie at worst. Do a quick search and you’ll find Freud is cited in only 9 articles, many not from Nicolosi, some cites are Anna Freud.
That's the point, sweetie. Nicolosi/NARTH's very existence relies upon Freud's "bump in the road." Psychoanalists (the "followers" of Freud) have largely dismissed many of his theories... ESPECIALLY those upon which NARTH depends. NARTH is STEEPED in archaic and outdated psychoanalysis... which, itself, is the least of the mental health pursuits. That's why NARTH is just so darned... welll... TINY.
Again cite the reseach that debunks ANY of Narth’s reseach. OR was ALL of Freud’s research wrong? I’ve got only one thing to say about the APA’s studies for their erronious decision vote…Kinsey! And do a search in both APA,s and you’ll find dozens of cite for Freud. And then there’s this quote from your psychiatrists at the APA "Sigmond Freud is an integral part of American psychiatry,"
Psychiatrists must be Medical Doctors (MDs), psychologists must be good therapists... but psychoanalists? They have to interpret dreams... like any good gypsy.
OK, I’m happy to throw out ALL of the APA the lessor’s research, HEREK and the rest of the disproportionately homosexual Division 44, then you’d have what, none of the illegitimate pro-homosexual studies you so dearly rely on.
NARTH not only chose the least science; they depend upon "the LEAST of the least science." No matter how shrilly or consistently you proclaim otherwise will never change that fact. Repetition does not connote validity.
You’re right DATA does. DATA not in favor of dismissing the lies surrounding your pathology.
The part where he has no clinical experience (YOUR complaint about the Spitzer chair),
So what you’re saying is that they both are wrong? OK! Then let’s put homosexuality back in the DSM and have some unbiased research from of an unbiased medical group, do you know of any?
the part where he observed no "homage" to scientific validity whatsoever (YOUR complaint about the APA decision), and the part where he is a PAID REPRESENTATIVE, a SPOKESMODEL of a radically biased and agendized activist organization
So what you’re saying is that both are wrong? OK! Then let’s put homosexuality back in the DSM and have some unbiased research from of an unbiased medical group, do you know of any?
Do you see a pattern here yet Susan?
(the part that you cannot even CLAIM about your opponents).
Actually I can and have over and over. The APA’s politically corrupted psychiatrists don’t work for free and they observed no "homage" to scientific validity whatsoever either, they VOTED, remember? Please show me their research with cites and DATA, oh that’s right, they have NONE.
You don't understand Science if you don't understand consensus-building... the very TESTS of scientific discovery and validity.
Census building requires what? DOCUMENTAION from individual research, where is it? Show me the money! (Sound of head pounding on wall)
I freely recognize my own biased opinions. I don't shun scrutiny... I revel in it. Unlike some, I openly ENCOURAGE IT. Go ahead, crank up Google, and CHECK ME on my opinions.
That’s right, they are opinions. Opinions from the vast homosexual subculture trying to justify perversion, and it truly is all over the web. History is not opinion, please for the love of St. Agnes, demonstrate how my accounts are wrong.
You will find for yourself that NARTH has no bona fide scientific support or respect...
Only because the APA won’t back down from their mistake and allow legitimate research to be aired without having to admit they were wrong and without having to change the trumpeted up political climate. It’s easier for them to demagogue and lie.
only support from those activist organizations with an antigay agenda. No surprise there... NARTH is BANKING on telling them what they want to hear. But please... go ahead... everyone should CHECK me on this. I'm more than happy to discuss it at length.
Gee whiz, I have, and that’s what I thought we were doing here. Silly me. Now from a realistic perspective, this all started from a PRO-GAY political agenda from the APA, rhetoric like “anti-gay” is simply meant to try and prove a negative. That’s called sophistry, period.
NO... but 8yos do. Most 8yos can't even SPELL "objectively," much less know what it means.
Maybe but that doesn’t account for a simple understanding of truth, something that evades those with a pathology and those with a political agenda.
You see... this is the tiresome part. I've already given you a DIRECT QUOTE from Kurt Freund that gainsays all your misrepresentations.
Denying objective DATA like homosexual pedophilia is not committed by homosexuals is, shall we say…LYING or just part of the political lie imposed by the APA, you pick.
We've already gone 'round and 'round on this, and I'm the one that came up with the DIRECT QUOTE, NOT an "interpretation."
Answered above.
If you are going to cite Freund, then CITE HIM!!! QUOTE HIM!!!
I’m citing his DATA, that’s all, no more no less. DATA doesn’t lie. Homosexuals seeking to justify their perversion and politically agendized medical organizations DO.
Don't PRETEND that he supports your opinions when his research shows something else.
It’s his DATA that does, get that through your thick head.
And don't keep bringing up points that I've already answered. If it's a war of attrition you want... then YOU WIN.
I’m not here to do that, don’t infer something you don’t want to understand.
I don't have the time or inclination to keep proving you wrong again and again and again.
Just prove the DATA wrong…once! And I’ll quite.
Only the most up-to-date research of the last half-century, as well as MILLIONS of folks on a daily basis.
Opinion of the uninformed public is irrelevant and if you have some research that proves otherwise, I’m all ears.
(Was that a "trick question?")
NO, just one you CAN’T answer. Go figure.
All of which is almost three years old... what's your point?
It’s not just some “picture”, it has all the info needed for homosexual pedophilia. My point is it’s still there. My point is it’s still information for the homosexual pedophiles to read and act on. Write them and see.
Gratuitous, predictable, and entirely insupportable ad hominem noted... as usual...
Denial of the obvious doesn’t help your pathology, I’ll pray for you.
Madg, madg, madg. It's not worth my time responding to all of your points (most of which are quite distored, IMHO). Some people are gay. I don't blame them for that. But it's a serious psychological disorder. I don't want my kids taught that it's normal and healthy (neither of which are true). And I certainly don't want them to consider things like anal intercourse, promiscuous sex with strangers, fisting, ass-licking, etc. etc. to be OK. I don't want men who have a sexual interest in males to be around my teenage sons(and for very good reason). But I won't raise my kids to be homophobes. I will raise them to know the truth about homosexuality - and to love every person in this world (as our religion teaches). Madg, I will (seriously) pray for you - and hope that you will come to understand God's plan for sexuality and for you in particular. I hope that you will find a way out of your disorder. I hope and pray that you will come to understand the beauty and wonder of a woman. I hope that someday you will have children of your own. Homosexuality is something from which no true good comes. There are other paths, which could be much more fulfilling and much closer to God. I pray that you find one of them. Best wishes, yendu b.
In all my posts, magd, I've consistently said that I CAN live with gays - that what they do with their own lives is their business. I do NOT think there is something inherently 'bad' about every gay person, and I have nowhere said so (as you well know). My faith teaches me not to judge others. That is, of course, far different from considering certain acts bad. In short, I do not consider you a bad person. Do I think homosexuality is a serious psychological disorder? Yes, I do, as I've said on these posts many times. Men who use their life creating organ (which is obviously designed for use with women in that act of creation) to put up other men's rectums, do, in my opinion, have a serious disorder. I would think that of anyone with a propensity to put any part of their body up another man's rectum. As for criminality - a psychological disorder can lead one to criminality, or it may not - depending on the disorder and the law. People who feel the need to torture others will likely end up breaking the law. People who feel the compulsion to wash their hands a lot will not.
The average male homosexual has frequent anal intercourse, and has sex with several hundred partners during his life, many of them anonymous. If you think that humping another man's rear end is 'normal', so be it. I think it's a filthy, disgusting and disordered practice (as well as many other common homosexual sexual practices).
Hey, madg. I'm just calling homosexual practices for what they are. My son asked me what kind of sexual practices homosexuals engaged in. I told him the truth. He was disgusted - as he should be. I'm glad. It's toxic stuff, and I'm happy my son has a normal reaction to it.
I will pray for you, madg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.