The Homosexual Link To Pedophilia

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.

As much as I appreciate your kind sentiments... calling someone "disordered" for no good reason isn't very kind at all.

It's not for no good reason, madg. Homosexuals right now are looking for ways to teach my children (directly and indirectly) that things like anal intercourse between men are normal and healthy. I completely reject that. I call you disordered simply because I believe that you have a disorder - and I want to protect my children from those who would teach otherwise. I also do honestly believe that recognizing that you have a disorder (like an alcoholic so recognizing) is the first step toward freedom from it.

Well then, that makes two of us that are “questioning motives.” I’ve been questioning the motives of those that keep harping on NAMBLA as if it were still some kind of clear and present danger; when, in fact, they haven’t been seen for years. Doesn’t it strike you as disingenuous to keep talking about a group in the present tense when they’ve been incommunicado for years? Obviously, something is motivating those people, and it doesn’t involve factual accuracy.

My guess is most are using the term NAMBLA to refer to homosexual pedophiles as well as the organization to which they do/did belong. Who really cares if NAMBLA exists or if their dispicable advocates have organized elsewhere under another banner? We know they are still out there targeting innocents. Or perhaps you think their desires ebbed when their natures were exposed?

Who cares? Those that prefer facts over rhetoric should care. The "gratuitous NAMBLA-mention" is a red herring in the arguments of those that use it.

You are not comprehending and I'm wondering if you are doing it on purpose. In other words, I wonder if you have some agenda you're not sharing, something hidden. So let's try once more.

You assert NAMBLA is no longer active as an organization. It no longer exists in any menaingful way. I'll admit I wasn't aware of that until you pointed it out. My guess is others weren't either. I accept your assertion both because you back it up with facts and it makes sense. Former members would be wise to distance themselves that unpopular group with unconscionable objectives. For many years, NAMBLA flew "under the radar" of decent society. Now that they've been outed, it is understandable they've scurried away. Rats flee sinking ships.

It is my contention that the scum that was NAMBLA now ply their trade under a different banner. They haven't given up their predatory natures. They still want sex with boys. A while back, there was a thread here on FR listing 200 or so terms homosexuals have for teenage/underage boys. Like the eskimoes with snow, a culture will have many different names for those things and ideas that are most important to it. The more names, the greater the importance.

If the Communist Party USA changed its name to the Progressive Party USA because communism became so tarnished they were unable to hold current members or recruit new ones, I'd say that was a distinction without a difference. And if you started attacking my arguments by screaming that the Communist Party USA no longer existed and therefore what I wasy saying was invalid, I'd suspect you of having a hidden agenda. I can remmeber when Nissan was called Datsun in this country. I can remember when Exxon was called Esso. People continued using the terms Datsun and Esso long afterward. That's just the way people are. Everybody still knew what they were talking about.

I will continue to use the term NAMBLA because I don't know the name of the organization they have morphed into, but I'm certain there is one. Quasi-NAMBLA and NAMBLA-like are clumsy and unnecessary as everybody, excepting you apparently, will know what I mean. Far from being the red herring you assert, using "NAMBLA" focuses the debate rather than diverting it. The term NAMBLA has taken on a generic meaning over the past few years and can be rightfully used to describe both actual members of the former organization and others who were not members but shared a common interest in homosexual pedophilia.

The question I have for you is why are you so hell-bent that NAMBLA be removed from our lexicon? Are you trying to convince us that the threat of organized pederasty died with NAMBLA? Are you somehow interested in promoting the homosexual agenda?

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.