But, but, but It s For The Children, Right?

Free Britannia Journal ^ | March 20, 2002 | Greg Collins

[MadIvan]

Once again my friend Greg gets it right. It's highly interesting to see the same people who support NAMBLA's right to exist rather than be executed also claim to be defenders of children.

Best Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Hi Ivan! Yes, it's disgusting....

[Mortimer Snavely]

"Third, the crux of the matter is this. It’s my contention the real issue here is homosexual predatory pedophilia. This means almost without exception, these cases involve abuse of men against boys. The left, especially cronies in the press, do not want to point out the obvious fact that homosexuals are documented as being over represented as sexual predators. "

Full marks, as usual.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[oremus]

Again, most of the priest cases are actually NOT pedophilia, as they overwhelmingly involve teenage boys. What the liberal media doesn't want to admit is that even with the priests, it's a GAY problem. So they conveniently twist the truth (using the term "pedophilia") to fit their agenda and use it to promote their rabid bigotry against the Catholic Church.

[The Schnoid from Sheboygan]

Rightly or wrongly, this makes the church vulnerable to cases of abuse and thus they are inclined to settle out of court. The result is a virtual gold mine for lawyers while the perpetrator is shuttled out of the picture

Could this be another reason the Left wants sodomites (er..."gays") in the Boy Scouts? Once they're firmly established in the Scouts --- a condition which will hopefully NEVER happen --- it will only be a matter of time before an 'incident' occurs. Then, the Tassled Loafers crowd --- usually BIG donators to the political Left --- can try to sue the BSA into oblivion for having "allowed" these perverts to prey upon "the children." And, once the BSA disappears, that means one less organization that promotes the American values that the Left so despises.

[Salman]

Again, most of the priest cases are actually NOT pedophilia, as they overwhelmingly involve teenage boys.

What then? Statutory rape plus perversion. The problem isn't that some minuscule fraction of priests does these things, but that the church covered it up.

When a prominent rabbi was recently caught abusing teenage girls, he was exposed in Jewish newspapers and immediately lost his job.

[Mortimer Snavely]

They're trying to pull some slick language camouflage over us by playing the pedophile/homosexual false dichotomy. A male who gets sexual arousal and satisfaction from other males is a homosexual, and if he prefers young boys, the characterization of "pedophile," accurate as it is, is purely a secondary categorization.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The attacks by those who are the outside enemies of the church are nearly as bad as the attempts by those inside the church who supported the moral collapse on the gay priest issue to use it as a justification for further moral collapse.

It is good to see you again, MadIvan, will you be around enough for us to ping you to various threads involving the UK for your valuable insights?

[oremus]

Right. Then they go and tell us that the problem is that priests need to be able to marry. Now that makes sense. Marry whom? Teenage boys? Problem is people are so stupid/dumbed-down these days they buy this false dichotomy crap and jump on the Catholic-bashing bandwagon. Just the result they were looking for.

To a previous reply, yes, it's wrong that these things were swept under the rug - for whatever the reason may be. This will begin to work itself out now that it's out in the open. This is going to get ugly but it had to happen. My problem is how the lying, opportunist liberal media whores use this kind of thing to promote their own twisted and bigoted agendas - and the masses who no longer know how to think for themselves who buy the lies.

[Restorer]

A male who gets sexual arousal and satisfaction from other males is a homosexual, and if he prefers young boys, the characterization of "pedophile," accurate as it is, is purely a secondary categorization.

Pedophilia technically refers to attraction to a pre-pubescent child, not to a person past puberty but under the legal age of consent, although it is often loosely used that way by the media.

Thus a man who pursues a 14 year old girl is a sex criminal in most states, guilty of statutory rape and should be jailed, but it is inaccurate to refer to him as a pedophile, unless he also pursues 8 year olds.

As Salman points out, the problem is homosexual statutory rape and subsequent coverup, not pedophilia. These men are despicable, but not pedophiles.

[oremus]

You're absolutely right, and I think that's basically what Mortimer was saying.

[oremus]

More on priest issue

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I think it's called ebaphilia, the attraction to teens. It was posted on another thread.

[Restorer]

Well, I may have misunderstood his point.

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. It is despicable to use your position to chase after 15 or 16 year old boys, but it would certainly be far worse to chase 5 year olds. The press seems to do a fine job (intentionally?) of blurring these distinctions that should be obvious to any semi-sane person.

[Restorer]

That word doesn't bring anything up on Google. Which leads me to think it may not be spelled correctly, since Google is infallible.

(Little Catholic dogma cyber humor there.)

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I can't find it either. But I've seen it here on a thread...

I understand what you're saying about the 5 year olds and the teens, but I find it all so horribly despicable.....that the pedophiliacs should be put to death. You know? Same with the ones who bother the teens, and I want to say, especially the teen boys...

[I_Love_My_Husband]

"ephebophilia"

``The majority of these victims were not prepubescent; they were young teens, so it had nothing to do with pedophilia. It's technically called ephebophilia, which is almost exclusively homosexual, and it isn't about comfort; it's about sex. ``The media don't like talking about this because, by and large, they have come down on the side of gay rights, the advancement of the gay agenda, so there would be an uncomfortability because, again and again, gays are saying, `We're no threat to children; that's why we should be Boy Scout leaders, why we should be teachers, why we should be able to adopt.' That's always their justification for interactions with young people.''

Priest fears gays in ranks pose threat to Church