Beliefs Ethics Faith Institutions News Politics

NJ priest suspended for supporting gay groups

The Rev. Warren Hall leads a special Mass for couples renewing their vows on Valentine’s Day 2014 at the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception on Seton Hall University's South Orange campus. Photo by Frances Micklow/courtesy of The Star-Ledger

(RNS) The Catholic archbishop in New Jersey has barred a gay priest from ministry because the cleric supports gay advocacy groups and has backed a Catholic high school counselor who was fired when church officials discovered the woman was in a same-sex marriage.

The Rev. Warren Hall said he was notified by phone on Wednesday (Aug. 31) that Newark Archbishop John Myers, an outspoken conservative who has submitted his retirement papers to Pope Francis, says Hall’s actions are “confusing the faithful.”

As a result, Hall will no longer be able to celebrate Mass in public, present himself as a priest or work in the New Jersey parishes where he has been ministering.

“The problem is that we have an archbishop who doesn’t believe you can be gay and Catholic,” Hall, who is on vacation, wrote in an email.

He also tweeted about the move Wednesday afternoon:

Myers’ issues with Hall go back to May of last year, when the archbishop fired Hall from his job as chaplain at Seton Hall University for a Facebook post in which Hall showed support for the anti-bullying “NOH8” campaign that encourages respect for gay people and gay rights.

Hall, who said he remains committed to his vocation as a priest and to his vow of celibacy, a few weeks later acknowledged that he is gay.

The Newark Archdiocese said that was also a problem because “someone who labels himself or another in terms of sexual orientation or attraction contradicts what the (Catholic) Church teaches.”

The tensions seemed to have eased two months later when Myers assigned Hall to assist at two parishes in northern New Jersey across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan.


READ: Gay priest fired from university gets new post at NJ parishes


But Hall has continued to publicly back several gay groups and gay Catholics in particular.

He is set to speak next week to a New Jersey chapter of PFLAG, founded as a support group for parents and friends of gay people, and he has expressed support for the gun control group Gays Against Guns, the LGBT Community Center in New York and New Ways Ministry, a Catholic LGBT organization.

Hall said that in the phone call informing him of the suspension, Monsignor Thomas Nydegger, Myers’ second-in-command, also cited Hall’s support for an unofficial gay and lesbian ministry at the church’s World Youth Day in Poland in July and his support for a guidance counselor who has sued the archdiocese for firing her over her same-sex marriage.

The woman, Kate Drumgoole, last month filed suit against Paramus Catholic High School – where she was a guidance counselor and basketball coach until her dismissal in January – and the archdiocese for violating anti-discrimination laws and intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

Lawyers for the archdiocese said she violated church teachings and the school’s code of ethics when she married her partner.

In his email, Hall said he was “upset” by Myers’ actions against him and that it would be hard to break the news to parishioners at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Hoboken and St. Lawrence Church in Weehawken, where he has served for the past year: “They fully welcomed me after my firing from Seton Hall last year, they know my personal story and made me a member of the family.

“Since my firing from Seton Hall and coming out last year I felt an obligation to use this as an opportunity to more directly let people know of God’s love for all of us and that gay Catholics should stay in the church and work for more wider acceptance,” he wrote. “I do not feel I ever preached or taught anything contrary to the Gospel (and) this is true from my entire 27 years of ordination” as a priest.

A spokesman for Myers, James Goodness, said in an email on Thursday that the suspension was not about Hall’s sexual orientation but about his public stands.

“Every Catholic priest promises to be reverent and obedient to his bishop,” Goodness said. “A priest’s actions and statements always must be consistent with the discipline, norms and teachings of the Catholic Church. When they are ordained, priests agree to accept the bishop’s judgment about assignments and involvement in ministry.”

In a statement lamenting Hall’s suspension, Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, called Hall “courageous” and said “the archbishop is saying that his church fears associating with LGBT people – a fear which is contrary to the gospel.”


READ: Gay priest fired from chaplain job asks Pope Francis to meet LGBT Catholics in US


Hall’s ministry, DeBernardo said, “is in line with the church’s own authentic teaching that its ministers must reach out to all those who have been marginalized. He is in line with Pope Francis’ more pastoral and welcoming approach towards LGBT people.”

Myers submitted his resignation to Francis in July when he turned 75, as required by canon law.

But the pontiff, who is reportedly overhauling the episcopal search process to find candidates in tune with his pastoral agenda, has not yet named a replacement.

About the author

David Gibson

David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS and an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He has written several books on Catholic topics. His latest book is on biblical artifacts: "Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery," which was also the basis of a popular CNN series.

395 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • There are Christian denominations that will welcome Father Warren Hall. The RCC took five hundred years to admit that it was wrong about Galileo, it will take even longer to admit to its sin against GLBTQ people.

  • It’s good — very good — that Hall is (finally!) getting suspended. Nobody has worked harder to earn it.

    The guy is a 100 percent gay activist. That’s his true religion; he makes no attempt to hide it. His chosen object of worship is not “God”, but “Gay”. Hall is NOT a Christian priest at all, and should not be employed as one.

    But the game is not over. The term “suspended” means that Hall can be put right back in business as a “Catholic Priest”, by a supervisor, at ANY time. (Currently the supervisor position is vacant.)

    Hall’s little tweet indirectly says it all: If Pope Francis assigns a liberal supervisor to replace the retired Archbishop Myers, then the suspension may well be lifted, and Hall can go right back to eroding, corroding, and destroying the Catholic faith.

  • Of course it is. It is never affirmed in Scripture. In fact those that practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God which those that do will be condemned.

  • “Of course it is.”

    No, it is not.

    “It is never affirmed in Scripture.”

    Many things are not affirmed in the Scripture, including the idea that anything not affirmed is condemned. By your own argument, you have made computers, and all advanced technology not present in the 1st century AD, sin for you, for it is not affirmed in the Scripture.

    “In fact those that practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God which those that do will be condemned.”

    How incoherently wrong.

    Now, Jesus gave us a test for false teaching, a principle, a way to tell if someone who claims they are speaking a spiritual truth, is actually doing so. He said we can tell by their fruit. Good trees bear good fruit, evil trees bear evil fruit.

    Those who teach ‘homosexual sex is sin’ bear evil fruit. Their belief, their actions, their words produce murder, rape, torture, brutality and violence of every kind, bullying that leaves lasting moral injury on everyone involved, slander, blackmail, extortion, in short, every kind of harm humans are capable of.

    That destruction, that evil fruit, alone is proof that you and your peers are wrong. You cannot be correct, you produce evil fruit.

  • Oh, and because the internet is not affirmed in the Bible, if you reply, you sin. You made using the internet sin for yourself. Just pointing out the intrinsic consequences of your judgement.

  • Seems he violated the terms of his employment. And as an educated man, he cannot claim ignorance. Even though nobody seems to care anymore, it’s abundantly evident that the LGBTQ movement believes its natural, civil rights have dominion over other natural, civil rights. Where once we saw tolerance, the movements flaring from the current administration have removed it. BLM folks hate cops. LGBTQ folks hate straights. Democrats hate republicans. Women hate men. Anti 2nd Amendment folks hate gun owners. Leftists hate free speech. Big media hate conservatives. And on and on. Hall made his bed and now needs to preach from it.

  • Nice dodge. But remember, you are sinning by posting.

    Point us all to one verse of Scripture that affirms computers, the internet, or the id “JP”.

    You have to live up to the standard you judge GLBTQ people by, JP, because Jesus warned you, you are judged by it.

  • ” LGBTQ folks hate straights. Democrats hate republicans. Women hate men. Anti 2nd Amendment folks
    hate gun owners. Leftists hate free speech. Big media hate
    conservatives. ”

    Bearing false witness like that is sin.

  • “That’s his true religion; he makes no attempt to hide it. His chosen
    object of worship is not “God”, but “Gay”. Hall is NOT a Christian
    priest at all, and should not be employed as one.”

    Your slander is sin.

  • By the way, if you attempt to cite Scripture to defend your claim, not that you have so far, be prepared to address the strong scholarship that refutes the traditional, anti-gay interpretation of those passages.

    If you just dismiss, dodge or move on to new accusations, it will be an admission of failure on your part.

  • Just a friendly reminder floyd:

    “Thou Shalt not bear false witness.”

    “With what measure you judge others, you yourself will be judged.”

  • Those who think that Scripture supports homosexuality in any form are perverting the Scripture. That includes Vines and the scholars he uses.

    Again: show me one verse inScrpture that affirms homosexuality.

  • You continue to make sinful declarations based solely on your ego. In the process you slander people, and damn yourself.

    ‘Again: show me one verse inScrpture(sic) that affirms homosexuality.”

    Again, and again, show me one verse in Scripture that affirms computers, the internet, electronic devices, the id “JP”, and your ‘anything not affirmed is condemned’ test.

    You are sinning every time you post.

  • Not true. I am demonstrating that the Scriptures never affirm homosexuality and calls all those who engage in same sex to repent of it.

  • “Not true.”

    Wrong.

    ” I am demonstrating that the Scriptures never affirm homosexuality”

    No, you are not. Nor have you demonstrated that the standard you are demanding is present in the Bible. But because you are judged by that standard, JP, according to Jesus, every time you post, you sin.

    “Again, and again, show me one verse in Scripture that affirms computers,
    the internet, electronic devices, the id “JP”, and your ‘anything not
    affirmed is condemned’ test.”

    ” and calls all those who engage in same sex to repent of it.”

    Wrong again, JP, you have not demonstrated that at all, and the Bible does no such thing. Why do you lie and dodge, knowing that doing so convinces others that you have no understanding of God?

  • What false witness? What judgment? Mr. Hall’s CLEAR and EXTENSIVE track record of supporting gay activism and gay groups is in the public record. No lies, no jive. Shoot, the article even listed Hall’s gay itinerary for *next* week! (You did read the article, right?)

    Now, if I were attempting to **judge** Mr. Hall, I’d be saying stuff like, “Excommunication”, “JAIL-TIME IN THE SLAMMER”, “Aggravated First-Degree High Treason Against Catholic Christianity.” You know, just the facts. But I said none of those things.

    So as for good ole no-judgment merciful me? All I actually did, was express agreement with the official response that Archbishop Myers prescribed. Mere suspension, which can be overturned anytime. (Maybe a slight hint of defrocking as well, but nothing more.)

  • If I am wrong then show me one positive affirmation of homosexuality in the Bible. There are at least 5 places where it is condemned.

    Those who engage in homosexual sex will not inherit the Kingdom of God. That means condemnation. See 1Corinthians 6:9-10

  • What slander? I’m just going by Mr. Hall’s own current track record, which he is publicly pursuing even for next week as the article pointed out.

    He is clearly in violation of the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church, and he is VERY proud to violate it, he has no remorse at all.

  • “If I am wrong then show me one positive affirmation of homosexuality in the Bible.”

    Once again, JP, you must show me one positive affirmation of computers, the internet, the English language, and your id “JP”. You are barking up this tree, making this demand, as if it means something, but it is worthless. You don’t even live up to it yourself. And because you use it to judge others, you will be judged by it.

    “There are at least 5 places where it is condemned.”

    No.

    “Those who engage in homosexual sex will not inherit the Kingdom of God. That means condemnation. See 1Corinthians 6:9-10”
    Your fraudulent rendering of the text accomplishes nothing. Neither of the words that evil people render as a reference to homosexuality mean any such thing.

    The first is malakoi, it means soft, fine, not homosexual, or male prostitute, or any of the other frauds that have been used over the centuries.

    Arsenokoite Paul made up, apparently. There is no evidence that it was ever used in Paul’s culture to refer to homosexuals. But greek did have seventeen words for homosexual and related concepts – none of which Paul used.

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html


    If Paul intended to condemn homosexuality, he could have used a word
    from the following list to make his point. Yet instead of using these
    words, Paul coined a new Greek word, arsenokoitai or arsenokoites, from the arsenokoit stem. Thanks for taking time to educate yourself by exploring the textual links.

    Some people believe that Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai, from the words arsenos koiten, found in Lev 20:13 in the Septuagint,
    a Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the biblical, cultural,
    historical and religious context is temple prostitution.

    There is not a shred of objective historical evidence to support the belief that anyone in the first century AD understood arsenokoitai to refer to male and female homosexuality in general or used arsenokoitai with that meaning.

    If you disagree, please present factual evidence to support your disagreement. Thanks for remembering – your opinion is not
    factual evidence. Neither is your “strong” belief. Neither is your gut
    feeling on this issue. Neither is your hunch. Neither is the consensus
    of scholars who think differently.

    When objective facts are
    honestly considered, not a shred of evidence exists to support the view
    that the arsenokoit stem means gay or lesbian.”

    Now, you have no excuse, JP, because this information has been available to anyone with access to the internet, for years. You could have checked your claims before you made them, but you did not. But it is worse than that for you.

    There are several other major flaws in your interpretation of said passage. The first is what I call the ‘one of these things is not like the others’ mistake. Between the version you cited, and its parallel in 1 Timothy, we have a list that includes murder, stealing, addiction, matricide and patricide, adultery, slander – things that produce real harm and which violate consent. And you and your sinful peers insist without evidence that ‘homosexuals’ belongs in that list. Yet homosexuals, homosexuality, and homosexual sex do not intrinsically cause harm or violate consent. You fail the ‘one of these things is not like the others’ test that Sesame Street has been teaching children for decades.

    And you tell me that you don’t understand harm and consent, or you simply disregard them. For if you understood them, and applied them, you’d realize right away that homosexuals cannot belong in a list with murderers, thieves, etc. But you think they do, and when you claim they do by citing this passage, you slander hundreds of millions of people. That makes you a slanderer, a reviler, people Paul states, in this very passage, do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Then there’s the issue of what it means to condemn homosexuals. See, homosexuality is inborn and intrinsic. If one renders either/both malakoi and arsenokoite as homosexual, against all reason, logic and evidence, then you are telling hundreds of millions of people that they have no reason to believe and trust in Jesus Christ. They are, according to your theology, born damned and without recourse. Why then should they listen to anything you say about God? You teach them that God is evil, unjust, depraved, that God makes some people specifically to be punished eternally.

    But that contradicts what the Bible states, what Christ taught. You cannot be right about this passage, and Christ be right about salvation.

    Of course, if you interpret malakoi/arsenokoite as being about sexual acts, then you have a different problem. You are telling people that the way to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven is to have a certain kind of sex, or avoid a certain kind of sex. That is basically what temple prostitution is all about: do this sexual thing and the deity will bless you. Not only is that coercive and immoral, it is something that the Bible repeatedly does condemn.

    Lastly, there’s the issue of favoritism. The Bible states, repeatedly, that God does not show favoritism, that those who do, like you, are lawbreakers, that God is just. But your interpretation of this insists that God intrinsically shows favoritism against homosexuals simply based on their birth, and that God favors heterosexuals because of their birth. Your theology on this makes God a lawbreaker and a liar.

    There is simply no way you can be correct.

  • Nice false accusation. But let’s go with it a bit. Anti-gay theology, the claim that ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is essentially an ad hominem against hundreds of millions of people that has been repeated across generations, and which produces murder, rape, torture, brutality of every kind.

    Second, your false accusation against me is an attempt to attack my character, rather than refute my position. That is the truest meaning of ad hominem.

    Further, this statement from JP “Those who think that Scripture supports homosexuality in any form are
    perverting the Scripture. That includes Vines and the scholars he uses.” is real ad hominem. Instead of making any effort to address the material presented by progressive scholars, he simply demonizes them personally to discredit them, rather than address their position.

    By the way, it was rather bad form for you to chime in with that accusation, and make no effort, at all, to address the issues I raised in that post.

    Maybe you can do what JP is incapable of? Post Scripture that states ‘anything that is not affirmed in the Bible is condemned’ – or post Scripture affirming the use of computers, the internet, electronic devices, cars, etc.

    Or even demonstrate that you understand why JP’s test is fraud.

  • Paul knew what hosexuality was in the ancient world. He condemns all of it. We see in 1 Corinthians 6:10. The word for homosexual here means “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”

    A major study has come out and shown that there is no evidence that anyone is born homosexual. Its not innate.

    Even Jesus condemns homosexuality in Mark 7:21 where He uses the word “sexual immorality” which includes homosexuality.

    Everyone is conceived and born in a fallen condition. Homosexuality is just one of the manifestations of our falleness. What we must never do is justify sin under any circumstances. It is a wicked thing to do that

  • I wonder how many Scripture verses affirm divorce? Very few I’m sure. But many there are who divorce for their own personal and often non-biblical reasons and then remarry and then go on to live happily ever after ‘without guilt’ because of that divorce. How can that be? Is the first marriage a learning experience or a stepping stone of some kind? And I’m referring to believers here too.

    I don’t feel that any or all Scripture verses are the way to decide every matter. For example, Paul’s comments about who does and who does not share in the Kingdom should be accepted or understood realizing the following —

    1. …our knowledge is partial and incomplete
    2. …we see things imperfectly…
    3. …All that I know is partial and incomplete…
    (1 Corinthians 13:9,12)

    Paul is very smart, Christianity may not even exist as it does without his writings, but he was truthful when he said ‘all that I know is partial and incomplete’.

    That means we are all, somewhere down the line, going to have to make decisions about our lives independent of the imperfect, incomplete and partial advice from Scripture.

  • There is much that Scripture doesn’t address directly but divorce and homosexuality are not one of those. The Scripture is very clear on these issues. All Christians are to make decisions with the mind of Christ as its revealed in Scripture. The better you know the Scriptures the better you will have discernment for the grey areas of life. There is also prayer for wisdom and godly advice to seek from godly men and women.

  • “Paul knew what hosexuality(sic) was in the ancient world. He condemns all of it.”

    No, he did not. In fact, although Greek and Latin of his day together seventeen words for homosexual and related concepts, Paul did not use any of those words in any of his letters. As per the citation I provided before, which you have ignored:

    Ancient Greek and Latin words
    Paul could have used

    arrenomanes – meaning mad after men or boy crazy

    dihetaristriai – a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same thing as hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

    erastes – a sometimes older man who loves a sometimes younger male

    eromenos – a sometimes younger male who loves an older male

    euryproktoi – men who dress as women, also a vulgar reference to anal penetration

    frictrix
    – Latin word referring to a lewd woman and sometimes used to refer to a
    lesbian. Tertullian, 160-220 AD, translated tribas (a masculine woman)
    as frictrix.

    hetairistriai – women who are attracted to other women, used by Plato’s character Aristophanes, in The Symposium. May also refer to hyper-masculine women, from Lucian’s Dialogue of the Courtesans, cited by Brooten, p. 52.

    kinaidos
    – a word for effeminate, κίναιδος or kínaidoi (cinaedus in its
    Latinized form), a man “whose most salient feature was a supposedly feminine love of being sexually penetrated by other men.” Winkler, John J., 1990, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, New York: Routledge.

    Although
    some scholars, like Dr. Robert Gagnon, understand kinaidoi to mean the
    passive partner in a male couple, Davidson argues that kinaidoi refers
    to a man insatiable and unrestrained in his sexual appetites instead of
    merely effeminate or passive. Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, New York, p. 167-182.

    lakkoproktoi – a lewd and vulgar reference to anal penetration

    lesbiai
    – a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same
    thing as dihetaristriai, hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

    paiderasste – sexual behavior between males

    paiderastes or paiderastïs – παιδεραστής derived from the Greek word pais, παῖς a boy, meaning lover of boys

    paidomanes – a male mad for boys or boy crazy

    paidophthoros – a Greek word meaning corrupter of boys

    pathikos – the passive penetrated partner in a male couple

    tribades
    – an ancient Latin word indicating the active female partner of a
    lesbian pair, sometimes interpreted to mean a pseudo-male, referencing
    genital contact between women. Rashi defines it as “rubbing in a sexual manner.”

    tribas – the active partner in a lesbian relationship, who takes the male role

    “We see in 1 Corinthians 6:10. The word for homosexual here means “one
    who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual””

    Nice fraud, just ignore all of the evidence I provide you and scream the same lie.

    “A major study has come out and shown that there is no evidence that anyone is born homosexual. Its not innate.”

    Nice lie, but no. The very presence of homosexuality in more than a thousand other species proves you wrong.

    “Even Jesus condemns homosexuality in Mark 7:21 where He uses the word “sexual immorality” which includes homosexuality.”

    Nice circular logic, but as fraud, it condemns you. The root of the term is prostitution, evil people have expanded that meaning without evidence or morals. Further, you’ve raped this out of context, probably because in context, it is about you and your peers:

    14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

    17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

    20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

    What comes out of your heart, JP, the malice you spew at hundreds of millions of people, defile you. You and your peers incite murder, theft, malice, you commit deceit, slander, you demonstrate arrogance and folly as you heretically proclaim ‘homosexual sex is sin’.

    “Homosexuality is just one of the manifestations of our falleness(sic).”

    Nice slander there. Here’s the interesting thing. Biology, you know the creation with Paul says reveals the nature of God, well biology teaches us that sexual reproduction is the solution to death and disease. Heterosexuality exists because of sin, then. It is heterosexuality, then, that is the manifestation, or at least the fruit, of fallenness. And it was an allegedly, or apparently heterosexual couple who brought sin into the world.

    “What we must never do is justify sin under any circumstances. It is a wicked thing to do that”

    So you really, really need to stop. Because you absolutely are trying to justify your sin against GLBTQ people, humanity in general, and God.

  • Nice try but no cigar. All of scripture condemns homosexuality in any form. A man having sex with another man is forbidden in Scripture and is sin.

    That study I referred to is very recent and its not about animals but human beings. What animals do is irrelevant.

    It is true that all heterosexuals are also fallen and do sexual sins as homosexuals.

    The only sex that is permissible is between a man and a woman who are married Any other kind of sex is a sin.

  • ” All of scripture condemns homosexuality in any form.”

    Still wrong.

    “A man having sex with another man is forbidden in Scripture and is sin.”

    Still wrong. However, there are some three hundred passages that explicitly forbid and condemn heterosexual sex in certain circumstances.

    “That study I referred to is very recent ”

    That study you mentioned is useless since you have failed to provide a citation for it. If it is the one I think it is, I already have a nice, long examination of it that points out the many, many errors and frauds in that study, that I will be happy to provide a link, and quotes for.

    “and its not about animals but human beings. What animals do is irrelevant.””

    Humans are animals, not rocks, not plants, not fungi, not virus. Your dismissal of evidence that refutes your claim simply demonstrates that your entire position is based on your prejudice and malice, not on facts or Scripture.

    “The only sex that is permissible is between a man and a woman who are married Any other kind of sex is a sin.”

    Not according to the Bible. Now, you seem to have created your own fake god, and it – your ego of course, may claim other things.

    Once again, you simply ignore all evidence against your claims and move on to new, false, abusive ego-driven slanders.

  • Don’t ever forget, JP, that you made posting on the internet sin for you, because you used the standard ‘anything not affirmed is condemned’, and the Bible does not affirm computers.

    If you don’t fully repent of your sin of using a computer, among other things, you’ll pay the ultimate price – the one you want to impose on GLBTQ people.

  • “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken and the other left.” (Luke 17:34-35)
    Some gays may be taken up to the kingdom of heaven, and others not. G-d won’t be choosing based on the sex act. But JP and Archbishop Myers know better than that loser, Jesus.

  • I don’t see any ad hominems in Mark1115. I see an attempt to have a discussion making use of scholarship and an understanding of the context.

  • Added in edit: I do believe in the truth of the two Bible verses Kieran provided.

    But on the first one, let’s ask Kieran to show the readers that I’ve offered **any** false witness of Hall in any of my posts so far. If Kieran cannot do so, then Kieran needs to retract the accusation of bearing false witness.

    As for the issue of “judging others”, let’s “Judge Righteous Judgment” (because Jesus said so, yes?). Mr. Hall is not only remorselessly PROUD of his wide-open non-stop gay activism, but even gave public notification that he’s going to do MORE OF THE SAME next week. Public disobedience to his own supervisor Bishop Myers, let alone his own Bible and his own Official Catholic Catechism.

    Again, Jesus said: “Judge Righteous Judgment.” It’s called “Accountability.” So does Kieran believe in the truth of that statement? Please tell us yes or no.

  • Seeing that the “pedophilia” problem in the Church was mainly “pederasty” that’s rather a nonsense remark you made.

    Also, perhaps the Church has learned something from that “pedophilia” problem and didn’t let this situation fester. I would call that a “good look”, but strangely you don’t seem to be happy about it.

    Also, the scandals broke out around 2002. We are 2016 but for you nothing has changed. Quit the reactionary fellow, aren’t you.

  • “As for the issue of “judging others”, let’s “Judge Righteous Judgment” (because Jesus said so, yes?).”

    Well, you asked for it. You and your peers, by teaching “homosexuality is sin” are responsible for the persecution, torture, murder, rape, discrimination, slander, blackmail, and other crimes committed against hundreds of millions of people.

    “Mr. Hall is not only remorselessly PROUD of his wide-open non-stop gay activism,”

    Yes, he works to end the persecution of GLBTQ people, and calls attention to the crimes you and your peers are responsible for. He is living out Christ’s command “whatever you did for the least of these among you, you did for me”.

    And of course, you are accountable to that as well, and what you and your peers do to GLBTQ people, you do to Christ.

  • “Seeing that the “pedophilia” problem in the Church was mainly “pederasty” that’s rather a nonsense remark you made.”

    Not exactly accurate. The reality is that the pedophilia problem was really a small slice of a much larger problem of sexual abuse that included raping or coercing nuns and young women and girls, the use of prostitutes, mistresses, and other violations of the priestly vow of celibacy. And this problem has been going on for hundreds of years, and is even documented in very old English literature like The Canterbury Tales.

  • “The Scripture is very clear on these issues.”

    Anyone who says that is either a liar, or has never honestly read the Bible, and frankly, is profoundly ignorant about translation, dead languages, and language in general.

    Despite your false claims, JP, the Bible does not condemn homosexual sex for homosexuals. But Jesus’ own words, in Matthew 7:15-23, provide a test that shows that you, and your peers, are false teachers, workers of iniquity.

    You and your peers teach evil, you incite violence against hundreds of millions of people, you slander them, you demonize them. People are raped – I know, you don’t give a damn along as it wasn’t you being held down and raped – people are raped because of the sick belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’. People are murdered, burned alive, churches torched, businesses and bars and homes, doused with accelerant and set fire. People, including children, are bullied to suicide, and millions gay and straight, are driven away from God entirely –

    because of the sick belief you and your peers spew. And this is not a secret. Yet you spew that sick belief, day in and day out, with no regard whatsoever for the people you harm.

  • Imagine a religion where your fired for…showing support for the anti-bullying “NOH8” campaign that encourages respect for gay people and gay rights.

    How sad of a religion must it be?
    How can anyone claim that religion would be any better than any other religion?

  • The RCC is very slow to deal with its ties to weapons manufacture, or the conflict between its enormous, essentially uncountable wealth (that wealth grows faster than it can be audited) and the extremes of poverty in our world. Then there is the link between the spread of HIV in many “catholic” countries, and the RCC’s stance against the use of condoms.

    So, to distract attention from its crimes, the RCC goes after GLBTQ people – whom it has committed crimes against for some 17 centuries. Go figure.

  • The church for the past 2000 years has condemned homosexuality. Can you name one church father, pope or council that has affirmed homosexuality in any way? We know Scripture doesn’t. Maybe some church father, pope or council does.

    No need to demonize so called ” progressive scholars” when their theology and ability to correctly interpret is corrupted.

  • No you weren’t. You’re just mad that people think being a sexual deviant is a bad thing. You object to there being such a thing as sin. Take it up with Our Lord. Only don’t dally.

  • Welcome to the world. Men are sinners, who would have thought that. Not that I believe your twisted vision, or that I even believe you believe your own lies (yes, I read your other comments).

    You don’t mention the hypocrisy inherent in the snide remark of the original poster so thank you for you silent agreement.

    Ps. the Catholic Church isn’t sola scriptura, you know (that re your efforts to defend homosexuality as “scriptural”)

    Pps. One would think that all those always going back on the scandals of the CC meant that they are concerned with children. The success of the grooming gangs in the 2000s proofs they are not. But then, it never was about the children, was it?

  • “Not that I believe your twisted vision,”

    Nice slanderous denial of reality.

    ” that I even believe you believe your own lies”

    I haven’t told any lies.

    “You don’t mention the hypocrisy inherent in the snide remark of the original poster so thank you for you silent agreement.”

    So you silently agree with the torture and slaughter of Jews by the RCC, since you make no mention of it. And you agree with the torture and slaughter of GLBTQ people by the RCC, for the same reason. And your silence on the slaughter of the Cathars, the genocide of indigenous people across Europe and the Americas, by the RCC, also, by your reasoning, indicates your approval of those atrocities.

    “Ps. the Catholic Church isn’t sola scriptura,”

    You’d have a hard time convincing me that the RCC is “Scriptura” at all.

    “Pps. One would think that all those always going back on the scandals of the CC meant that they are concerned with children. The success of the grooming gangs in the 2000s proofs they are not. But then, it was never about the children, was it?”

    One would think that someone like you, trying to make a point, would compose a coherent, literate series of sentences, and master such things as subject verb agreement first – but apparently not.

  • “The Scripture is very clear on its condemnation of homosexuality.”

    Absolutely not, JP. You are screaming the same heresies I’ve disproven already, which you could not refute.

    “No need to lie about when its so clear.”

    The lies are yours and your peers. And because of the sick lies you tell, real humans are murdered, raped, tortured. I realize that you’ll ignore the reality of the destruction you and your peers cause, but for anyone else:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/26/opinion/26corrective-rape.html?_r=0
    “South Africa has one of the world’s highest rates of sexual assault.
    According to a 2009 government survey, one in four men admit to having
    sex with a woman who did not consent to intercourse, and nearly half of
    these men admitted to raping more than once. An earlier government study
    found that a majority of rapes were committed by friends and
    acquaintances of the victim.

    Just as disturbing is a practice called “corrective rape” — the rape
    of gay men and lesbians to “cure” them of their sexual orientation.

    In one of the few cases to attract press attention, in 2008, Eudy
    Simelane, a lesbian, was gang-raped and stabbed to death. Her naked body
    was dumped in a stream in the Kwa Thema township outside Johannesburg. A
    soccer player training to be a referee for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, she
    was targeted because of her sexual orientation.

    In 2011, Noxolo Nogwaza, 24, was raped, and stabbed multiple times
    with glass shards. Her skull was shattered. Her eyes were reportedly
    gouged from their sockets. Ms. Nogwaza had been seen earlier that
    evening in a bar with a female friend.”

    This is just a minuscule slice of the evil fruit you and your peers produce.

  • “But we’re also talking about homosexuality, which is connected to pedophilia,”

    Actually, db, it does not. Most pedophiles either identify as heterosexual, or do not identify with any sexual orientation. Most pedophiles do not discriminate based on gender, they prey on children of either gender equally. Those who do focus on pre-pubescent boys demonstrate an interesting thing – they lose interest in those boys when the boys start developing adult traits associated with masculinity. In other words, they target boys who are the most feminine, the most female-like, demonstrating that in those cases of pedophilia, it is a corrupted expression of heterosexuality.

    Now here’s a story you should know about:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pastor-caused-outrage-orlando-arrested-molestation-article-1.2767578

    A conservative Florida pastor who said that the victims of the Orlando
    massacre got “what they deserve” is being charged with child
    molestation.

    Bishop Kenneth Adkins was arrested by Georgia authorities on Friday
    after allegations that he molested a boy under the age of 16.

    The 56-year-old clergyman, who runs churches in Jacksonville, Atlanta
    and Brunswick, Ga., gained notoriety in the immediate aftermath of Omar
    Mateen’s shooting at Pulse nightclub in June.

    He posted on Twitter that he had “been through so much with these
    Jacksonville homosexuals that I don’t see none of them as victims. I see
    them as getting what they deserve.”

    This is someone like you, someone who reviles homosexuals, and as it turns out, he was caught molesting a young boy. There’s another person like you that you should know about, Josh Duggar: http://www.tinadupuy.com/column/josh-duggar-and-the-end-of-the-anti-gay-crusaders/

    Drew a lot of attention to himself working for an anti-gay organization, reviling GLBTQ people on television. Then his sisters turned him in – he molested them and several of their friends when they were very young. Then he ‘got cured’ only to be caught cheating on his wife.

    There is a very strong correlation between people who denigrate homosexuals, particularly people who equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and sexual assault. The more someone denigrates GLBTQ people, the more likely they are to have a history, and a present and future, of sexually abusing someone.

  • “he church for the past 2000 years has condemned homosexuality.”

    Not quite, but nice fallacy of appeal to tradition. So by your reasoning, anything the church has done for a long time is good. You see, the church has also demonized Jews for about 2000 years to, so by your reasoning, demonizing Jews, torturing them, murdering them, is God’s will.

    “. Can you name one church father, pope or council that has affirmed
    homosexuality in any way? We know Scripture doesn’t. Maybe some church
    father, pope or council does.”

    And you’re back to this fraud again. Name any of the above, JP, that affirms computers, the internet, English, cars, trains, planes, etc. Are you really and truly incapable of understanding how irrational and insane your demand is? Or just so desperate that you will make so insane and irrational a demand, one that condemns you, just to have some excuse for your evil?

    “No need to demonize so called ” progressive scholars” when their theology and ability to correctly interpret is corrupted. ”

    Oh JP, your slanders bar you from the Kingdom of Heaven. You’ve already proven yourself incapable of proving progressive scholars wrong on anything.

    Remember, you and your peers are responsible for horrific crimes against real human beings, the belief you teach produces murder, rape, torture, brutality. Sure, you don’t care. You have no compassion, no empathy, no heart. But the brutality your belief causes proves that you are a false teacher, a worker of iniquity. While your persistent use of claims you cannot prove or defend, only demonstrates that you are incompetent.

    I was looking for something else, but I found this, and it is relevant:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11863195/Homophobic-people-more-likely-to-display-other-undesirable-psychological-traits.html

    Individuals with homophobic views are more
    likely to display undesirable psychological traits such as aggression,
    physical hostility and anger, a new study finds.

    The research, published last week in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, was
    led by Professor Emmanuele Jannini of the University of Rome, and
    titled “Psychoticism, Immature Defense Mechanisms and a Fearful
    Attachment Style are Associated with a Higher Homophobic Attitude”.

    Jannini found that those who harbour homophobic attitudes are often
    encumbered with deficient coping mechanisms, and that their averse
    reaction to same-sex couplings may be a direct result of their own
    gender confusion.

    The report concludes with the observation that whilst some homophobes may in fact
    be “hidden homosexuals”, there are many other factors that may contribute to homophobia – an attitude that Jannini considers a “culture-induced disease”. These additional contributing factors include religiosity, sensitivity to disgust, hypermasculinity and misogyny.”

    “Overall, Jannini and his team of researchers discovered a strong link between “fearful-avoidant” attachment styles – where individuals are uncomfortable with close relationships – and homophobia. It was also found that those with immature defence mechanisms were more homophobic than their emotionally-developed counterparts.

    High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, with anti-gay beliefs believed to stem primarily from a limited capacity to empathise or ‘open up’.”

    And as I mentioned to your peer, there’s the Duggar principle: the more people revile GLBTQ folks, the more likely they are to have a history of sexually assaulting others.

  • Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    Oddly enough, I addressed the material in your post, and you called that ‘can’t stay with the subject’.

  • The fact that you have quoted, and gave credence to, the executive director of New Ways Ministry pretty much negates any redeeming qualities this reporting may have had. When reporting on Catholic issues at least interview a person who is Catholic and has not been excommunicated!

  • This may be of interest. It’s a glimpse into why Scripture is not all that important, mainly because few there are who know much about it. It doesn’t change anything. The Spirit makes things happen, especially if we have it —

    The Kingdom of God is not in “word” (scripture verse), but “power” (the Spirit working in all of us especially those that believe)………..it’s not food and drink but “righteousness” (good works and deeds) and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit……….1 Cor 4:20 plus Rom 14:17

  • This is the hypocrisy of the Catholic church that they’ll go on the media and act all nice and friendly and supportive of LGBT people when they’re talking to the masses yet they’ll turn around and fire priests who actually live out Pope Francis’ supposed call for tolerance and love for the LGBT community. It’s especially telling how quick the Catholic church is at firing LGBT priests and allies while at the same time they go out of their way to shuffle around sicko pedophile priests to protect their institution at all cost.

  • Pope Francis “more welcoming” approach includes firing a gay priest, Krzysztof Charamsa, from his Vatican job. Pope Francis himself was reported to have personally rejected openly-gay Laurent Stefanini as French ambassador to the Vatican telling members of the Curia that he “would not yield”.

  • “It’s a glimpse into why Scripture is not all that important, mainly because few there are who know much about it. It doesn’t change anything. The Spirit makes things happen,” The Spirit made scripture happen, and that “word” is righteousness and that word is power: “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Eph.6:17.

  • Vines really only uses one, poor old Boswell. Vines’ book was nothing but warmed-over Boswell from start to finish, as is all gay apologia since Boswell.

  • I think the bishop did what he supposed to do by suspending the priest. You can’t serve God and Mormon at the same time.

  • OK. Scripture condemns homosexuality in every place it mentions it.
    No church father, pope or council affirms homosexuality either in church history.

    Would you like to look at the health implications of homosexuality?

    BTW, homophobia has nothing to do with this. That is not an argument for homosexuality.

  • Love and compassion for one’s fellow man? We’ll have none of that!

    We ARE the church, after all…

  • Well, to borrow your wording, Mr. Hall is certainly living out **somebody’s** command. But at this point, it ain’t Christ’s command, that is for sure.

    (Hey, would somebody please send out an email inquiry to OLD SCRATCH regarding where Mr. Hall has been getting his commands from lately? I’m sure we’ll get an interesting answer thereby.)

  • And what exactly is the ‘more pastoral and welcoming approach to the LGBT’ community? Real mercy — not false compassion — tells them the Truth about their sins. There is such a reality as serious sin, of which homosexuality is one, and consequence for freely choosing it. The consequence is eternal Hell. That’s the pastoral approach the Catholic Church really calls for. The Church doesn’t fear LGBT people any more than Christ feared Pilate or those whom he converted out of their sinful lifestyles — his apostle, Mathew; Mary Magdalene, and so many others. What a sickening, cowardly society this all is and it has infected the courage of many in the Catholic Church to stand for its teachings, and those priests and bishops in the Catholic Church who have the fortitude to call a spade a spade –and there are rather few these days — are demonized for it. This priest, being admittedly a homosexual, has scandalized the faithful not only by his own personal leanings, but by affirming others in that lifestyle. That’s not his true purpose as a Catholic priest: it’s to save souls, not lose them.

  • You need to drop down a few verses:

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

  • If he has kept his vow of chastity, what exactly is your problem?

    As for scandalizing the faithful, the bulk of the faithful in this country disagree with you. Not to mention, something about stones and sinners.

  • You might want to look up St. Peter Damien. That puts your brand new scandal back nearly 1000 years. Then read Karen liebreichs “fallen order”, that shows that it continued on another 600 years.

  • Homosexuality is connected to pedophilia? Thank the lord that I don’t believe in the heterosexuality isn’t.

    BTW! That is what’s known as a snide comment

  • Gay people hate straight people? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That would be so much a surprise to so many people I know, gay and straight.

    If you want to understand why you are losing in the court of public opinion, among gay and straight alike, look in a mirror.

  • I never said he didn’t keep his vow of chastity. But in news reports over the past few years, he’s an admitted gay priest. What does that mean? At the very least, it means he has those tendencies, even if he doesn’t engage in them. And we know he affirms other ‘gay’ Catholics. And what does the bulk of the faithful disagreeing with Catholic teaching have anything to do with whether it stands? The Church isn’t a democracy. Christ wasn’t popular. But he stood for truth in and out of season. What exactly is your problem?

  • Misquoting Our Lord’s word is a sin. Luke 17:34 refers to two women grinding corn to make corn meal. By omitting the word “corn,” you change the meaning from useful work into lust.
    You need to go back to Luke 17:1 where Jesus warns us of people who try to confuse people of Our Lord’s message.

  • JP, there may be somethings in the writings of Paul that seem to condemn homosexuals, but one only has to read a few pages further in his writings to find something that contradicts that condemnation. One only needs to read the teachings of Jesus to see that the judgmentalism that thee displays is much more unambiguously condemned than is homosexuality.

  • Since homosexuality is in the same category as adultery and fornication would tell the fornicator and adulter that it is a sin to do such things?

  • “Like all those claiming that anyone that holds to Judeo-Christian moral teachings hates homosexuals?”

    Nice fraud. Since homosexuality is sin is not a “Judeo-Christian moral teaching” but a heresy, your attempt at being clever failed.

  • “But at this point, it ain’t Christ’s command, that is for sure.”

    Prove it.

    “(Hey, would somebody please send out an email inquiry to OLD SCRATCH
    regarding where Mr. Hall has been getting his commands from lately? I’m
    sure we’ll get an interesting answer thereby.)”

    If Father Hall is following the Holy Spirit, like so many progressives, clergy or laity, then you’ve committed the one unforgivable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

  • “OK. Scripture condemns homosexuality in every place it mentions it.”
    No, it does not. Your repetition of this claim, when your evidence has been refuted and you’ve failed, completely, to challenge that refutation, is both lazy and fraudulent.

    “No church father, pope or council affirms homosexuality either in church history.”

    False standards like that indicate that you are false person.

    “Would you like to look at the health implications of homosexuality?”

    Well, we know you will lie, and that you’ll ignore the ‘health implications’ of heterosexuality. So you’ll end up posting some filth that the moderators will have to delete.

    And you’ve already shown that you don’t give a damn about the health implications of homophobia.

    “BTW, homophobia has nothing to do with this.”
    With that statement, you’ve rejected Christ. Homophobia and its consequences, including health implications, have everything to do with this matter, according to Jesus’ teachings on multiple subjects.

    The fruit of your heresy ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is death and brutality, you cannot be serving Christ. You and your peers are anti-Christs, actively driving people away from God.

  • JP, serious question for you.

    What are you thinking when you post claims that I’ve refuted and disproven, over and over again? When you offer up a the completely irrational standard ‘no … affirmed’ – are you thinking “This is utterly stupid a reply, I’ll win”?

    Are you actually even thinking about what you post?

  • So the scandals which broke out in 2002 were about St-Peter Damien.
    Well, what do you know.

    Have you other new scandals. Did some Catholic refuse to eat his Brussels sprouts and call his mother a bad name in the year 759? Because that would convince me that those dirty Catholics are, well, dirty. Almost like “sinners”. Can’t have that, can we. Luckily there are people like you who are without sin, and like it seems without heritage, to show us the way.

    Thank you for your completely irrelevant comment. You may not have noticed but “Mglass” was complaining that the Church acted quickly to censure a gay priest in 2016 and they shouldn’t have done that since they acted too slowly before 2002 against “pedophilia”. St-Damien doesn’t enter the picture.

    Ps. Some numbers
    John Jay report 2004 (the report on the scandals in the USA, but without the “case” of St-Damien):
    – Period 1950-2002: 11.000 allegations, 6700 substantiated
    – When?
    “The period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s”
    – Victims? “The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male”
    – # in context; “In summary, over a 50-year period, out of more than 100,000 priests deacons and religious order clergy, 4,392 (~4.4%) were accused of sexual abuse, 252 (<0.26%) were convicted and 100 (<0.1%) sentenced to prison."

    – USA national statistics on child abuse ("http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse&quot😉
    – 2013: 679.000 cases of abuse with 61000 (9%) being sexual abuse

    So do go on obsessing about hundreds and neglecting hundred of thousands. And keep on thinking that whatever you are part of is blameless.

  • The John jay report also concluded that this had little or nothing to do with homosexuality.

    My point was simply that this is not a new problem, but an old problem. You can find it in Chaucer and Boccaccio, if St. Peter Damien is too old hat for you.

  • Not false at all. There is no such thing as “anti-gay theology”. To consider moral acts sinful is to observe the objective moral order which the Catholic church has preached for over 2,000 years. It has nothing to do with the qualities of persons. The Church does not say homosexuals should be
    mistreated. When you make ad hominems as you did you attack a person rather than trying to refute their arguments. That is not an attack on your character but a simple statement of fact; you made personal attacks rather than making argumentation. To say someone is perverting Scripture is not an ad hominem at all but the same as saying they are distorting the meaning of Scripture. I have addressed your issues, your main one is an attempt to distort the meaning of Scripture. As mentioned earlier the Scripture deals the morality of human acts. Technology is in and of itself morally neutral hence the Judeo Christian moral tradition does not deal with it.

  • “Not false at all.”

    Wrong.

    “There is no such thing as “anti-gay theology””
    Denying reality is a bad sign.

    “The Church does not say homosexuals should be mistreated.”
    Nice denial of reality.

    “When you make ad hominems as you did you attack a person rather than trying to refute their arguments. ”

    And anti-gay theology, the belief that homosexual sex is sin, in all its variations, including the catholic position that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, is an attack on persons.

    ” That is not an attack on your character but a simple statement of
    fact; you made personal attacks rather than making argumentation. ”

    I did not. But your accusation is, ironically, ad hominem. And anti-gay theology, which is very real, is ad hominem.

    “To say someone is perverting Scripture is not an ad hominem at all”

    It is when there is nothing to back it up, when it is presented, as you and your peers do, in place of a fact, reason, logic, or Scripture based rebuttal.

    “Scripture. I have”

    It interesting how many of the people posting here to revile GLBTQ people make the same mistake of only one space between a period and the start of the next sentence.

    “I have addressed your issues,”

    No, you hadn’t and haven’t.

    “Technology is in and of itself morally neutral ”

    Nice excuse, but definitely fraud. You are essentially carving out an exception to the fraudulent standard you’ve used to judge and condemn millions of people. Fine. Sexuality, in and of itself, is morally neutral. That includes homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, and heterosexuality.

  • “- Victims? “The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male”. No sirree, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. No really.

    “My point was simply that this is not a new problem”
    a) and is it only a problem for the CC? The rest of the world has no problem with it?
    b) your point remains irrelevant to what “Mglass” wrote, to wit pretending that it is wrong that the Church acted quick in 2016 when it was slow before 2002 (too spell it out once again).

    Say, I can’t keep on shooting your squirrels, so bye.

  • So you admit that your standard doesn’t hold up.

    Sexual orientation is morally neutral. Therefore, it is sin, fraud, on your part, to use that test on homosexuality.

  • And a link for you:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand
    ” Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive
    ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing
    ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it for the Huffington Post as
    follows, “ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple
    solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive
    capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.””
    http://iheartintelligence.com/2015/09/29/homophobia-psychological/
    The study, which was conducted by lead researcher Emmanuele Jannini at
    the University of Rome Tor Vergata, suggests that homophobic people
    typically have other psychological issues.
    . . .
    What the researchers found was that the people that scored the highest
    on the homophobia questions also scored the highest for the traits of
    psychoticism. Psychoticism is actually a personality trait that is
    defined by hostility, anger, and aggression toward others. They were
    also found to typically have “fearful-avoidant” attachment styles and
    immature defense mechanisms. The better someone scored on the other
    psychological aspects of the test scored the lowest in the questions
    regarding homophobia. According to Jannini, “The study is opening a new
    research avenue, where the real disease to study is homophobia.” It
    seems that homophobia is truly a deeper condition that simply being
    judgemental on a religious or moral foundation.”

  • So since the study group is Catholic priests no homosexual Catholic priests were found, even though 81% of the victims were male.
    I get it, you mean it is a question of opportunity. Well, the acts themselves remain homosexual/pederast, which makes the perpetrator a homosexual. And if that is out of opportunity or out of nature, who can say. Well, I can. We had a movement here of open homosexual priests (not abusers mind, adult and consensual acts only) who claimed they didn’t break their vows because they didn’t “do it” with a woman. These, now ex-priests – it took long enough, display the some “honesty”, moronity and lack of logic as you. You must be of their kind.

    And now I have really enough of you so I’m putting you on my “banned” list. Bye.

  • Wow, who knew that all of Christianity from Paul all the way to the current generation were heretics — except for the few Enlightened, of course.

  • Such desperate snark. So dishonest, so sinful. So unchristian.

    And a fallacious as well.

    Jesus’ own teaching, in Matthew 7:15-23, provides a test for recognizing false teachers – by their fruit. Evil trees produce evil fruit. The fruit of ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is murder, rape, torture, brutality of every kind.

    If you believe Jesus, then, or even the law of cause and effect, you have to recognize that the belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is evil.

    So either Paul did not teach that evil belief, or Paul was a false teacher, at least on that subject. But because the belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’ produces evil, according to Jesus, it is an evil belief, a heresy.

    So either you and your peers are wrong, and Paul did not teach it, or Paul was a heretic, at least on that subject.

  • “There is such a reality as serious sin, of which homosexuality is one,”

    It is not. Those who make that claim are, per Christ’s own test for false teaching, false teachers, workers of iniquity.

    Your theology is rather depraved, actually. Since homosexuality is an inborn trait, you are insisting that there is a class of people who, by birth, are damned no matter what. This contradicts Christ’s teaching.

    “What a sickening, cowardly society this all is”
    Yes, you and your peers do represent such a society, one that murders, rapes, tortures, brutalizes GLBTQ people for your own amusement and egos.

    ‘ This priest, being admittedly a homosexual, has scandalized the faithful”

    No, the faithful are not scandalized as all. The workers of iniquity are scandalizes, just as the Pharisees were often scandalized by Jesus’ teachings and miracles.

    “but by affirming others in that lifestyle.”

    Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, but your prejudice is.

  • Irrelevant. It is not homophobic to argue certain acts are immoral. Psychology Today is not a peer reviewed journal so of little consequence. One might just as easily argue that the ideology of gay theology “gets rid of messiness and imposes a simple solution”.
    The other link provides argumentation that is just as weak. I have no fear of homosexuals, I have two good friends who identify as gay but also accept the teachings of the Catholic church and they don’t find those teachings “homophobic”.

  • I did not say that. First it was ad hominems for you , now it is the straw man. Sexual “orientation” is morally neutral, however sexual acts are not.

  • The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is in the catechism, it does not say they should be mistreated, quite the contrary. To say someone’s use of ad hominems is an ad hominem itself is rather hilarious.
    It isn’t fraud to say technology is morally neutral, that indeed is what the Catholic moral tradition says. I have not judged or condemned anyone, that is a straw man. Acquaint yourself with the fallacies of debate. Sexuality is morally neutral but not sexual acts.

  • With all due respect, Mark1115, homosexual behavior is a serious sin in the Catholic Church. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this (CCC 2357):

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    Further, there’s no scientific evidence — not from one single study — that homosexuality is inborn. Your next claim is even more ludicrous — who is ‘murdering GLBTQ people for amusement and egos’? Who are the workers of iniquity — wouldn’t they be the people committing serious sin against God? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know Jesus’ teachings? He told those in sin to ‘go and sin no more,’ among many other things.

    Homosexuality, when it’s acted upon and willingly engaged in, is a serious offense against God and oneself. Lifestyle or not, single instance or many instances — the teaching remains the same. That’s not prejudice — it’s Catholic teaching, unchanged. Catholics owe it to you to tell you the truth, rather than today’s politically-correct fable.

  • You should do that. In your previous identity here, you did exactly the same thing.

    you clearly don’t know much about child abuse, homosexuality, pedophilia, the pedophilia scandals, or indeed, much of anything except your own prejudices.

  • Do you mean hateful folks who make statements that homosexuals cruise bus station rest rooms? That kind of hateful person?

    Just for the record, you are far more likely to find men with wives and children there than you are to find your average gay man.

  • Sure there are. But you don’t care. You have the statements of virtually every single scientific, medical and social science organization in the civilized world. You also have the testimony of millions of gay people, and the failure of Jesus to turn anyone from gay to straight. And you even have the statements of the Mormon and Catholic churches

    There is not one single study that shows that heterosexuality is inborn, either.

  • “With all due respect, Mark1115, homosexual behavior is a serious
    sin in the Catholic Church.”

    That is one of the many huge and glaring flaws in the Roman Catholic Church. And there is nothing respectful at all in calling the innate capacity for love and intimacy that millions of people have ‘serious sin’ – worthy of death and damnation.

    “Further, there’s no scientific evidence — not from one single study — that homosexuality is inborn. ”

    Nonsense, of course, but what a bizarre argument to make from a Catholic perspective. After all, baby, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, as atheists love to remind people of faith. There is no scientific evidence for transubstantiation, virgin birth in human, the existence of the saints. And the RCC has frequently rejected scientific evidence, as when it persecuted Galileo.

    The strongest body of evidence that homosexuality is inborn, is the same as the strongest body of evidence for the existence of God:

    the personal testimony of real human beings.

    So, as an alleged catholic, you expect, really demand, people accept personal testimony about the existence of God, but then reject the personal testimony of GLBTQ people about their own lives and experiences of sexuality. That makes you a lawbreaker, for that is clear favoritism on your part:

    James 2:9
    But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

    Additionally, Baby, there is a growing body of evidence that homosexuality is innate, including but not limited to the more than a thousand species of life in which homosexuality is a naturally occuring variation of sexuality. Did you lie then, or are you just under-educated on this matter?

    “Your next claim is even more ludicrous — who is ‘murdering GLBTQ people for amusement and egos’?”

    Your dismissal of the very real violence inflicted on GLBTQ people is the sin of depraved indifference. What you dismiss as ludicrous, is reality.

    “Who are the workers of iniquity”

    You and your peers, everyone who teaches ‘homosexuality is sin’. Clearly, your knowledge of the Bible is deficient.

    Matthew 7:15-23

    15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
    21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

    Workers of iniquity, evildoers, it varies by translation.

    “wouldn’t they be the people committing serious sin against God?”

    Jesus’ test is quite easy: they bear evil fruit. You and your peers bear evil fruit, people are murdered, raped, tortured as the deliberate enforcement of ‘homosexual sex is sin’. You, your peers, the RCC, are false teachers, you produce evil fruit. And yes, you and your peers are committing serious sin against God when you proclaim “homosexual sex is sin”. There are other serious sins that you commit, of course.

    “Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know Jesus’ teachings?”
    Apparently, I know them better than you do, since you did not recognize the references to Matthew 7:15-23.

    “Homosexuality, when it’s acted upon and willingly engaged in, is a serious offense against God and oneself. ”

    No, it is not. It cannot be, for that would make God evil. It is, at the most, a “sin” against you and your peers. Nothing more. But your claim is sin, sin against God, for you make God appear evil, unjust, cruel and capricious. It is sin against GLBTQ people, for you slander them and dehumanize them, even though they are children of God. And it is sin against humanity, for you make the values of humans contingent on an inborn, intrinsic trait, and on adherence to your sexual demands.

    “Lifestyle or not,”

    The only lifestyle involved here is your lifestyle of prejudice, slander, and sin.

    “That’s not prejudice”
    Yes, it is. Denying reality is not going to do you any good, too many people are dead because of the evil belief you are defending.

    “it’s Catholic teaching, unchanged. ”

    And it shows that Catholic teaching has strayed away from Christ on this, and other, matters.

    ” Catholics owe it to you to tell you the truth, rather than today’s politically-correct fable.”

    But instead, you and your peers lie.

  • “The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is in the catechism, it does not say they should be
    mistreated, quite the contrary.”
    Nice lies.

    “To say someone’s use of ad hominems is an ad hominem itself is rather hilarious.”

    Your incoherent dismissal accomplishes nothing. It does indicate that you have no evidence to support your accusations against me.

    “It isn’t fraud to say technology is morally neutral”

    And again, that is not what I stated. Why must you lie so constantly?

    “I have not judged or condemned anyone,”

    Please stop lying. You have judged and condemned hundreds of millions of people. The only way your statement can be accurate, BallyK, is if you admit that you do not perceive GLBTQ people to be human, if they are, for you, outside of ‘anyone’.

    ” that is a straw man. Acquaint yourself with the fallacies of debate.”

    My statement was not a straw man, but you have used them several times. So live your advice before you give, just once.

    “Sexuality is morally neutral but not sexual acts.”

    And gay sex acts are not immoral, particularly not for homosexuals.

  • “I did not say that”

    Doesn’t matter, you are defending it. Show some responsibility.

    “First it was ad hominems for you ,”

    And that was a false accusation on your part.

    “now it is the straw man.”

    No.

    “Sexual “orientation” is morally neutral, however sexual acts are not.”

    The Bible contains more than three hundred passages condemning specific sexual acts committed by heterosexuals. You have no defense.

  • Homosexual “marriage” is a fake because it lacks essential characteristics of a marriage. It lacks either a husband or wife. Only man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without one of these you don’t have a marriage.

    Its still a sin for anyone outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

  • You have refuted nothing and refuse to acknowledge the clear teaching from Scripture against homosexuality. You are listening to false teachers on this issue. You put your soul at risk.

  • “That particular statement of Jesus dealt with judging PEOPLE, not doctrine.”

    And interesting, though false distinction. People teach, and they are evaluated by the fruit of what they teach. You and your peers teach ‘homosexual sex is sin’, and by doing that, you produce evil fruit.

    Normally, I do focus on the belief itself, giving you and your peers more credit, more grace, than you show anyone else. I tend to keep it less personal, but since you insist, Matthew7:15-23
    means that you and your peers are evil, you produce evil fruit.

    Now, don’t complain about my directness on this matter, false teacher. You teach evil, you produce evil fruit, that makes you, personally, a false teacher, an evildoer:

    20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
    name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

    The fruit you and your peers produce, which ranges from murder and rape to systemic oppression and injustice, means that you, as people, are false teachers, workers of iniquity, evildoers.

    You demanded that level of specificity.

  • What did I get wrong? Well, there is no point being in the altar, facing multitude of worshippers with that urge. Homosexuality goes against GOD’s teaching no matter how we fine tune it. It is pure evil.

  • “You have refuted nothing”

    Your empty dismissal of reality accomplishes nothing.

    “refuse to acknowledge the clear teaching from Scripture against homosexuality.”

    How can any Christian acknowledge what does not exist in Scripture.

    ” You are listening to false teachers on this issue.”

    Nice one. This gives me so much to work with. Yeah, when I read your posts, I am, technically, listening to false teachers. Fortunately, I don’t believe you and your peers. But you meant it differently than that.

    You meant it as an attack on every person who has informed me that your sick belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is wrong. So you mean it as a slander against a set of persons you don’t know. That in itself is rather evil of you.

    But it is so much worse for you than that. You see, JP, among the persons who have taught me that ‘homosexual sex is sin’ is evil, are three persons you claim to know: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

    And you, out of pride, just called them ‘false teachers’. The Bible has this to say:

    Luke 12:10

    And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven.

    So while your slander of Jesus shall be forgiven, your slander of the Holy Spirit, won’t. Now, you could argue from ignorance, that you didn’t know who you were slandering. Christians debate about foreknowledge and sin quite a bit. But what a huge risk you took.

    “You put your soul at risk.”

    No, I’m am quite aware of my relationship with God and with God’s love for me, and that God does not condemn my sexual expression of love and intimacy with my husband, I experience God persistently.

    But you, oh you, in your conceited assumption about the persons who have taught me that you and your peers are wrong, you blasphemed the Holy Spirit “by accident” and put your soul at risk.

  • Sir, are you looking to simply disagree with Catholic teaching, or to defend your own preferences? Your so-called facts are fallacious, and your rationale nonsensical. You have no idea of my lifestyle, slander or sin. You don’t even know the Catholic definition of sin or what it defines as sinful and what isn’t. You’re defensive, anxious, angry and confused. If you’re truly interested in what the Catholic Church teaches, read up on it. Don’t shoot the messenger or accuse him or lying until you know what he’s referring to.

  • “Sir, are you looking to simply disagree with Catholic teaching, or to defend your own preferences?”

    Neither, Baby. I’m refuting the evil belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’, regardless of who teaches it.

    “Your so-called facts are fallacious, and your rationale nonsensical.”

    Oh, nice temper tantrum. Your empty dismissal only demonstrates that you cannot refute what I presented. What a huge difference between us. I carefully walk through your claims, and provide detailed rebuttal. You do not show me the same courtesy. Is that laziness? Are you malakoi?

    “You have no idea of my lifestyle,”

    The irony of that statement is astronomical in scale. I do know what is in your posts “prejudice, slander, and sin”. Are you now saying that this behavior that you have so consistently demonstrated is an aberration on your part? That you normally do not proclaim ‘homosexual sex is sin’ in any way? Perhaps we should quantify the matter, and have you document how often you do slander GLBTQ people in public to decide if it is a lifestyle choice you have made, or just an occasional slip into sin.

    “You’re defensive, anxious, angry and confused.”

    Nice projection there. And such a bizarre, heartless accusation to make against me.

    I am indeed defending the lives of hundreds of millions of people, including myself, my husband, many of our friends, hundreds of acquaintances over the years, and well, all other GLBTQ people. And I’m defending the many millions of progressive Christians who are heterosexual, whose beliefs and lives you have vilified. There is nothing wrong with that. I am, in a very true way, a defender of the faith.

    Anxious – No, not really. Oh perhaps I should be, given that people who believe as you do continue to murder and rape and brutalize GLBTQ people. Nor am I actually angry, though perhaps I should be, for the same reason.

    “If you’re truly interested in what the Catholic Church teaches, read up on it.”

    I have done so, extensively. Your inability to create a convincing defense of this particular flaw, this particular evil in RCC dogma, does not mean I have not studied it. It means you failed.

    “Don’t shoot the messenger or accuse him or lying until you know what he’s referring to.”

    Oh, that is advice you really are not at all qualified to give. So much so, that it is sin. I do hope that you confess your many sins against me personally, and against GLBTQ people, before you take communion again. You don’t want to take it unworthily, do you?

    To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, and therefore a sacrilege.
    https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb2a.htm

    I sincerely hope that you will set my mind at ease, by reporting back here that you have made a full confession of your sins against me to a priest, and carried out any penance, before the upcoming Mass.

    I suspect though, that you will not.

  • And not to let it slide, once again, Baby, you have completely ignored all of my rebuttal and challenges to your claims, making the sinful choice instead of issuing empty dismissals.

    I am particularly amused, and disappointed, that you did not even attempt to address this issue:
    “After all, Baby, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, as atheists love to remind people of faith. There is no scientific evidence for transubstantiation, virgin birth in human, the existence of the saints. And the RCC has frequently rejected scientific evidence, as when it persecuted Galileo.

    The strongest body of evidence that homosexuality is inborn, is the same as the strongest body of evidence for the existence of God:

    the personal testimony of real human beings.

    So, as an alleged catholic, you expect, really demand, people accept personal testimony about the existence of God, but then reject the personal testimony of GLBTQ people about their own lives and experiences of sexuality. ”

    You used a standard that atheists use against religion and all people of faith. Doesn’t that bother you at all? By disregarding, and actually pretending to know better than GLBTQ people do the ‘truth’ of their experiences, you’ve done what so many atheists do to people of faith. That should tell you something about your position.

  • Your post reminds me of Josh Duggar. He too liked to spew ugly and hateful things about GLBTQ people in public. He paraded his “righteousness” in public too. He dismissed the crimes committed against GLBTQ people, and like you, supported the nonsense that homosexuals can be converted into heterosexuals.

    And then one day, the world found out that he’d sexually abused several of his sisters and their friends, when the girls were quite young.

    And then there’s this guy:http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/05/antigay-pastor-accused-child-pornography-possession/

    “This is Dave Reynolds, the recently fired pastor of the Cornerstone Bible Fellowship in Sherwood, Arkansas.

    He’s currently facing 70 counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing child pornography.

    Oh, and he’s also vehemently antigay.

    The 40-year-old pastor regularly preached that marriage is between a man and a woman and that all homosexual activity is a sin.

    He was arrested this week after police received a tip from the
    National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which claimed that a
    social media account in Sherwood was storing pages and pages of child
    pornography.”

    And these are just two examples. But is it a good idea to draw attention to yourself in such ways, when so many of your peers have done such terrible things?

  • Well, if it bothers thee, don’t do it. I am not telling thee who thee can or cannot marry. But listen to Jesus; He has some things to show thee!

  • “Homosexuality goes against GOD’s teaching”
    No, it does not.

    ” It is pure evil.”
    That is the kind of talk that gets real humans murdered, raped, tortured.

    Evil trees bear evil fruit, Tonnie, and the belief you’ve just spewed up on people’s lives produces only evil fruit.

    “What did I get wrong?” It was funny. Not hilarious, but funny. You wrote: “You can’t serve God and Mormon at the same time.”

    Mormon: the popular name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (dictionary.com)

    The quote is “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” From:
    24 No
    man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love
    the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
    cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6.

    I can expound at length on how you and your peers serve mammon, if you’d like me to. I doubt you will actually like what I provide though.

  • Worry about whether you need to go to Confession, not whether others should. And ponder whether you receive Holy Communion unworthily. You are responsible for your life choices before God. Why are you refuting the Catholic teaching that homosexual sex is a sin? Therein lies the problem. It’s not my job to set your mind at ease. As a Catholic, I must instead acknowledge Catholic truth, no matter your liking for it. You can do all the reading in the world about the Catholic Church and still refuse to ascend to Her teachings. That’s your choice. And you do have free will.

  • “Worry about whether you need to go to Confession, not whether others should.”
    Oh what a hypocrite you are, having lashed out at GLBTQ people for post after post.

    “Why are you refuting the Catholic teaching that homosexual sex is a sin?”
    Because that evil belief produces evil fruit, like murder, rape, beatings and torture and blackmail and slander and suicide. I am refuting that belief because it is evil, and people are harmed by it.

    ” Therein lies the problem.”
    Nope. There is no problem with working to end systemic injustice. The problem is why you and your peers continue to preach this evil belief, knowing full well that it gets people killed.

    “It’s not my job to set your mind at ease. ”

    Nice projection there, it shows why you are here. You and your peers, who pay no attention, really, to what anyone else says to refute your sick belief ‘homosexual sex is sin’ are here only to set your minds at ease, to convince yourselves that you are right, even though you know your belief gets people killed. You see society changing, rejecting ‘homosexual sex is sin’, and you get scared. So you come here, have your little say, ignore any rebuttal, set your mind at ease that you are still, despite all evidence to the contrary, God’s favorites.

    My mind, regarding my relationship with God and my sexuality, is at ease. My heart is troubled, as yours should be, by the violence and destruction caused by you and your peers.

    ” As a Catholic, I must instead acknowledge Catholic truth,”

    As a Christian, I must instead acknowledge and proclaim Christian truth, the teachings of Christ.

    ” You can do all the reading in the world about the Catholic Church and still refuse to ascend to Her teachings.”

    How gracious of you to allow me freedom of religion. Your denomination used to kill people, rather than allow them that human right. Your sentence is rather bizarre, frankly. It communicates for example, your confidence that the documentation available about the RCC is insufficient to convince people to choose it. And ascend? That makes no sense in this context, the word, the concept you needed was assent, agree to, obey. Such incompetence really does not inspire me to believe that you are a convincing advocate for any position.

    My choice is to follow Jesus Christ, rather than assent to the evil beliefs taught by the RCC.

  • The reason for marriage is the male-female duality created by God (Matt.9:4-5). Same sex relationships do not fit into that paradigm.

  • And still, Baby, you run from this key point:
    “After all, Baby, there is no scientific evidence for the existence
    of God, as atheists love to remind people of faith. There is no
    scientific evidence for transubstantiation, virgin birth in human, the
    existence of the saints. And the RCC has frequently rejected scientific
    evidence, as when it persecuted Galileo.

    The strongest body of evidence that homosexuality is inborn, is the same as the strongest bodyof evidence for the existence of God:

    the personal testimony of real human beings.

    So, as an alleged catholic, you expect, really demand, people accept personal testimony about the existence of God, but then reject the personal testimony of GLBTQ people about their own lives and experiences of sexuality. ”

    You used a standard that atheists use against religion and all people of faith. Doesn’t that bother you at all? By disregarding, and actually pretending to know better than GLBTQ people
    do the ‘truth’ of their experiences, you’ve done what so many atheists do to people of faith. That should tell you something about your position.

  • So let me get this straight. You have no problem being lied to and then tell me to “listen to Jesus” . The only place where Jesus has spoken is found alone in the NT. He condemns homosexual practices with a host of other sins.

  • Christians may have “fudged: over :Thou shalt not kill “but if you want to kill over ‘Thou shalt not fudge’. Please don.t profiteer over the misery of betrayed and maltreated children. And that goes for BOTH sides

  • “And now I have really enough of you so I’m putting you on my “banned” list. Bye.”

    Nice cowardice.

    “Well, the acts themselves remain homosexual/pederast, which makes the perpetrator a homosexual.”

    No. If I fly, does that make me a bird? Your arguments are irrational.

  • You are not an authority that I recognize. It is interesting how you pontificate as if you were infallible. Assertions such as yours are made without demonstrable evidence so they make little sense.

  • You made an argument and pretended it was mine, that’s a straw man. Yes the bible condemns “specific sexual acts”, that is exactly what I am saying, thank you.

  • What in the catechism says homosexuals are to be mistreated? Find it and tell me. I have not judged or condemned anyone that is always up to God but we know what he teaches and demands of us. I have not done any lying whatsoever. Point out a single straw man I have made. As usual you assert various accusations but offer nothing to back them up. Homosexual acts as the Christ’s church teaches us are immoral.

  • “What in the catechism says homosexuals are to be mistreated?”
    Nice falsely limited parameters. That you need to be so specific indicates that you know the RCC promotes violence against GLBTQ people.

    “Point out a single straw man I have made.”

    Actually, I did already.

    You wrote: “It isn’t fraud to say technology is morally neutral”

    And I replied: “And again, that is not what I stated.”

    Since I did not state that it is fraud to say technology is morally neutral, your quote above is a straw man.

    “As usual you assert various accusations but offer nothing to back them up”

    That was, is, you.

    “Homosexual acts as the Christ’s church teaches us are immoral.”

    Nice accusation, but you have nothing to back it up. You are wrong. And as usual, you rudely, and impotently, avoided the substance of my post to make a series of unsubstantiated claims.

  • “You made an argument and pretended it was mine, that’s a straw man.”
    First, that is not a straw man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument:

    So you’ve falsely accused me. That is sin.

    Second, you defended the position that JP articulated, and I held you accountable to that. Nothing more.

    ” Yes the bible condemns “specific sexual acts”, that is exactly what I am saying, thank you.”

    Now that is a straw man. You’ve taken what I actually wrote:
    “The Bible contains more than three hundred passages condemning specific sexual acts committed by heterosexuals.”
    and reduced it to something much weaker that you can actually address.

    Your entire line of argument is been one false statement after another.

    And BallyK – a good argument could be made that JP’s entire, ‘where is it affirmed’ nonsense was a straw man.

  • Nice projection. A bit incoherent, kind of pretentious, with a false claim for the purpose of feeding your ego at my expense.

    Oh, and the irony, the astoundingly conceited, mindblowingly Trumpian arrogance of “You are not an authority that I recognize.’ while you and your incompetence peers present yourselves as whinge about God, homosexuality and homosexuals – expecting to be see as authorities.

    You so desperately want to be recognized as the authority on our very lives, and are so completely ignorant and incompetent on that matter.

  • “What in the catechism says homosexuals are to be mistreated?”

    That too, is actually a straw man. I have been discussing and commenting on the totality of anti-gay theology, including all of the RCC’s teachings on the matter, but you very carefully attempt to limit discussion to a tiny subset, one you think you can defend.

  • In Australia there has been a problem with the sexual abuse of both boys and girls.

    The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is still finding out about horrors committed against children in the churches and other institutions. I can assure you that what they have found is not a good look.

    This Royal Commission has been collecting testimonies from witnesses this very week. You don’t get much more up to the minute than that.

  • Funny, how I’ve never murdered, raped, or oppressed anyone. I guess I don’t fit into your “evil” category. Beyond that, the problem with your determination to judge teachers by what others do with their teachings is that it was thinking like that, that led to Socrates’ execution. Yes, Socrates gave us Plato (argued by some to be the greatest philosopher to ever live), but he also gave Athens Alcibiades and Critias and for that they killed him. By your reasoning, they were right to do so because his fruits were evil.

  • If you’re happy with a dying church that will fail to connect with the next generation, then be my guest and your religion will fall into irrelevancy.

  • If you’re expecting RNS to only quote from religious bigots, I think you might need to find another site to read.

  • Both boys and girls? Proof that you know your snide remark was nothing but BS.

    In all that sexual liberation going on the last 50-60 years the Church threw out (*) its own wisdom and got clobbered for it. Now someone like you wants to Church to continue that disastrous policy when its comes to homosexuals while at the same time vilifying the Church for everything bad that will happen. Once again, it is 2016 but you demand that the Church acts like before 2002 because it concerns a homosexual pervert. And you defend your behavior by throwing in an irrelevant to that fact “Royal Commission”.
    I can only hope that one day society will institute a “Commission” to research and punish the horrors you and your ilk have wrought.

    (*) Once again John Jay Report:
    “The period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s
    Goes very well with the advent of “sexual liberation” doesn’t it, except that the Church, unlike general society, seems to have regained some of its sanity.
    And notice “by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s”. Now the 1990s is when the grooming gangs in the UK started, coming to full bloom in the 2000s. And the “horrors” of the grooming gangs are on quit a higher plane. Children held in sexual slavery for years, threatened with murder if they try to escape and prostituted out to all comers. And that very much in the open thanks to PC no doubt but really thanks to the fact that society didn’t/doesn’t give a damn. One would expect that people by their reaction on the scandals in the Church after 2002 would be vigilant but no. Like I said in another comment, it never was about children.

    Ps. “committed against children in the churches and other institutions”
    I hope the “other institutions” includes the “secular ones”. The ones who get a pass or are protected by law against the consequences of their crimes, like say the UK Labour Party re the grooming gangs, like the BBC, like say “Public Education” in the USA, …, and no doubt the Australian equivalent of those.

  • All you’ve done is show you don’t know proper word usage in the context of your arguments, not a compelling reason to take you seriously.

  • Yes it is, in several instances, I can cite them for you, but you will misconstrue the context anyway. Scholars have been analyzing and assessing the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts for over two thousand years, why is it only in this past century that others have discovered an entirely new linguistic context for what has been affirmed in the Church without dispute for that entire time. This argument alone puts the lie to your supposed scholarship, for I am not about to affirm that today’s scholars have a step on those from the past.

  • Where? Give me chapter and verse. Thee may find some things that can be construed that way, but only if taken out of context. But remember this: one can not be put right with God merely by abstaining from sin; once thy heart is right, then thee can listen to Jesus and understand what he is saying. Peace.

  • Following the logic of thy argument then, it is also sinful for one to be single. But please explain to me how Matthew 9:4-5 relates to this. That is about Jesus healing a paralytic.

  • Sorry, meant 19, not 9. But nothing in the passage says that marriage is mandatory, or even advisable in some cases. Only that without the duality no reason for it exists. Jesus echoes the prophet Malachai as wellm who said that God joins the two into one because He desires a godly seed from the union — which also requires that male/female duality.

  • You’re right — they’re betraying their vocation as priests, and betraying Christ and His teachings, unashamedly and proudly. We Catholics are taught to address people’s opposition to Church teaching with mercy, calm and charity. And we work to do that, amid their coarseness, insults, antagonizations, and expressions of hatred for faithful Catholics. So today’s so-called tolerance is really a one-way street — we need to behave tolerantly, but they don’t. There’s a difference between tolerance and moral compromise. What it seems is, many practicing homosexuals and those who support their choice want to simultaneously be identified as faithful Catholics. It’s one or the other — never both. We need the support of our priests, bishops, cardinals and pope in this regard. They must stand for Church teaching, or risk their own consequences. The Catholic Church is truly the Church Militant these days. The Church won’t be eliminated, but she’ll be spat upon and scourged like Christ was, and apparently suffer an earthly death, only to rise again. Faithful who love Christ and His Teachings must defend her, and persevere. It will be well worth it. Christ is worth whatever we have to endure in our love for Him.

  • “Yes it is, in several instances, I can cite them for you, but you will misconstrue the context anyway.”

    No, it is not, and your presumption actually means that you know you cannot defend your interpretation of them.

    ” why is it only in this past century that others have discovered an entirely new linguistic context”

    Such ignorance. People have been studying the sky for even longer, why is that only now we are discovering an ice volcano on Ceres?

    The answer is simple. There is a science to translation, just as there is to astronomy, and that science has grown. Modern computing has tremendously aided the development of better translation techniques. The sources you relied on made many, many errors, and there are entire books devoted to the matter. “And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning” by Dr. Joel Hoffman, is just one such book.

    “For centuries, translations of the Bible have obscured our understanding and appreciation of the original text. Now And God Said provides readers with an authoritative account of significant mistranslations and shows how new translation methods can give readers
    their first glimpse into what the Bible really means.

    And God Said uncovers the often inaccurate or misleading English translations of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that quotes from it. Sometimes the familiar English is just misleading. Other times the mistakes are more substantial. But the errors are widespread. This book tackles such issues as what’s wrong with the Ten Commandments (starting with the word
    “commandments”), the correct description of the “virgin” birth, and the surprisingly modern message in the Song of Solomon, as well as many other unexpected but thought-provoking revelations.

    Acclaimed translator Dr. Joel M. Hoffman sheds light on the original intention of the text and the newly developed means that readers can use to get closer to it. In And God Said his fresh approach has united the topics of religion, language, and linguistics to offer the first modern
    understanding since the Bible was written.”
    https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312565585/ref=nosim/angosa-20

    Dr. Hoffman goes into great detail about how such errors occur, and how to discover the actual meaning.

    Further, Edward, scholars today have access to reams of material that was no available when the KJV, for example, was first produced, or even when Septuagint was produced.

    “This argument alone puts the lie to your supposed scholarship,”

    No, it does not. It simply exposes your ignorance and laziness on this matter. Laziness, because you clearly have not bothered to do due diligence, yet make sweeping and sinful false statements as a result of that failure.

    ” for I am not about to affirm that today’s scholars have a step on those from the past.”

    Your willful ignorance has no weight, it is simply the sin of pride.

  • “All you’ve done is show you don’t know proper word usage in the context
    of your arguments, not a compelling reason to take you seriously.”

    Nice projection. Your accusation, made without a shred of evidence, is merely impotent rage coupled with incompetence.

    Prove your claim, or repent please.

  • “Funny, how I’ve never murdered, raped, or oppressed anyone.”
    Prove it. Of course you cannot.

    But let’s dig into that a bit. Jesus said, regarding adultery but the principle applies to all sin, that if you think it in your head, it is the same as doing it.

    So, Dough, if you have ever, in your entire life, used Lev 20:13 to condemn GLBTQ people, then you have committed murder and thought and word. If you ever even thought you could make a lesbian straight by having sex with her, you’ve committed rape in your thoughts.

    And any time you articulate ‘homosexual sex is sin’, in any form, you are at a bare minimum, oppressing some seven hundred million people in your thoughts. From Jesus’ perspective, that is no different than actually doing it.

    Now, to be practical, if you ever voted for any anti-gay legislation, like the bans on same-sex marriage, then you have oppressed GLBTQ people. If you’ve ever gone to a forum like this to defend anti-gay theology, then you have oppressed people. Guess what that means you’re doing now?

    Of course, you picked, conveniently, just three of the many evil fruit produced by ‘homosexual sex is sin’ and pretended that because you claim, without evidence, that you haven’t done them, the entire principle is negated by your unsubstantiated example. That is not sane, nor is it honest. After all, there are many, many different evil fruit produced by ‘homosexual sex is sin’. One might even concluded that you have knowingly committed all of the rest, and left them out of your sentence on purpose.

    “Beyond that, the problem with your determination to judge teachers by what others do with their teachings”

    Like so many of your peers, you forget, or don’t care, that the principle I’m apply comes from Jesus. When you attempt to discredit that principle DougH, you are showing that you do not believe Jesus, that you do not follow Jesus.

    Your diversion accomplishes nothing, except to demonstrate your denial of Christ and your poor reasoning skills.

  • Thanks, Shawnie. Reading Matt 19:1-12 with Malachi 2:14-16 shows that this teaching is for perpetuating the community in good order, and not just to give rules that have to be followed mindlessly. Matt 19:11 makes clear that this is aimed to those who will be raising a family; by implication those for whom this teaching is not given are not restricted by it, altho they would, as part of the community, have a responsibility to uphold it.

  • If you are allowing open anti-gay Christians into the church and celebrating these bigots, then your church will be dead with the next generation.

  • I wouldn’t say they were heretics, but I would say that “all of Christianity from Paul all the way to the current generation” were immersed in a combination of delusion and fraud.

  • Orientation is no defense for same-sex sex acts any more than kleptomania is for stealing or alcoholism is for getting drunk!
    The sick belief to the contrary that you spew notwithstanding.

  • If they represent their relationship as a marriage,or support any same-sex relationship being treated as a marriage by anyone,they do wrong by that alone.

  • Attacking homosexuality is not attacking homosexuals any more than attacking blindness is attacking the blind.Attacking drunkenness is not attacking alcoholics as people,but their actions…so to with the just and necessary condemnation,religious or secular,of all same-sex sex acts.
    Treating homosexuals as the helpless slaves of their homosexuality on the other hand is writing them off as people.

  • The willful ignorance and incompetence is on the part of anyone who seeks to justify same-sex sexual activity.You mistake being fooled by propaganda for being educated.

  • He attempts to help “GLBTQ people” evade the scolding they richly deserve and deceives them into thinking they do not deserve it,thus harming them.His obligation to them is to help them overcome and disdain their “GLBTQ-ness”,not treat it as if there were nothing wrong with it!

  • Oh gee, another dishonest gossip.

    ‘evade the scolding they richly deserve”

    You sound like those clergy who claimed that the victims of the Orlando attack deserved it. And honestly, that kind of violence is one of the ways people who believe as you do ‘scold’ homosexuals.

    Well, look at this:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pastor-orlando-tweet-child-molestation_us_57c08cbfe4b04193420f0a10

    “A Georgia pastor who made headlines for a hateful tweet in the wake of June’s mass shooting at Orlando, Florida, queer nightclub Pulse has been arrested on child molestation charges.

    Ken Adkins turned himself in Friday morning, according to a news release from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations published by WJCT. The 56-year-old was booked on one charge of child molestation and one charge of aggravated child molestation and is currently at Georgia’s Glynn County Jail. Adkins leads congregations in the Georgia cities of Atlanta and Brunswick as well as in Jacksonville, Florida.”

  • Every attempt you make to say being same-sex does not determine every same-sex sex act to be objectively wrong harms those in need of realizing the inalterable truth of its in fact being so wrong.

  • Christianity teaches lots of lies,but recognizing the disordered nature of homosexuality is one of the best things about it.

  • No. There is no hate, Louis, in defending real human beings from murder, rape, torture, discrimination, violence and persecution.

    Remember, Jesus said that what you fail to do for the oppressed, you fail to do for him.

  • That the species has two sexes defines opposite-sex sexual activity as the only kind for which there can be any rational basis.

  • Nice slander, Louis. But I have provided detailed and in-depth analysis refuting anti-gay theology, you have provided nothing of any substance at all, and your peers have been equally incompetent.

    “.You mistake being fooled by propaganda for being educated.”

    That slander is sin. It is telling that homophobes have to commit so much damning sin just to articulate and express their position.

    16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. Proverbs 6.

    The reality, Louis, is that you and your peers commit all seven of these to’ebah, detestable things, as you malign GLBTQ people.

  • “This article consistently characterizes the pro-homosexuality groups and
    the issues involved in the manner promoted by the advocates,and not in
    the very different way required by Catholic doctrine.”

    That sentence is incoherent.

    “(A matter on which,though I am not myself religious,I credit the
    Catholic doctrine with being entirely correct in the manner of a stopped
    clock twice a day).”

    So you are actually not qualified to determine if any theological point is accurate.

  • “If a sex act is between persons of the same sex that defines it as immoral for all persons.”

    That is your irrational and unsubstantiated assertion. It has no basis in anything sane.

  • Defend homosexuality (or claim that criticizing it attacks those afflicted by it) and you have a lying tongue,and are a false witness,

    be eager to do this and you rush into evil,
    partake in efforts to do this and you devise wicked schemes.

  • Remember that Jesus was killed because he wouldn’t stop telling people to do as they pleased.The defenders of homosexuality demand that homosexuals be left to do as they please.
    I do not defend murder,rape,torture,or violence…but certain things complained of as “discrimination” or “persecution” by those wedded to pet wrongdoings must be mandated,not ended.

  • “Absolutely everyone should be “anti-gay”,and there is nothing “ad hominem” about that”

    Of course there is, you simply lack the morals to see it.

    “the “gay” mythology about homosexuality is sociopathic and needs to be dismissed on every level.”

    It is because of speech like that, that real humans are raped, murdered, burned alive:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/world/americas/brazil-anti-gay-violence.html

    “The assailant struck as Gabriel Figueira Lima, 21, stood on a street two weeks ago in a city in the Amazon, plunging a knife into his neck and speeding off on the back of a motorcycle, leaving him to die.

    A few days earlier, in the coastal state of Bahia, two beloved teachers, Edivaldo Silva de Oliveira and Jeovan Bandeira, were killed as well, their charred remains found in the trunk of a burning car.

    Late last month, it was Wellington Júlio de Castro Mendonça, a shy, 24-year-old retail clerk, who was bludgeoned and stoned to death near a highway in a city northwest of Rio.

    In a nation seemingly inured to crime, the brutal killings stood out: The victims were not robbed, the police have yet to identify any suspects, and all of the dead were either gay or transgender.

    While Americans have fiercely debated how to respond to the massacre last month at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., Brazilians have been confronting their own epidemic of anti-gay violence — one that, by some counts, has earned Brazil the ignominious ranking of the world’s deadliest place for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

    Nearly 1,600 people have died in hate-motivated attacks in the past four and half years, according to Grupo Gay da Bahia, which tracks the deaths through news articles. By its tally, a gay or transgender person is killed almost every day in this nation of 200 million.”

    The link between homophobic speech, like yours, and anti-gay violence is explicit and concrete.

  • “It is incontrovertibly determined by the fact that the species has two
    sex,making opposite-sex sex acts exclusively normative and all failures
    to adhere to that norm to be indefensible”

    That is not rational. You are confusing gender with sexual orientation.

  • “The defenders of homosexuality demand that homosexuals be left to do as they please.”

    Nice lie.

    “d.The”

    Why is it that so many of the different people expressing their homophobia here, make this same mistake?

    “I do not defend murder,rape,torture,or violence..”

    What you do is much worse, you incite and promote it.

  • “Defend homosexuality (or claim that criticizing it attacks those
    afflicted by it) and you have a lying tongue,and are a false witness,”

    Not at all. I dare you, Louis, to prove that I have lied in any way in my defense of homosexuals. You cannot, and if you could, you would have provided info. You are simply issuing empty, childish and malevolent accusations.

    You and your peers do these things, Louis, intrinsically in your condemnation of GLBTQ people. You commit to’ebah, abomination.

  • Every day crimes are committed by people who believe things that are true.That doesn’t change truth.

    And “Stop doing that” does not mean “I hate you”…every person engaged in same-sex sexual activity needs to be told to stop.

  • “That people refuse to recognize that they are harmed by being led to
    believe there is no wrong in same-sex sex acts is both symptom and proof
    of the harm they have suffered.”

    Nice fantasy, but it has no basis in reality.

  • “Being in a same-sex sexual relationship is an indefensible lifestyle that homosexual orientation can not possibly excuse.”

    Nice homophobia. That kind of hate speech gets people killed.

  • No.
    Your “reasoning” would lead one to believe that if a cop-killer gets lynched,we need to stop criticizing cop-killing.
    We are a sexually dimorphic species,and thereby obligated to be “homophobic” if mentally capable.
    This doesn’t mean attacking any people,it means accepting no excuses for same-sex sex acts from anyone.

  • Every attempt you have made to say that any rational justification can exist for any same-sex sex act is a lie.This is not a condemnation of any person.

  • Nice fascism you have. You don’t agree, so you label my comment hate speech. Are you going to call me a racist next? That is usually how you people operate.

  • I’m going to do you a favor. I’m going to point out that your hate speech against GLBTQ people, which you post not as some expression of debate, but simply as hate speech, is forbidden by the rules here:

    ” Also not permitted are ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks.”

    You, and Francesco, and Walt, go far beyond discussion, and openly and purposefully demonize GLBTQ people.

  • “Every day crimes are committed by people who believe things that are true.T”
    And those crimes, according to Jesus, show that what they believe and act on, is evil.

    “that doesn’t change truth.”

    What is does is show that what they believe and act on is not ‘truth’, but evil.

    “And “Stop doing that” does not mean “I hate you”…”

    Your trivializing and false characterization of the actual message of antigay theology is obscene and horrific.

    ‘every person engaged in same-sex sexual activity needs to be told to stop.”
    That is not your business, and it is only your conceited, homophobic, malevolent, violence inciting opinion.

  • Again, your accusation is incoherent and irrational. It is predicated on false assumptions that I have repeatedly refuted. Your anti-gay hate speech is an attack on the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    Would you answer a side question, do you have the integrity? Did you wait for the weekend to post here, expecting that there would be few, if any moderators to notice and remove your homophobic hate speech?

  • “I’m not demonizing people,I am”

    Yes, Louis, you are demonizing real human beings. And because that it the truth of the matter, your statement above really indicates that you do not see GLBTQ people as human.

  • “Nice fascism you have.”

    Actually, you and your peers have so much in common with fascism, my position does not.

    “You don’t agree, so you label my comment hate speech”

    Actually, I call your comments hate speech because they express hate for GLBTQ people, and exist to incite others to hate GLBTQ people.

    Since you raised the issue of racism, not I, I will take your sentence on that subject as a confession on your part.

  • “Your “reasoning” would lead one to believe that if a cop-killer gets lynched,we need to stop criticizing cop-killing.”

    That isn’t coherent either.

    “We are a sexually dimorphic species,and thereby obligated to be “homophobic” if mentally capable.”

    That is irrational. It is simply a sick excuse for prejudice.

    “This doesn’t mean attacking any people,”

    Of course it does.

  • What I’m going to do, Louis, is flag all of your homophobic posts, and see which are still here on Tuesday, giving the moderators a full working day to determine if you actually contribute anything to the discussion, or are simply slandering GLBTQ people for your own amusement.

  • And yet, Louis, you have repeatedly resisted the criticism of your abuse of hundreds of millions of people, and instead, have persisted in demonizing the lives and relationships of millions of people, inciting violence against them.

    People are dead, Louis, because of the sick claims you and your peers make about GLBTQ people.

  • Our little friend here seems to want his cake and to eat it, too–he is likely a Catholic who still wants to believe he’s in good moral standing even though a practicing homosexual. Mark, my man, sorry big guy. If you’re not on board with Catholic teaching, you’re not in full communion with the Church. So no matter what your friends tell you, church teaching stands true–mercy, as modeled and taught by Christ and the Catholic Church, requires repentance and atonement. No shortcuts.

  • That’s absurd. Homosexuality has never caused any harm whatsoever to anyone, unlike Christianity which has caused enormous harm, including millions of deaths . . . with at least six million of those deaths occurring in the Twentieth Century alone.

    The earth and humanity would benefit by more homosexuality and less
    heterosexuality because 1) it would reduce the vast number of
    unwanted/unintended pregnancies, and 2) it would provide more adoptive
    parents to care for the unwanted/unintended children still being produced, and 3) it would reduce the number of abortions. Therefore, the Bible should be ignored on the issue of homosexuality because the assertions contained in it have no basis in rational thinking and evidence.

  • One only cares for one’s fellow man if one is willing to insist on correcting him when he errs…and all who engage in OR defend same-sex sexual activity are erring.
    Refusal to be “anti-gay” (i.e. dismiss all defenses of homosexuality) is obscene and horrific.
    It doesn’t say much for Jesus if he thought that each and every belief held by any wrongdoer was necessarily false.

  • You seem to be arguing that the Church got caught up in the sexual revolution, so it’s the fault of the sexual revolution.

    For your information, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is about institutional responses to this problem. It has documented problems in both religious and secular organisations, and both boys and girls have been victimised. The Royal Commission is not just a witch hunt against one church, even though there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of evidence from Catholic institutions.

  • Well, we certainly wouldn’t want them to get all science-y ‘n stuff,would we, and have some facts or something. I mean…facts? you can prove anything with facts.

  • A rational basis to have sex? Liking it isn’t a sufficiently rational basis for you? Expressing love and commitment? I mean, even people like Little Newtie can do that– on occasion

    I’ll tell you what, silly person. When you declare that you have never, ever had sex for pleasure, I will send you as a missinary to all of the people who have.

    When you have finished convincing them, I’ll be happy to listen to you as well.

  • Merely believing one has not been harmed by homosexuality is being harmed by homosexuality!
    The Bible should be ignored because the Genesis myth is ridiculous…but so should all same-sex sexual attraction ever experienced by anyone.
    All the alleged benefits you cite would be properly provided by simply treating sexual attraction with more restraint.

  • The problem is they treat the wrong things as facts and as questionable assumptions,and getting that backward leads to garbage conclusions.

  • I’m pleased that you and I are on the same page in believing that “Christianity teaches lots of lies . . . “ But I’m curious ~ on what basis could you possibly conclude that preaching “the disordered nature of homosexuality” is not one of the lies?

  • One can love to do wrong,and have an accomplice…that doesn’t make it right.
    You want pleasure without causing anyone trouble?…masturbate.

  • Here’s a brain teaser for ya Ben: in Catholic teaching, faith and reason (i.e. “Science) actually work in perfect harmony.

  • There is absolutely no basis for defending any same-sex sex act in any sexually dimorphic species…to claim that non-reasoning species having been observed engaged in this practice makes it permissible for humans makes no more sense than saying that because some other species eat their young,we can do the same.Sexes evolve for a reason,if one were good enough we would not have two.Only if persons are of opposite sexes (but regardless of whether or not there is a reproductive intent or capacity in a particular case) can a sexual act between them be rational.

  • And then there is this verse:

    “Woe unto you scribes and pharisees you hypocrites! What sorrow also awaits you! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.

  • It’s actually NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.
    Being homosexual isn’t harmful… Certainly no more or less harmful than being heterosexual…

    Here… Let me help you.

    When you were 3… Your parents told you of this magical bunny that hopped hopped hopped his way around the world delivering chocolate Easter Eggs to good boys n girls.

    They reinforced this for years to come..

    But, eventually… One day, They told you the truth. This magical Easter bunny was made up, and the sugary treats were really from them….

    No harm, right?

    Except… Why didn’t they tell you about the made up fairytale you now believes rules your life? This fairytale that you think gives you the right to equate other people to an imaginary sin… An imaginary sin no more real that that Easter Bunny.

    There… Now you know.

  • It was a question and you are not aware of what the catechism contains hence your non answer. You in fact brought up the subject without stating your objection to what is in the catechism. That is an acute lack of specifics. Case dismissed.

  • The pretension is all on your part. You are indeed not an authority recognized by anyone so no matter. I recognize the authority of Christ and the Church he commissioned to teach in his name.

  • To point out you are incorrect in your characterization of fraud is not a straw man. Consult the Catholic moral tradition if you are not aware that it teaches homosexual acts are immoral.

  • Would it be equally loving and compassionate to admonish my fellow man for his disregard of Matt 7:1…?

  • Now that’s funny.

    See what science says about the Genesis creation story. Science says it’s nonsense. But if it’s nonsense, theN There was no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, then no original sin. No original sin, then the whole Jesus story is a waste of time.

  • Not a question of incapable, dear. A question of not buy the BS you’re selling, and refusing to subjugate my life to your fantasies.

  • People have been saying that since the 1st century. Thry’ll still be saying it 2000 years from now if the world remains for that long. The church isn’t going anywhere.

  • No, I have never in my entire life wished to execute someone for homsexual sex, any more than I have for adultery. No, I have never in my entire life thought that rape could “cure” a lesbian. And no, I have never had the opportunity to vote in defense of the true understanding of marriage, to prevent its replacement by the incoherent emoting of revisionist marriage, though certainly I would have if I had the chance. That is no more oppression than opposition to no-fault divorce, especially unilateral no-fault divorce, that.

    As for the “many, many different evil fruit” you decry, the same applies to divorce. People rightly decried the often evil results of the way Christ’s followers had applied his teaching on divorce, and threw the baby out with the bath water when they chose to go with the philosophy Jesus condemned when they instituted no-fault divorce in its place. And now we are paying for that hubris, and will go on paying for it until we return to Christ’s words. By your understanding of Christ’s test for false prophets, he himself is responsible for how his followers put his command into practice and so is a “ravening wolf” and deserved the fate he suffered.

    But I do hold Jesus to be exactly what he claimed, and so reject your understanding that would deny that. And Jesus, the Beginning and the End, will not be so simply reshaped to fit your own reflection.

  • Good call. The comment stream reads much more cleanly without the half-dozen Magic 8 Ball responses repeated ad infinitum.

  • Yes, where Jesus condemns the hedge the Pharisees had built up around the Law, seeking to make even mistaken violation impossible, and the way they could get so caught up in the minor details that they’d lose sight of the big picture.

    “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

  • I guess if you cannot really address my refutation of your statement, you might as well threaten me with the Wrath o’ Jesus

  • Did I threaten you? Did I mention wrath? Here’s a fact for you, since you thrive on that approach: we all die in this life, sooner or later. And when we do, we may realize what we didn’t accept or acquiesce to in this life, and realize it too late. You’re willing to take that chance. God created science and all its laws, so if you’re hoping to pit science against faith in God, that’s a loser’s gamble, too. If you want to get into theology, even if Man hadn’t committed Original Sin, Jesus — as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity — was already in existence anyway. He just hadn’t come through the Incarnation. What you probably meant to say was, without Original Sin we wouldn’t have needed Jesus’ Incarnation and subsequent Crucifixion. So it’s your choice whether to accept God or not accept Him. And with that, it’s your choice whether to live by the laws of God, or not. Take your chances. If you happen to be a baptized Catholic, or subsequently a Confirmed Catholic, you are throwing away the gifts of grace and the cardinal virtues in favor of your favorite sin–sodomy. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes when you’re asked by JESUS someday for an good explanation for that choice. Better get your own refutation ready in advance.

  • I see from your narrow minded reply, and other comments, there is no sense in attempting civil and rational discourse with you, Brooks.

  • Rather less so…for whatever that’s worth the verse is too easily perverted into a demand that people be indifferent to what they ought to protest,by pretending that attacks on actions are attacks on people.”Stop doing that” does NOT mean “I hate you”.
    But the whole business of “scripture” is described fairly by Jeremiah 8:8.

  • Yes, indeedy, you are threatening the wrath o’ Jesus at me. I’m afraid I’ve never found Jesus to be as unpleasant, bigoted, judgmental, or a-holish as so many of his followers.

    As for when we die, I’m not worried about it. Jesus, being God and all, will hardly blame me for what he created. Jesus, being God, would know what I, the Mormon Catholic churches, and millions of gay people know– we didn’t choose it, it chose us. Our choice is to live our lives authentically, as we are made, not as sex-and-sin obsessed, so called Christian demand we should live, ignoring what their own God told them expicitly about motes and beams, judging others, and treating there as they would want to be treated. Personally, I would not want to be in YOUR shoes if I had to explain doing what you do to Jesus, or trying to explain the centuries of the Catholic Church’s sins.

    That is, if I believed any of it.

  • You’re making exactly the same gamble– believing that God had s son, when Allah knows that that is blasphemy.

  • Yet even conservative Christian polling research groups like the Barna group all acknowledge young people are leaving Christianity in droves.

  • As opposed to conservative Christians supporting Donald Trump and celebrating fascist dictatorships?

  • Faith has waxed and waned over the centuries, Brooks. Even during the middle ages priests were lamenting the empty churches — our attendance rates today, however anemic, would have been the stuff of dreams to them. In 1710 Thomas Woolston in increasingly corrupt and apostate England forecasted the extinction of Christianity by the year 1900 — that was shortly before the Wesleys and the 1st Great Awakening. Late in the 18th century in France Voltaire predicted the extinction of Christianity within 50 years. Know what the church affiliation rate in the colonies was? About 17%. Not too promising. Thomas Jefferson predicted that America would be uniformly Unitarian within a generation. The 19th and 20th centuries, however, saw the greatest number of converts to Christianity worldwide than all the previous 18th centuries combined.

    Reports of the death of Christ’s Bride have been greatly exaggerated.

  • By all means kick the guy out for promoting gay rights. Its their church, their rules. But none of that means the church is excused from any criticism such actions may bring. They fully should expect public opinion against them for their positions.

    The Catholic Church left any pretension of moral authority centuries ago.

  • Your getting my entirely correct condemnation of “GLBTQ-ness” (not the persons afflicted by those disorders,but the behaviors involved) deleted

    doesn’t make it any less true.

  • “Correct” meaning in line with their previous positions and dogma. At no point do such teachings reflect anything resembling moral behavior. The Catholic Church is well within its rights to deal with its own staff as it sees fit. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be considered morally right or beyond criticism.

    The Catholic Church is in no position to teach anyone on the subject of morality or conduct which benefits humanity.

  • It often isn’t morally right.But when it identifies same-sex sexual activity as something nothing can possibly justify,it IS morally right,even if only in the fashion of a stopped clock twice a day.

  • There is nothing moral about condemnation and attacking the life of a person in a consenting adult relationship. The clock isn’t just stopped, its hands fell off.

  • Nope…”stop doing that” does NOT mean “I hate you”.
    YOU’RE the one treating homosexuals as incapable of overcoming their disordered desires…that’s as bigoted as saying Jews are by nature usurers,Gypsies can’t help being thieves,etc.When a behavior is wrong that doesn’t make any class of people helpless slaves of a desire to do it.

  • That is simply what you tell yourself to feel better. You have to be pretty ignorant in this day and age to believe homosexuality is simply behavior and not an integral part of one’s identity. In this case its willful ignorance abetted by religious posturing. Christians are running out of socially acceptable targets for bigotry. Gays and Muslims are about all they have left right now.

    In reality you are saying, you hate gays for what they are. But you are too spineless to admit to it as such.

  • No,popular delusion does not change reality and being fooled by propaganda is not education.
    To engage in same-sex sexual activity is nothing but a behavior,and a predilection for such an innately illogical behavior is a disorder that it is a further disorder to embrace as “an integral part of one’s identity”.Any professional organization yielding to pressure to cease regarding it as a disorder thereby ceases to have anything worth listening to on the subject.

    I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue.
    I regard “gays” as able to overcome the flaw that you pretend is “what they are”.You are too spineless to demand of them that they do so,preferring to tell them the lies they want to hear.

  • Your stated belief is not supported by facts.

    It is telling the only people who adopt such a stance are those of an extreme religious bent looking to justify discriminatory behavior. Not people who could be relied upon for objective and honest representations of such issues. Your assertions are merely an un

    “I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue.”

    Of course its a religious issue. People are using religion as a pretext to justify discriminatory and malicious behavior. Saying it is their strongly held belief that gays are to be treated as less than people because of divine command to do so.

    “I regard “gays” as able to overcome the flaw that you pretend is “what they are””

    And this is based on ????? Absolutely nothing. Even the “Ex-Gay” types admitted the whole concept was a big pile of turds supported through social pressure and political expedience.

    Bigots with excuses are still bigots. You want excuses to treat gays as less than people. You made that abundantly clear.

  • I am NOT of a religious bent,yet am firmly committed to this stance.(“Discrimination” in favor of proper behavior over wrongdoing is something to mandate,not prohibit).
    Being held to the same standards of conduct as other people is not being “treated as less than people”.
    You want excuses to treat same-sex coupling as if it were not a less-than-rational behavior.
    None can ever exist!

  • OK so your argument boils down to “gays are icky”. It doesn’t do much to change my opinion on your views nor the nature of your rhetoric.

    There is nothing immoral about consensual adult relations. Your opinion on how some people chose to go about such things does not rise to a level where it is of any concern of you.

    There is nothing rational about your view. Declaring it is does not amount to proving so. You simply want to stipulate that homosexual relations are something to be shunned and attacked. I feel no need to do so.

    The rational view of the subject is that if you don’t find such relations to your tastes, don’t engage in them. But at no point are you entitled to claim any authority on the subject as to how people go about such things. The fact that you would single people out on such subjects marks you as a bigot. I could care less if you find such a label insulting. You are not doing a thing to show it is inappropriate in any way.

  • No,the argument boils down to “same-sex sex acts are icky”.Whether or not the perpetrators call themselves “gay” is irrelevant,it has nothing to do with them as people and everything to do with what they are doing.
    If persons are of the same sex,it is immoral for them to engage in sexual activity with each other.
    Declaring such activity rational does not amount to proving so,that an action is voluntary is never sufficient to justify it…and failing to see the need to shun and attack such activity does not reduce that need!
    It is a desperate ploy by the defenders of such activity to pretend that attacking it is attacking the persons of those engaged in it rather than an effort to help those people amend their behavior.But
    standards of conduct are not “bigotry” against classes defined by sharing the desire to violate those standards.And any rational standard of sexual conduct in a sexually dimorphic species must affirm that all sexual relationships should be opposite-sex and all failures to adhere to this norm,no matter how numerous or shameless,are cause for regret and discouragement.

  • “If persons are of the same sex,it is immoral for them to engage in sexual activity with each other.”

    Because you say so. And nothing else. Argument by stipulation. You have not remotely tried to support your position in any way beyond such declarations. Why must all relations be heterosexual? Because you say so. That’s all you got. That is not even close to a rational position.

    I consider your declarations utter garbage. There is nothing immoral about such things as they are acts of consenting adults and not even remotely harmful to anyone else.

    Its none of your goddamn business what people do in their bedrooms anyway. Your need to single out people on such things is not even remotely moral. It denotes a personal need to trespass on the lives of others which is deeply immoral. A person looking for excuses to act like a malicious SOB. You use the word “rational”, but are completely unable to provide a rational argument to support yourself.

    You are not only a bigot, but an unimaginative one. Your only argument is “I say so”. Well the world doesn’t revolve around you. Tough luck.

  • THAT THE SPECIES HAS TWO SEXES determines that only opposite-sex sexual relationships are logical and all others need to be discouraged.I consider all attempts to defend same-sex coupling to be utter garbage.Nobody’s say-so matters,neither mine nor yours…my first sentence is a complete rational argument to which any attempted counter is nonsense.And the charge of bigotry remains ridiculous.

  • So sexual relations only exist for procreation? Homosexuality exists among lots of different mammals. You can’t even honestly say it is even unnatural.

    Just not to your tastes. As far as anyone is concerned morality had nothing to do with such things. Again, your need to talk about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is hardly a moral position. It is just intrusive trespass on others.

    You are a lazy bigot who can’t defend his position beyond ridiculous declaration. I got that. You haven’t once made a rational argument. You just make blanket stipulations.

    We’re done here. You have nothing interesting to say beyond expressing your poorly defined bigotry. Pathetic excuses to treat others badly. I could not care how you want to justify your position.

  • No again,that false dichotomy is of course a favorite ploy of defenders of same-sex sex.
    It is unreasonably restrictive to require sexual acts to be reproductive and unreasonably permissive to allow same-sex sex partners.Common sense is found only between these caricatured extremes.
    You are the lazy one who can’t be bothered to acknowledge the difference between right and wrong and the equal application thereof regardless of wrongdoers’ desires.You don’t appear to recognize rational arguments.

  • How deep in the closet are you?

    The only adults I can think of who would think homosexuality is a choice of behavior are people who would be likely to such physical attractions.

    I am a heterosexual with no desire to even consider same sex relations. Even my porn stash is exclusively heterosexual. I am just built that way. It would not be a choice because I lack the basic physical desire. I never chose to be heterosexual. I just am.

    You obviously think its a choice. Meaning you think people who would normally be heterosexual just choose not to. That flies in the face of everything people know about sexual relations. Aside from paid sexual performers, people engage in relations with those they find physically desirable.

    So clearly you must be just some kind of self loathing type or an immature troll who knows nothing about adult relationships.

    There is nothing rational about your self declared drivel. Most of all you are a bigot and generally immoral person because you seek excuses to attack and demean others.

  • Determined to check every tired tactic in the “LGBT” playbook,are you?
    Asserting that only those who are secretly homosexual can be seriously concerned with homosexuality is the “Only Murderers Read Murder Mysteries Fallacy”.
    Also in your arsenal of toy weapons are the “Honey I Ate the Kids Fallacy” (other species have been shown to engage in such behavior,so it’s OK for humans),the “Crack Pipes For the Crack Babies Fallacy” (born that way so it has to be OK to act on it),the “High Morale in the Mafia Fallacy” (it’s a right to feel good about whatever you want to do),and the “The Garden Looks So Much Greener Since We Stopped Weeding It Fallacy” (it’s great to have more diversity rather than recognize anything as better than anything else).

    Homosexual acts are the result of voluntary decisions,and since the acts are homosexual the decision to engage in them is automatically mistaken.Neither the cause nor the mutability of the desire to engage in those actions is capable of any relevance at all to the wrongness of the act.
    That the orientation may not be chosen offers no excuse to choose to gratify it!

  • It makes more sense than the turds you are laying. Just saying, ” ___ is rational” is not the same as actually proving it. That is all you have been doing. Its boring and lazy. Your reference to phony fallacies makes your posts even lazier. You aren’t actually refuting anything I said. Just pretending it could be dismissed out of hand.

    Only someone who is homosexual (or bisexual) is attracted to those of the same sex. Heterosexual people are not. If you are thinking you have a choice in the matter, you either don’t know a damn thing about human sexuality or you are attracted to the same sex but feel some need to repress it. For example when I flog my dolphin, I am not making moral considerations as to the subject matter said dolphin is being flogged to. That is simply a matter of my hardwired personal tastes. They are exclusively heterosexual. So I know its not a matter of choice what I am attracted to. Its innate. If you are laboring under the misapprehension it is some kind of choice, then something about you thinks one has feelings for the same sex, but must not act on it. You are clearly in the closet.

    So why is homosexual relations wrong? They aren’t. Its of no harm to you or anyone else. You have not once stated why it should be.

    By the way WTF is it of your concern what consenting adults do in such matters? It isn’t. You are a bigot because you are looking for excuses to treat others badly. That makes you a terrible person. Worse still, you are boring as hell. There is nothing you have said, nor likely to say which will make me change my opinion that you are a bigot, lazy and not particularly intelligent. Bless your heart. I will pray for you.

  • If you think that attraction to the same sex does not need to be dismissed out of hand,you are the one who doesn’t understand sexuality logically.It most certainly is harmful to EVERYONE for ANYONE to gratify any such attraction.And saying there’s nothing wrong with it,besides being a symptom and a proof of the harm it has caused,makes you a terrible person.

  • I myself have been affronted by over five men at different times when I was a child and adolescent (on the bus, neighbor, relative, etc) that were all pretty well suspected to be homosexuals who tried to do inappropriate things but luckily I was aggressive and assertive enough to prevent any progression.

    Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters.

    Homosexuals comprise perhaps two percent of the population, yet according to the Journal of Sex Research, homosexual pedophiles are responsible for 33% of all child sex offenses. Homosexuals molest children at at least 10 times the rate of heterosexuals.

    The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004. The results were conclusive: This was not a “pedophile” scandal, but a homosexual scandal. Eighty percent of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with “only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” An updated report, issued in 2011, revealed similar numbers: 81 percent of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent.

    The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term “twink” denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, “homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.” This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1–3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children.

    The USCCB initially acknowledged the problem of gay priests. In 2004, it declared that “80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature” and went on to affirm that “an understanding of the crisis is not possible” without referring to “the presence of homosexually oriented priests.” Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins, a member of the National Review Board, confirmed that the priestly sex abuse scandal was “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”

    The Church has been infiltrated by homosexuals who have hidden within the ranks and are responsible for shuffling around predatory priests because they are all in the cabal. Look up Lavender Mafia for further insight.

  • Veritas, I have read through your comments. You said about Kinsey:

    “Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.”

    Actually, Kinsey found that 37 percent of all males in his sample had some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm, some time between adolescence and old age.

    That is quite different.

    But let’s say that the Church was, as you suggest, affected by a “Lavender Mafia.” How could this be countered?

    One way would be to open up the priesthood to married clergy. That would not solve all the problems, but having a clergy made up by men who are not the marrying kind is not the best way of dealing with the problem of clerical sexual abuse of young people.

  • Yes, it does include other institutions such as Tennis Australia and other organisations. The Royal Commission is very thorough and quite comprehensive.

    Also, there is nothing snide about the fact that the lives of some girls have been ruined by the sexual abuse of member of the clergy.

  • You are referring to mainstream publications that often have a significant number of homosexual employees and higher-ups, you think that they will say anything against homosexuals? Can you show me any time ever where they have? These companies completely kowtow to the political correctness of the zeitgeist. Truth is rarely ever stated on any controversial topic. They say all non-mainstream sources are “biased” and thus poison the well and the masses are more than willing to accept that without examination because they themselves know their lack of intellectual rigor and so have to feign sophistication. Truth is found anywhere, reason and logic are the tools necessary to discern it.

    POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE CURRENT INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE (currently postmodernism and feminism where everything is a social construct, worshiping their idol Michael Focault, himself a drug-using HIV homosexual) completely rule academia and the scientific establishment. The West is defined by a few intellectuals who are followed by the majority in these institutions who really have no courage to question their heroes. Conformity is the rule of the day.

    “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable…” -HL Mencken

    What is not true, as everyone knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them, and an air of finality that collides with their incurable romanticism. -HL Mencken

  • It seems you view people who disagree with you as in a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories, of course, could be true, but more often than not they are false. Talking about a homosexual conspiracy has as much credibility as talking about a Jewish conspiracy or a Vatican conspiracy.

    Yes, people do fight for their interests against the evidence – the tobacco companies and asbestos producers are obvious examples, but that’s not the same as trying to explain everything as the result of a conspiracy.

  • lol I’m not denigrating, just telling the truth. And there is absolutely nothing you can cite that could possibly prove this absurd theory of a correlation between criticism of homosexual lifestyles and abuse of minors. Preposterous twaddle. Either get serious or don’t comment.

  • There’s no evidence that a celibate clergyman suffering from sexual temptation is more likely to turn his attention to a 12-year-old boy because he can’t marry a woman.

  • No, DB, liar, pro-rape bigot.

    “Either get serious or don’t comment.”

    Since that is advice you don’t live, because if you did, you couldn’t own computer, get over your racist, homophobic, delusional, pro-rape misogynist evil self.

  • Accept these facts, or not, they remain fact:

    Every GLBTQ person is far better than you in every ethical and moral way.

    Every person of color is superior to you, in every ethical and moral way.

    The average 3rd grader is better educated than you.

    Strung out crack addicts have been critical thinking skills that you do.

  • Married clergy would be less likely to be attracted to 12-year-old boys.

    If the rate of Catholic clerical sexual abuse fell to the levels found in other churches, the result would not be perfect. However, it would be less harmful than the present set-up.

  • Perhaps if they allowed married men to become priests, a smaller proportion of priests would have pedophile urges.

  • Heterosexuals are in general not likely to engage in pedophilic behavior. What we’re really talking about is ephebophilic behavior, and to that end what really matters is to prevent homosexuals from entering the seminaries. This is what the Church has tried to do more since the 70’s. Most of the high profile cases we hear about concern priests ordained during the 70’s, when Wilhelm Reich’s theories were being applied. There was a time when people thought the Church would allow married clergy and contraception. Many heterosexuals entered the seminaries thinking there would be a change, and they left after Humanae Vitae.

  • First of all, I am a traditional, Latin Mass-attending Roman Catholic, which means I’m not one of these Catholics who thinks you can be in good standing and still support abortion or contraception. That’s impossible, of course, but the point I’m making is that there is not one doctrinal teaching of the Church with which I disagree. The Church teaches that sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. That doesn’t mean I hate homosexuals, but I will always speak up against inherently sodomitical behavior. So, maybe you should understand who you’re talking to. I’m not going to slump away like a beat bitch because someone calls me a ‘homophobe’, a ‘racist’, or whatever meaningless marxian twaddle people use in substitution of an argument.

    You don’t understand the clerical abuse scandal. Most people don’t. Most people do not understand Wilhelm Reich. The Sexual Revolution ran roughshod over the entire country, and the Catholic Church was no different. Reich basically had two pillars: sexualize children and sexualize the Catholic clergy. If you don’t understand Wilhelm Reich, you cannot understand the crisis.

  • So you are one of those anti-Jesus types.
    ” The Church teaches that sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.”

    Which is two reasons why the RCC denomination is not Christian.

    The RCC is not, by any means ‘the Church’. It is at best, if one is very, very generous, a deeply flawed portion of the Church. Second, that heresy “sodomy is a sin” produces evil fruit, including murder, rape, torture, brutality of every kind, and the RCC is directly and explicitly responsible for the systemic oppression, slaughter and repression of hundreds of millions of people – and not just GLBTQ people. Jesus taught that false teachers are recognized by their evil fruit, and the RCC produces evil fruit, its condemnation of homosexuality produces evil fruit, and its lackeys, like you, produce evil fruit. By Jesus’ own test, the RCC, its teaching on homosexuality (and other subjects) and folks like you, are evil. To you and your pope’s, Christ will say “I know you not”.

    ” That doesn’t mean I hate homosexuals,”

    Of course it does. It can mean nothing else.

    ” I’m not going to slump away like a beat bitch because someone calls me a
    ‘homophobe’, a ‘racist’, or whatever meaningless marxian twaddle people
    use in substitution of an argument.”

    Of course not. You’d have to have a conscience to take such criticisms seriously. Since you don’t have one, they won’t effect you.

    You are a liar and a slanderer, and as such, your are self-barred from the Kingdom of Heaven.

  • ” from degenerates like you,”

    Such slander only affirms the ugliness of your character. The degenerate in this issue is every person who claims that homosexuality is a sin, and every person who attempts to link homosexuality to pedophilia.

    Josh Duggar pulled that, and was caught out as a sexual predator, molested his own sisters. The reality, db, is that people like you who malign GLBTQ people, are more likely than any other group of people to engage in abuse, including sexual abuse, of other people.

    So Josh was maligning GLBTQ people in public to cover up the fact that he sexually abused his sisters. You are maligning GLBTQ people in public – what are you covering up? Who did you abuse, steal from, kill, rape? What is your crime?

  • Moral sense obligates us to reject all attempts to excuse the practice of same-sex coupling.As for the absurd claim that Jesus was God incarnate only the gullible could ever take it seriously.

  • No, that is not moral sense, that is ego.

    “As for the absurd claim that Jesus was God incarnate only the gullible could ever take it seriously.”

    So you are a multilevel bigot. Your claim above is also simply a manifestation of ego, not rational thought.

    Like so many, you spew out degradation to inflate your ego.

  • Standards of conduct are not “bigotry” against those inclined to violate those standards,nor is insistence on truth “bigotry” against those fond of delusion.

  • “Standards of conduct” what a deeply evil way to characterize rape, murder, theft, blackmail, setting people on fire, burning churches, brutality and cruelty of every kind.

    “,nor is insistence on truth “bigotry” against those fond of delusion.

    You are not posting the truth, nor did anything I post indicate that insisting on the truth is bigotry. Your desperate lies indicate that you are devoid of conscience and have no moral sense.

    And of course, the fact that you failed to master basic punctuation taught to first graders makes your sociopathic rants all the more worthless.

  • That all same-sex sexual activity is logically indefensible is a standard of conduct and a truth.
    I referred to nothing else you mention…the lies are all yours.

  • “That all same-sex sexual activity is logically indefensible is a standard of conduct and a truth.”

    No, it is a degenerate premise demonstrating a lack of morals and a tendency toward sociopathy.

    “I referred to nothing else you mention…”

    Nice lie.

    “the lies are all yours.”

    No, liar. But such lack of morals is to be expected of one who rejects religion, after all, the purpose of rejecting religion is to create the illusion of being free from morals and ethics – as well as feeding one’s ego by demonizing most of humanity.

  • Morals are purer,not nonexistent,when freed of the adulteration caused by religion.
    And genuine morals and reason require acceptance of the fact that the evolution of sexual dimorphism precludes any possible justification for same-sex sexual activity in any such species and defines all failures to adhere to this norm as deplorable.As the ideal social fabric of any such species must have no sexual relationship that is not opposite-sex,it is the attempt to defend same-sex sex acts that is necessarily sociopathic.

    Any denial of the above you respond with,will be a lie.

  • In Australia the Royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse found that both boys and girls were victims of predatory sexual behaviour by adults. I don’t think that this is a question of homosexuality or heterosexuality, but a question of child sexual abuse.

  • Nice delusion. Your donaldesque word salad is simply another depraved attempt to feed your ego at the expense of others.

    “the evolution of sexual dimorphism precludes any possible justification for same-sex sexual activity”

    Your ignorance is amusing. Since homosexuality exists in thousands of species, your claim is irrational.

    “Any denial of the above you respond with,will be a lie.”

    How conveniently conceited. One of the many problems with atheists like you is that you actually set yourselves up as God. In fact, that is one of the two reasons atheism exists. Atheism is the worst prejudice of all, so first of all, it exists to feed the ego’s of atheists, but its other purpose is to allow atheists to believe that they are gods.

  • “That all same-sex sexual activity is logically indefensible is a standard of conduct and a truth.”

    No, that is simply your bigoted opinion, it has no basis in reality. Simply a sick lie you tell yourself so you can hide some deep and terrible crime you’ve committed.

    Josh Duggar sexually abused his sisters, and reviling GLBTQ people in public to distract attention from his crime.

    Who did you abuse?

  • Don’t deny it, Louis, the evidence is too strong – there an explicit correlation: people who denigrate GLBTQ people are more likely than anyone else to abuse other people, sexually or otherwise.

    It is just a matter of finding out what evil you have committed.

  • I’m not an atheist,I’m a plain-vanilla theist…I regard it as beyond rational doubt that there must be an Infinitely First Cause,and regard all claims that books are written by or groups founded by the IFC to be clearly unsupported.

    As I noted previously,observing that other species engage in a behavior doesn’t make it defensible for humans.Lots of wrong things happen.

  • Anyone sufficiently mentally disturbed to identify as a “GLBTQ person” has a serious character disorder.
    Anyone who sees same-sex sex acts as intrinsically wrong understands sexuality better than you.

    THOSE are the incontrovertibly relevant facts…not the lying propaganda you tirelessly spew.

  • Everything you say is false.
    Getting my post deleted doesn’t make it false.

    I never believed in the Easter Bunny.
    To be afflicted by homosexual orientation is to be flawed.
    To believe that one’s homosexuality is not a disorder is to be wrong.
    To engage in same-sex sex acts,no matter how willing a co-conspirator one may have,is to engage in wrongdoing
    I do not equate people with their wrongdoing.

    Stop pretending that to attack wrongdoing is to attack the persons involved.

  • People who defend same-sex sexual activity prove they have no moral sense.You are committing evil right now.

  • Nice hate speech. But that is all your empty assertion is.

    How many tens of people did you sexually assault, causing to come into public places and verbally abuse GLBTQ people to cover your crime?

  • Your hate speech only indicates that the crimes you’ve committed, as your peer Josh ‘rape his sisters’ Duggar committed, are truly serious and disgusting.

    Who did you rape?

  • “I’m not an atheist,I’m a plain-vanilla theist…”

    No, you are mostly an illiterate liar using terms you don’t even understand.

    Josh Duggar used to spew the same anti-gay filth you are spewing, Louis, to cover up the fact that he sexually abused his sisters.

    Who did you abuse?

  • None!…and there is no “hate speech” in calling the contemptible vice of same-sex coupling what it is,only unconscionable falsehood in attempting to defend it.

  • Nobody.
    And until you start fulfilling the universal obligation to be “anti-gay”,all the filth here is coming from you.

  • crying to Heaven for vengence is not the same thing as crying to “WE the People” for vengence. Do not judge PEOPLE!

  • “Do not judge PEOPLE!”

    Such hypocrisy on your part, Alexis. After all, the depraved belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is entirely about judging and condemning people. And you are judging me as well.

    The truth, you and your peers, like db, feel empowered to judge and condemn GLBTQ people, but are outraged when your sin against us is rebuked.

    Further, your argument has no bearing on the matter.

  • I am the one who said don;t judge. not you! You are the one putting words in my mouth so that you can judge me, no objection, those are the words of a 3000 year old tradition. do you judge yourself as smarter than 3000 years of Judeo Christian tradition ? Before we took over people with your condition were thrown to apes to be sodomised for the sadistic entertainment at the pagan Roman arenai am sorry you are sick and would like to help you but you have no right to pretend your sexual problems are everybody elses

  • Now you are making some sense, the healthy part of you is speaking. See what healing takes place when you get your mind out of the sewer

  • Your nastiness is sin, Alexi. Please repent.

    ” See what healing takes place when you get your mind out of the sewer”

    Someday you make experience that very state, which I am daily familiar with.

  • “I am the one who said don;t judge. not you!”

    You are the sinful hypocrite who threw that advice out and did not live up to it, indeed.

    “You are the one putting words in my mouth so that you can judge me,”

    Your false accusation is sin against me personally. Please repent.

    “do you judge yourself as smarter than 3000 years of Judeo Christian tradition ?”

    Nothing in my posts indicates any such thing, so again, you are sinning against me. However, I do think that I am smarter than someone who hasn’t learned that the first letter of the first word of a sentence in English capitalized, Alexi.

    “Before we took over people with your condition”

    My condition? What gutter did you scrape that from? Your fantasy only reflects your character and your desires, Alexi. What an evil thing you are posting.

    “i am sorry you are sick and would like to help you but you have no right to pretend your sexual problems are everybody elses”

    Oh slanderer, I am not sick. And you are not capable of helping anyone. You are self-damned for slandering me – for slanderers like you do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven according to Paul.

    Your lies about me are damning sin, and I bind you to them in Christ’s name, never to know forgiveness until you repent sincerely here.

    The reality, slanderer, is that homosexuality is not a sin, or a sickness, and evil people like you, who demonize gays and lesbians, are workers of iniquity. You and your peers, when you do not directly murder or torture gays and lesbians, incite violence against us, and that damns you if you do not repent.

    You judge me for my God-given gift of sexuality, but it damns you.

  • Having read your vile and depraved post at me, Alexi – you cannot follow Jesus Christ and believe/proclaim “homosexuality is sin”. It is spiritually impossible.

    You are self-damned, unless you repent of your sins against me, GLBTQ people, humanity, and God.

    But I bet you won’t. I bet your pride is too huge for you to even acknowledge how much you have sinned in your ignorant and nearly illiterate posts.

  • Where did you get the right to presume what Christ will say to any of us? And I’d like to know what systematic oppression and slaughter you’re talking about. I’m sure you’ll say a bunch of historically illiterate nonsense about the Crusades and Inquisitions. I’m perfectly capable of educating you on those subjects if you’d be willing to listen.

  • ‘Uncountable’ wealth?! lol. They have the wealth in hard assets, not liquid assets, and if the Vatican were a business they wouldn’t scratch the Forbes 500. They operate in the red because of all the charity work they do. Gosh, you are quite possibly the most ignorant person I’ve come across on the Internet.

  • um…homosexuality is quite obviously sinful. It is a complete repudiation of God’s design. Only a decadent society would regard homosexuality as virtuous.

  • “There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.”

    If there was no evidence then the rate of sexual abuse in the different churches would be about equal. However, it’s not. Yes, sexual abuse occurs everywhere but the Catholic Church has a particular problem with it.

    Take this report from Australia: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4445757/church-prospects-grim-while-abuse-culture-remains/

    This is not a problem that is confined to the Catholic Church, but it is clearly a particular problem for that church. That is why the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has had to spend so much time and so many resources in uncovering the scandals that plagued that one organisation.

    If you are looking for evidence, try looking at Boston, at Ireland and at Australia. The mantra of “No evidence whatsoever” is too tattered to be credible.

  • “homosexuality is quite obviously sinful. It is a complete repudiation of God’s design.”

    This nonsense yet again, and unless it is a new loser with the same id, from you again.

    God’s design, db, is far more diverse than just heterosexuality. I believe I told someone using that id before at least three times.

    God’s design for sexuality, from what we know on earth, is not limited to nor does it favor heterosexuals. The dominant form of sexuality on earth, in terms of number of species, number of individuals, and total mass of living organisms that use it – is asexual reproduction. In fact, a large part of your body is not human cells, but asexual living things.

    The next most common, and most successful form of sexuality is forms of hermaphrodism – having the sexual organs of both genders. Flowering plants, species of molluscs, they out number species that rely on gender dimorphism and heterosexual reproduction.

    Then we get to heterosexuality, from tapeworms and homophobes to giraffes and gulper eels. And the more than a thousand species in which homosexuality is a normal variation. And the most successful two classes of species on earth – bees, ants and wasps, and termites, in which most individuals never reproduce at all.

    God ‘s design is much grander and more diverse than your prejudice allows.

    Your claim contradicts the Creation, db, which Paul said reveals the hidden nature of God.

    “Only a decadent society would regard homosexuality as virtuous.”
    Your depraved and slanderous fantasy only indicates that you have no idea what virtue is.

    So, about your sick fantasy. It produces evil fruit, and only evil fruit. People are murdered because of the sick idea you are vomiting up here – as I believe I’ve told you before. People are raped because of the filth you’ve posted here.

    That means that your belief is the opposite of virtue, it is evil. According to Jesus, because your belief produces evil fruit, like rape and murder, your belief about homosexuals is evil, and that means you are a false teacher, a worker of iniquity to whom Christ will say “I know you not”.

    Matthew 7:15-23 – I’m pretty sure I’ve shared that with you before, because you’ve posted this same fecal material before.

  • “‘Uncountable’ wealth?! lol. They have the wealth in hard assets, not liquid assets,”

    db, you’ve already proven yourself a liar.

    ” They operate in the red because of all the charity work they do.”

    Nice break with reality.

    ” Gosh, you are quite possibly the most ignorant person I’ve come across on the Internet.”

    Oh, db, that is just your ego trying to find a way to get out of having to back up your filth with facts.

  • “Where did you get the right to presume what Christ will say to any of us?”

    Ask yourself that same question, dp the hypocrite. After all, you and your sinfilled peers have done nothing but malign GLBTQ people. But db, hypocrite, I’ve shared Matthew 7:15-23 with your before, and Jesus is clear:

    15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    So basically, db, and not for the first time, you are rejecting Christ. You are arguing that Jesus is not a credible witness to his own actions.

    “And I’d like to know what systematic oppression and slaughter you’re talking about.”

    If your ignorance were real, it would be pathetic and inexcusable and mean you have no business even posting at anyone on this matter. But it is a sham, for I am confident that I’ve personally provided you with detailed evidence of the persecution of GLBTQ people over the centuries.

    You are all noise and no knowledge.

  • Your empty dismssal indicates intellectual impotent, ignorance, and extraordinarily bloated ego on your part.

  • So basically, db, you ran away from our discussion three months ago and have come back now, hoping to vomit your hate up on me again without rebuttal.

    “First of all, I am a traditional, Latin Mass-attending Roman Catholic,”
    And that means that you obey a human instead of Jesus Christ, a man elected from a corrupt group of politicians pretending to be servants of Christ.

  • Prove both of your claims.

    And science, as well as philosophy, have logical justifications for same-sex sexual activity.

    One very logical justification for same-sex sexual activity is that it is natural for homosexuals, and beneficial to them.

    You make a lot of noise, but have nothing real to say.

    Further, someone like you, who clearly hasn’t mastered basic punctuation taught in the first grade, simply cannot be taken seriously on any subject.

    Back to Josh Duggar, and the correlation between expressing homophobia in public, and a life of secret crimes – what are you hiding, Louis E?

  • “Scientists and philosophers”

    You lose from the start. Louis, you were told to provide proof for your claims, not to vilify other people with more accusations you cannot back up.

    “But any attempted defense is irrational.”

    Not at all, but again, this is a claim for which there is no evidence.

    “It is no more “beneficial” for those afflicted by the disorder of homosexuality”

    Homosexuality is not a disorder, so your premise is based on either ignorance, or deliberate malice and slander.

    Further, science has documented the deep benefits of being in an intimate, unitive relationship.

    “of homosexuality than arson is to pyromaniacs…”

    Equating homosexuality with arson and pyromania indicates not only that you are devoid of morals, you have no credible argument at all. You are simply spewing up hate speech out of sadistic tendencies.

    Arson destroys property, and often, human lives. Homosexuality does not. Your comparison is false. Before you make any irrational claim about the dangers of gay sex – 97% of all HIV/AIDS cases are in heterosexuals, spread by heterosexual sex, and the leading cause of death for women throughout recorded history has been pregnancy, complications from delivery, and post-natal conditions caused by pregnancy. Heterosexual sex frequently produces fatal physical health problems for women – not that you’d give a damn.

    “.the enjoyment derived by indulging a weakness for wrongdoing is not a benefit.”

    That characterization has nothing to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with your posts. See, your enjoyment derived from demonzing GLBTQ people – sadism on your part – is a sign of your weakness for wrongdoing. Which is why I still want to know – what terrible evil thing did you do that makes you demonizing GLBTQ people in order to feel good about yourself?

    “To be blind is “natural” for those born without eyes,but nature is full of flaws!”

    Your comparison is bizarre, but you know, it works against heterosexuality as well. After all, science points out that sexual reproduction is nature’s way of battling death, parasitism and disease – like the blindness of creatures without eyes, heterosexuality exists only to compensate for the flaw of death, disease and parasitism.

    “You make lots of denials,but the real facts are as I state them.”

    You have yet to post a fact.

    “That you prefer the wasteful if popular practice of spacing after
    punctuation marks lends you no greater logic,for all that it lets you
    seize on yet another irrelevance to avoid facing the total falsity of
    your position.”

    The wasteful practice exists to facilitate clarity, so it is not surprising that someone committed to obfuscation and slander would reject it. It simply proves that you are functionally illiterate, incompetent, and intellectually impotent. You scream your little claims with pathetic egotistical fury, but they are not based on fact or reality.

    ‘Ah,the “Only Murderers Read Murder Mysteries Fallacy”.”

    Nope. Nice try, but again, your false claim indicates your lack of critical thinking skills and education. I provided one, out of a vast horde of example that demonstrate correlation.

    Your peers are know for their evil, so it is most likely that you too are hiding something equally disgusting. The psychological mechanism is well-known.

    “But you’re still wrong.”

    Nope. In fact, that volume of words you spewed up to distract attention from the question indicates that what you are hiding is quite terrible.

    Did you rape children, as your peer Josh Duggar did? Or did you cheat on your spouse, as so many homophobic clergy and politicians have done? Did you steal from people who trusted you – that too is common among leaders of any kind who spew anti-gay hate speech in public.

    See, psychologist and anyone who follows that science know what’s up. You and your peers commit terrible crimes that make you feel ashamed, crimes whose guilty erodes your self- worth, and you desperately need to feel superior.

    So, to restore your illusion of superiority, you and your peers come into public places and spew hatred on GLBTQ people, or people of color, or women, or Jews, or Muslims.

    Regardless of the target, the purpose of your hate speech and that of your depraved peers, is to make yourselves look good by tearing others down, and you need to do that because you know full well what terrible and evil things you’ve done.

    You’ll never be free until you confess and are punished for the evil you’ve committed.

    So confess, Louis. What evil did you do that drives you to demonize other humans beings in public?

  • Yeah, you can’t refute what I’ve said. Actually it was Forbes themselves who said this.

    You’re an intellectual midget and a liar.

  • “I didn’t run away from you”

    Of course you did. You’ve always failed to refute all of the claims I made. As i said

    “What persecution are you talking about?”

    I’ve explicitly described it many times.

    If your ignorance were real, it would be pathetic and inexcusable and
    mean you have no business even posting at anyone on this matter. But
    it is a sham, for I am confident that I’ve personally provided you with
    detailed evidence of the persecution of GLBTQ people over the centuries.

    You are all noise and no knowledge.

  • Let’s see how you respond to incontrovertible facts.

    There’s a high correlation between homosexuality and ephebophilia and hebophilia. It’s what Milo’s in trouble for right now. And it’s exactly what played out in the clerical abuse scandal the Church is dealing with.

    According to Bell and Weinberg (1978), 23% of active homosexual men randomly sampled reported one or more sexual experiences with a minor under the statutory age of 16.

    Jay and Young (1979) found 30% of homosexuals surveyed were open to the idea of having sexual relationships with boys under 16.

    Cameron, in his book, The Gay Nineties, notes that while 2 to 3% of the male population is homosexual, 20 to 40% of minor and child molestation incidents involve homosexuals, making the probability of a homosexual molesting a minor 10 to 20 times more likely than that of a heterosexual.

    According to a Family Research Report, 10% of sexual assaults in the military were homosexual, which is wildly disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the military. Naturally, the same would be true within the seminaries, where even if a full 20% of seminarians were homosexual, they’d still account for 4 times more abuses than their heterosexual counterparts.

    In 1948, Alfred Kinsey found that 37% of male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under the age of 17.

    A 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys, thus the rate of homosexual attraction to much younger children is 620 times likelier for homosexuals. Another study in the same journal found that all but 9 of 48 homosexual men preferred the 2 youngest male age categories for sexual activity, 15 and 20.

    Another paper I can cite is ‘Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference’ by Freund, Watson, and Rienzo, published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1989, which notes that the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders of female children among heterosexual men.

    WD Erickson’s 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

  • I haven’t noticed anything substantial in any of your comments. In one of my recent responses to you, I cited several studies proving the correlation between homosexuality and ephebophilia/hebophilia.

  • You did not post any facts.

    What you did was plagiarize from the Family Research Council, a known hate group. That’s comparable to taking health advice from Big Tobacco.

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
    “Even though most Americans don’t regard gay people as child molesters,
    confusion remains widespread in this area.
    To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of
    scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child
    molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.

    One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data
    from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be
    representative of the population of all child molesters.
    Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted
    perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help.
    Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have
    never been caught or have not sought treatment.

    The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual
    orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have
    an adult sexual orientation.
    They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships
    with other adults, either men or women.
    Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or
    children of both sexes.

    Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters.
    For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators’ sexual
    attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum –
    from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

    Typologies of offenders have often included a
    distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for
    children as sexual partners and those who have established
    age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children
    under unusual circumstances of extreme stress.
    Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive
    interest in children – have been labeled fixated.
    Fixation means “a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological
    maturation
    resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie
    the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth &
    Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176).
    Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being “stuck” at an early
    stage of psychological development.

    By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed.
    Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more
    mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the
    immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in
    the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177).
    Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under
    certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature
    psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

    Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression
    distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional
    categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).

    For the present discussion, the important point is that many child
    molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals,
    heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because
    they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or
    woman.
    Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age.
    These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

    Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978)
    studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual
    assault against a child.
    None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
    83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;”
    70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals;
    the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals.
    Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult
    relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with
    women.
    However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their
    preference for women….There were no men who were
    primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

    Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly
    failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation.
    Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts,
    representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency
    room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a
    one-year period
    (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992).
    The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in
    which
    an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny
    et al., 1994).

    In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children,
    some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult
    men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child,
    pubescent, and mature adult).
    All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they
    preferred physically mature sexual partners.
    In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in
    others, he or she was nude.
    The slides were accompanied by audio recordings.
    The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual
    interaction between the model and the subject.
    The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the
    model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming).
    To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volume were
    monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes.
    The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male
    children than
    heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

    In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that
    homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest
    children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

  • So, you used false information from a hate site, and committed the intellectual crime of plagiarism, by taking someone else’s work and presenting it as your own.

    Now, the reality is that people like you, db, who mouth off demonizing gays and lesbians, are much more likely to be sexual predators. Like Josh Duggar, who ran his mouth of demonizing gays in public – and then was exposed as a sexual predator who has molested his own sisters when they were very, very young. Oh, and he worked for the source you plagiarized from, the Family Research Council.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/?utm_term=.00c2bee71dcd
    “In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he “acted inexcusably” and was “deeply sorry” for what he called “my wrongdoing.”

    The 27-year-old Duggar, a high-profile member of the evangelical Christian family that stars on TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting,” also resigned his post with the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying organization.”

    So db – what is your crime? Duggar is but one of many, many examples that demonstrate a correlation between being a homophobe, and engaging in destructive and abusive behaviors.

    You wouldn’t be here, demonizing millions of people who are all superior to you, if you didn’t have something dark and terrible that you are hiding, something that makes you hate yourself so much, you have to demonize millions of people to convince yourself that your own life is not so bad.

    Did you rape someone, db? Or cheat on a spouse or two or three? Steal from people who trusted you?

    What is your deep crime, db, that makes you come here and demonize GLBTQ people?

  • Again on your plagiarized “alternative facts”:
    Note by the way that this is from the Psychology department of U.C. Davis, not a hate group like the material you stole and presented as your own.

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
    The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim.
    It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

    With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific
    journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly
    discussion of the issue.
    On further examination, however, its central argument – that “the
    evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly
    disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls” –
    doesn’t hold up.

    In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed.
    The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

    Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

    This article is discussed above in the “Other Approaches” section.
    As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument.
    The abstract summarizes the authors’ conclusion: “Findings indicate that
    homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to
    male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners
    responded to female children.”

    Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.

    The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the
    previous paper above).
    However, the methodologies were quite different.
    Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and
    they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to
    that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study.
    Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers
    who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale
    to rate their sexual attractiveness.
    The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally
    estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50.
    However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range
    in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

    The article doesn’t report the data in great detail (e.g., average
    ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren’t
    reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the
    rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged
    from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale).
    In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as “very
    sexually attractive” (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average
    ratings were approximately 5.

    On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive
    (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining
    steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on
    average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female
    faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female
    faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces
    rated the least attractive (about 1).

    A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn’t control
    for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might
    simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others,
    independent of their age or gender.
    The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating
    that the women’s faces in the 25-year old group might have been more
    attractive than women’s faces in the other age groups.
    But they didn’t address the possibility that the attractiveness of the
    male and female faces may not have been comparable.

    This issue could have been addressed in various ways.
    For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have
    started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of
    independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of
    the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select
    photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness.
    Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a
    common procedure in social psychological research.

    Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is
    relevant, it doesn’t support the FRC’s contention that gay men are more
    likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

    the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;

    all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and

    the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants’ sexual arousal.

    Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

    This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they
    molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or
    both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual
    pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This
    classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual
    orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation)
    wasn’t assessed.

    Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.

    In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed.
    Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn’t assessed.
    The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization.
    It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.

    Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.

    This study, described above in the section on “Other Approaches,”
    contradicts the FRC’s argument.
    The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn’t directly
    interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims’ medical charts
    for information about the offender’s sexual orientation.
    However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in
    this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or
    did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators
    (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988).
    Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it
    leads to results they dislike.

    Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.

    In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested
    a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to
    18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child.
    Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males
    and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of
    both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a
    boy.
    During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was
    instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube
    to his penis.
    The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases
    interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.

    The FRC cites this study as showing that “a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders.”
    This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

    The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by
    the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup.
    They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the
    female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup.
    The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight,
    bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature
    of the offenders’ adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any
    such relationships.

    Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.

    This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the
    strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child
    molesters.
    In citing this study, the FRC says it:

    refers to homosexual pedophiles as a “distinct group.” The victims of
    homosexual pedophiles “were more likely to be strangers, that they were
    more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that
    involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past
    convictions for sexual offences…. Other studies [showed a] greater
    risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls” and that
    the “recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice
    that for female-victim offenders.”

    In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other
    studies, not reporting new data.
    In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing
    published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on
    the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay).
    Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are
    highlighted):

    “Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders
    based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood
    out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were
    more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged
    in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and
    they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences.
    Other studies have employed the sex-of-victim approach in the
    prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys
    or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders, and
    although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby, Weinrott,
    and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found
    that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the
    sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and
    contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have
    demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups [bibliographic references omitted].
    Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those
    child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as
    many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary
    to the hypothesized outcome.” (p. 56)

    Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.

    This book, published more than 30 years ago by a team of
    writer-activists, is not a scientific study.
    The authors’ survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because
    it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific
    peer review.

    Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.

    This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of
    male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between
    1975 and 1984.
    Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused
    children of both sexes.
    (The paper is unclear in that it doesn’t explain how perpetrators with
    multiple victims were counted.)
    The paper asserts in passing that “Eighty-six percent of offenders
    against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” (p. 83).
    However, no details are provided about how this information was
    ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate.
    Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual
    offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described
    above) indicates is relevant.

    In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not
    support their argument.
    Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual
    orientation of abusers.
    Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child
    molestation are unrelated.
    Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum,
    which also contradicted their argument.
    Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as
    supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement
    procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

  • “I cited several studies proving the correlation between homosexuality and ephebophilia/hebophilia.”

    Actually, you plagiarized material from a known hate group – the Family Research Council. I’ve responded with detailed information from the Psychology department at a California University that extensively debunks the material you presented.

    As for your blindness to the substantial material I’ve presented – it means only that your ego is blocking your vision.

    So let’s talk about plagiarism, which you’ve committed.

    http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/
    “According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to “plagiarize” means

    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own

    to use (another’s production) without crediting the source

    to commit literary theft

    to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

    In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and lying about it afterward.”

    That’s what you did, in a pathetic attempt to somehow prove to someone knows better, that you are moral compared to hundreds of millions of people.

    “All of the following are considered plagiarism:

    turning in someone else’s work as your own

    copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit

    failing to put a quotation in quotation marks

    giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

    changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

    copying
    so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of
    your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use”
    rules)”

    Being a plagiarist, as you are, means that you have erased any possibility of being credible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

    “Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.

    Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like penalties, suspension, and even expulsion. Recently, cases of ‘extreme plagiarism’ have been identified in academia.[6]
    Plagiarism is not in itself a crime, but can constitute copyright infringement. In academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense.[7][8]”

    On some forums, plagiarism like yours would get you a lifetime ban and the removal of every single one of your posts. That is how serious your crime is.

    Besides the dishonesty of stealing other people’s work and presenting it as your own – which you did, another problem with plagiarism is that it allows the thief to avoid actually having to understand the stolen material.

    In other words, by stealing from a hate group as you did, you demonstrated to me and anyone else, that you either don’t understand the material, and the lack of credibility of FRC, or you lack the ethics and morals to care whether the material is accurate.

    Now, about the source you stole from, the Family Research Council:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

    “Family Research Council (FRC) is an American conservative Christian group and lobbying organization formed in the United States in 1981 by James Dobson. It was incorporated in 1983.[2] In the late 1980s, FRC officially became a division of Dobson’s main organization, Focus on the Family, but after an administrative separation, FRC became an independent entity in 1992. Tony Perkins is its current president.

    FRC promotes “traditional family values”, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against the LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography. FRC is affiliated with a 501(c)(4) lobbying PAC known as FRC Action.[3] In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified FRC as an anti-gay hate group, which generated some controversy.”

    “The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated FRC as a hate group in the Winter 2010 issue of its magazine, Intelligence Report. Aside from statements made earlier in the year by Sprigg and Perkins (see Statements on homosexuality), the SPLC described FRC as a “font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history”.[8][9] As evidence, the SPLC cited a 1999 publication by FRC, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys,
    which stated: “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights
    movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually
    recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”[9][10]
    The report said FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey and Peter Sprigg
    (2001) had “pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia”.[9][11]”

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2010/12/15/splc-responds-attack-frc-conservative-republicans

    It was a remarkable performance, given that it was precisely the
    maligning of entire groups of people — gays, lesbians, bisexuals and
    transgendered people — that caused the SPLC to list groups like the FRC.
    Remarkable, too, was the accusation that the SPLC was avoiding debate —
    in fact, the very first public discussion of the issues raised by the
    SPLC came in a Nov. 29 debate between the FRC’s Tony Perkins and myself
    on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews.”

    Consider a few of the comments about gays and lesbians that have come
    from some of the groups now denouncing character assassination. The FRC,
    in a booklet entitled Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys,
    has claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights
    movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually
    recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer
    wrote this year that “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and
    homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war
    machine and 6 million dead Jews.” Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel,
    which was not listed by the SPLC but helped organize today’s newspaper
    ad, describes relationships between gay men as “one man violently
    cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it
    ‘love.’” Officials of several, including the FRC, have called for
    criminalizing gay sex.

    Almost all the religious-right groups named by the SPLC also have
    engaged in a particularly toxic and widespread defamation of gay men:
    The claim that they are essentially pedophiles who molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

    In fact, this became the crux of my “debate” with the FRC’s Perkins — the claim, as he put it
    in the very last moments of the show, that “the research is
    overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.” To prove
    this, Perkins cited an outfit called the American College of
    Pediatricians, which certainly sounded authoritative. But he was being
    less than honest, to say the least. In fact, the American College of
    Pediatricians is a tiny group that broke away from the real professional
    association — the similarly named American Academy of Pediatrics —
    specifically because that 60,000-member organization had endorsed gay
    and lesbian parenting. Perkins’ move was enough to cause Chris Matthews
    to run a special segment two days later that explained the difference
    between the academy and the so-called college.

    The reality is that virtually all real researchers in the field have concluded,
    as did the American Psychological Association in an official statement,
    that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children
    than heterosexual men are.”

    Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are
    not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re
    not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we
    are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong
    with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A
    simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews
    are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate
    group.”

    You cited a hate group to demonize GLBTQ people, db, instead of the credible American Psychological Association, which asserts, as I requote:

    “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children
    than heterosexual men are.”

    Something more about your behavior, and the FRC:
    “Another Christian website, Canyonwalker Connections,
    wrote: “Lies are evil. Lies breed fear. … If we repeat the myth
    enough, maybe it will gain muddy traction and stick. This is what FRC
    and other Hate Groups do so well. They demonize the gay community. … If
    the church cannot police our own, perhaps God is using secular
    organizations to slap His children upside the head? Would not be the
    first time. I will stand with, beside and in front of my GLBT fellow
    humans to ensure that they gain equality with me. Family Research
    Council, you should be more concerned about where you are on
    God’s list of naughty or nice, sheep or goats. And Southern Poverty Law
    Center, I applaud you, thank you, really … thank you.” (from the aforementioned SPLC source).

    As I said, you are all noise and no knowledge, you apparently lack the moral knowledge necessary to know that stealing – plagiarism, is wrong.

  • Haha. Copy and paste job from debunked Evelyn Hooker. ‘The adjustment of the male overt homosexual’ is right up there with Margaret Sanger’s study of Samoans, as one of the most prevailing academic frauds in history. She purported to study mental instability in homosexuals, and then excluded all individuals who showed signs of instability. The study’s subjects were handpicked by the Mattachine Society, which was founded by a communist.

  • Also, I at NO POINT copied anybody else’s work and claimed credit for it. I did not consult the Family Research Council. Those citations come from a paper by Gerard van den Aardweg entitled ‘Abuse by Priests, Homosexuality, Humanae vitae, and a Crisis of Masculinity in the Church’. Also, I simply cited these studies one by one. I don’t know where you could possibly conclude from that that I’ve plagiarized anything.

    On top of that, based on the false accusation of plagiarism, you conclude that I must be a child molester! It really is extraordinary, how bilious your hatred is.

    Suffice to say I am not swayed by the writings of a known academic fraud like Hooker to discount those studies I’ve cited. Now, one of those sources is, admittedly, an academic fraud, that being Alfred Kinsey, but I doubt he’d lie about homosexual age preferences, so take that how you will.

  • “Copy and paste job from debunked Evelyn Hooker. ‘”

    You really don’t pay attention. I quoted from a website operated by University of California Davis, work by Gregory Herek, Ph.D. I provided you with a link, so you can avoid shaming yourself, but you were too lazy to use it.

    “All original content of this website is copyright © 1997-2013 by Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D.”

    Your diversionary tactic, bringing up Sanger, means you don’t understand any of the material presented. All you can do is reject it out of hand because it goes far beyond your ability to comprehend.

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
    “Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual
    orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer,
    2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se
    impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay
    adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson,
    2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been
    found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing
    (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with
    children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare
    evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners
    (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that
    lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to
    those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for
    concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the
    basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000;
    Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research
    suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual
    parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their
    children.”

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked

    “Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest
    male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas
    Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is
    not so. Groth found that there are two types
    of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester —
    the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or
    heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and
    often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are
    generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on
    children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.”

    Note that last sentence – it means that you are more likely to be regressed sexual offender than a GLBTQ person is.

    “The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that
    90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and
    friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child
    molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools
    waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right
    rhetoric suggests.”

    “and the majority are men married to women. ”

    Are you married, db, to a woman?

    And while we’re on the subject, still quoting from the SPLC:
    “A 2013 preliminary study in Australia
    found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only
    thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates
    of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s
    largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of
    heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.”

    You have no facts. You clearly have some deep dark secret that you need to hide, and you somehow hope to divert attention from your dark secret from falsely linking homosexuality to sexual assault of children and pre-teens.

    That specific interest of yours creates the impression that your dark secret actually involves sexual abuse of some form, of someone perceived as innocent or vulnerable.

    What did you do, db, and who did you do it to?

  • In researching your citation, plagiarist, I found some rebuttal:
    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Pietrzyk_HomosexualityAnd.htm

    “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope

    By Mark E. Pietrzyk

    http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

    Executive Summary

    In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a
    number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals
    pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against
    children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of
    scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines
    the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right
    has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The
    scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals
    posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued
    the opposite.”

    “Conservative spokespersons Steven Baldwin and Judith Reisman, in an
    attempt to support their claim that “homosexuals molest children at a
    rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” cite a study by Gene Abel, a
    psychiatrist at Emory University, Atlanta.10 Finally, Focus on the
    Family cites the work of Kurt Freund in support of its allegations.11

    The numerous citations of the scientific literature by social
    conservatives initially look impressive. However, when one examines the
    original studies that have been cited, one finds that the conclusions
    of the original studies are contrary to the claims made by those citing
    the studies. Most significantly, while social conservatives claim that
    all the cases of sexual molestation of young boys by adult males are
    committed by homosexuals, the scientists whom they cite explicitly
    reject this assertion.”

    So your source is openly distorting the data, and the researchers whose work he rapes, explicitly reject his distortion.

    “Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to select
    boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to do with
    homosexuality:

    In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in
    that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to
    remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for
    fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy
    as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be
    more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find
    themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of
    children. . . .16

    Groth stresses that “these same individuals are uninterested in adult
    homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong
    sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find attractive
    about the immature boy are his feminine features and the absence of
    secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and muscles.”

    Quite the opposite of the attractions that gay men report. But hey, we both know you won’t even understand that quoted paragraph.

    Your source, Steven Baldwin, is the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.

    About that group:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy

    The Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by The New York Times
    as “a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful
    conservatives in the country,” who meet three times yearly behind closed
    doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.[1] Nation magazine
    has called it a secretive organization that “networks wealthy
    right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan
    long-term movement strategy.”[2] It was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians seeking to strengthen the political right in the United States.[3]

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Council_for_National_Policy
    The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a shadowy, secretive group dubbed “Sith Lords of the Ultra-Right” by the liberal blog DailyKos.[1] Mark Crispin Miller called CNP a “highly secretive… theocratic organization — what they want is basically religious rule” (A Patriot Act). Their membership (see below) is a Who’s Who list of the biggest names of the Radical Right.

    “The CNP describes itself as a counterweight against liberal domination of the American agenda,” reported ABC News.[2]

    CNP’s membership is comprised of leaders in the family values, national defense and decency movements woven by members of the Dead Billionaires Club like the Adolph Coors Foundation, the Koch brothers, Richard DeVos, Richard Scaife
    and other billionaires and foundations who have invested heavily in
    developing a complex web of far-Right groups, think-tanks and
    politicians over the last forty years to return the United States to its
    pre Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 19th century capitalist roots.[3]

    Not a people known for accuracy, but with a long history of persecuting GLBTQ people for political and material gain.

    And steve is not an expert in psychology. His degree is in communications
    http://www.nndb.com/people/825/000164333/
    University: BA Communications, Pepperdine University (1979)

    He has a bachelor’s degree, that’s it. I suppose you think that makes him more qualified than Dr. Herek.

  • “Also, I at NO POINT copied anybody else’s work and claimed credit for it.”

    Nice lie.

    “Those citations come from a paper by Gerard van den Aardweg”

    And you did not declare them as such in your post – so you have just confirmed that you are a plagiarist, presenting other people’s work as your own.

    “On top of that, based on the false accusation of plagiarism,”

    Nice lie. Here’s what I actually wrote
    “Now, the reality is that people like you, db, who mouth off demonizing
    gays and lesbians, are much more likely to be sexual predators. Like Josh Duggar, who ran his mouth of demonizing gays in public – and
    then was exposed as a sexual predator who has molested his own sisters
    when they were very, very young. Oh, and he worked for the source you
    plagiarized from, the Family Research Council.”

    “Suffice to say I am not swayed by the writings of a known academic fraud like Hooker to discount those studies I’ve cited.”

    Of course you are not swayed by the truth. Hooker is orders of magnitude more credible than you, after all.

    The fraud is you and your peers.

    So cut to the chase – who do did you harm?

  • “You don’t get to equate knowing better than to be fooled by the propaganda you fell for with “ignorance”.”

    Nice diversion, such arrogance. You dismissal is essentially the epitome of ignorance.

    “You exhibit the fallacies I listed last time in full force.”

    No, and you have again failed to provide anything to back that up.

    “Once again you pretend it is “hate” for people,”demonization” of them,to
    treat them as able to overcome their weaknesses for totally
    indefensible voluntary behaviors.”

    It is hate to demonize people’s innate, inborn, instinctive capacity for love and intimacy as ‘weakness’ and ‘indefensible voluntary behavior’.

    Ironically enough, you are the one with a weakness for a totally indefensible voluntary behavior – your hate speech and your propensity for deceit. You could choose not to lie, but you don’t. You could choose not to demonize GLBTQ people, but you do not.

    “It is by any moral or rational definition good for homosexuals to feel
    bad about their homosexuality and bad for them to feel good about it”

    Nonsense. That is irrational, insane, devoid of logic or reason. It is simply your sick and depraved opinion, with no basis in reality.

    “you want them to revel in their bad choices,like wanting alcoholics to drink themselves to death.”

    Equating homosexuality with alcoholism is depraved. It demonstrates not only your unhealthy need to demonize millions of people in order to feel good about yourself – it indicates that you have no moral sense. You either don’t understand consent and harm, or you dismiss both as irrelevant to you.

    The reality is that the evil belief you are spewing up here gets real human beings murdered, raped, tortured, persecuted, brutalized – and this is what you wish for us.

    “You call good evil and evil good,”

    Never, liar.

    “because of all the uncomfortable truths I proclaim ”

    You have proclaimed no truth, only lies.

    “I want the best for homosexuals”

    No, liar, you want to brutalize, dominate and harm them.

    “and that means,and must always mean,that they learn to think less of
    their homosexuality…to view it more negatively,to think of it as less
    important,and to pay it less attention.”

    So you want to coerce them into believing your sick lie, even though that lie drives them to suicide.

    Your position is evil beyond any excuse.

  • “One can love to do wrong,and have an accomplice…”

    As your posts, and those of your accomplices demonstrate.

  • “Getting my post deleted doesn’t make it false.”

    Ah, so conceit. You apparently presume the because you post something, it must be right.

    “To be afflicted by homosexual orientation is to be flawed.”

    Homosexuality is neither an afflication, nor a flaw. Your prejudice is damning sin.

    “To believe that one’s homosexuality is not a disorder is to be wrong.
    To engage in same-sex sex acts,no matter how willing a co-conspirator one may have,is to engage in wrongdoing”

    Your claims get real human beings murdered and rape, according to Jesus, the violence caused by your claims proves you are not just wrong, but evil.

  • Huh?!

    The citations came from a paper by a guy who used those same citations. Sharing citations with him is not plagiarism.

    This is getting ridiculous. I see you’re desperate to defend your position by simply flinging mud. There’s no point in continuing with you.

  • “Your indefensible claims”

    I have made none.

    “Your indefensible claims gain no credence with your shameless repetition of them.”

    You however have, so your statement above does apply to you.

    “Anyone who says what I have been saying here is right,because my statements are true;”

    And yet, your statements are false, and you’ve failed to ever substantiate them here.

    “anyone who expresses agreement with your position is wrong,because your position is false.”

    Nope. And you’ve failed to even attempt to disprove my position.

    “Nobody’s opinion shapes reality.”

    And yet, ironically, that is what you are trying to do.

  • “There’s no point in continuing with you.”

    And once again, you run away, tail between your legs, because you just cannot address the data.

    Who did you harm, db, that you have to come here to demonize GLBTQ people?

  • Not at all. Your incompetence is extraordinary.

    The sick belief you are spewing up gets people murdered, raped, burned alive, it is why Nazis vivisected homosexual men and women.

  • No, YOU cannot address the data, except by citing a known academic fraud, and copying and pasting. As for whom I have harmed…I don’t understand the question. Anyway, off I go. Call it ‘running away’ as much as you like. But I think it’s clear there’s no reason to continue a discussion with someone like you.

  • Need is not the point, the belief itself produces the violence, and thus, every person who teaches any form of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is responsible for the violence that sick belief produces.

    “have no obligation to suppress their homosexuality.”

    There is no need for any homosexual to suppress their homosexuality. Doing so harms them. You simply want to harm others for the sake of your ego.

  • And yet, you are wrong about me. After all, you are the one insisting that millions of people should suppress their innate capacity for love and intimacy, at great cost to themselves. to appease you.

  • “No, YOU cannot address the data,”

    Nice lie.

    “except by citing a known academic fraud,”

    You are the one that did that, not I. I pointed that out to you more than once.

    “As for whom I have harmed…I don’t understand the question.”

    It was a simple question, so if you don’t understand it, there is simply no way on earth you could understand any the material you have plagiarized, or the material I’ve presented in rebuttal.

    ” Anyway, off I go. Call it ‘running away’ as much as you like. But I
    think it’s clear there’s no reason to continue a discussion with someone
    like you.”

    Of course, a person of your intellectual impotence and propensity for fraud cannot acomplish anything in a discussion with someone like me, except to expose your incompetence and shame.

    So, Josh demonizes gays to cover up his sexual abuse of his own sisters – what are you covering up when you demonize gays?

  • “The accusation is totally false,”

    And yet, it is not.

    “as I keep telling you every time you make it”

    Just because you type something, doesn’t make it true. You have yet to prove the accusation to be false, and frankly, your posts have the net effect of affirming it.

    “but your opinion makes no difference.”

    Basically, you only believe what you want to believe, no matter what reality indicates.

    All you can do, louis e, is deny reality.

  • “Love and intimacy must take sane forms,which totally excludes anything that is both same-sex and sexual.”

    Nice hate speech, but your claim that same-sex love and sexual intimacy is not sane is just your depraved opinion, not fact.

    You cannot prove any of your claims, they are just hate boiling up from inside to distract attention from some terrible evil you’ve committed.

  • “Sane people don’t resort to violence in the presence of any alternative.”

    So you and your peers, the people who believe ‘homosexuality is sin’ are not, by your admission, sane.

    “Simple education ought to be enough to get homosexuals properly conscious of the obligation you deny.”

    Education demonstrates that your beliefs are devoid of fact and sadistic fantasy, nothing more. Simple education proves that homosexuality is natural and normal, healthy and beneficial to homosexuals.

    “You harm them through your denials,which are motivated by your concern for their egos and your own.”

    Nice break with reality, and the illiteracy is touching. My concern, oh liar, is for their lives and mental health – even if it means you cannot feed off of them.

  • By the way, your fixation on sane expressions of love and sexuality, coupled with the correlation between homophobia and sexual abuse, indicates that the deep evil you are hiding, that drives you to revile homosexuals, must be something akin to Josh Duggar’s evil past, preying on his sisters sexually.

    What did you do, and to whom, that makes you demonize GLBTQ people?

  • “I am the one asserting “GLBTQ people” have the mental and moral capacity”

    Ah, reparative therapy. Sorry, but psychiatrists have proven that such measure neither work nor are beneficial to patients, and actually increase the risk of patient suicide.

    ” horrific affliction of “GLBTQ-ness””

    Nice hate speech, but sexual orientation is not an affliction, neither is gender identity. Now, technically, transfolk are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but research demonstrates that the “affliction” involved, the dis of disphoria, comes from endure people like you.

    “you are the one demanding they be treated as its helpless slaves.”

    Nice lie, but quite the opposite. You seek to enslave them to your will and your malice.

    “If you think you are not the one demonizing them you are demonizing yourself.”

    Your posts are becoming increasingly irrational.

  • “Education is only genuine if it teaches truth as opposed to the lies you are here to peddle.”

    Yet, you are the one peddling lies.

    “All defenses of homosexual activity are lies,”

    Nope, nice break with reality.

    “and believing them proof of absence of mental health.”

    Nice hate speech against millions of people.

    Essentially, you are arguing that everyone who doesn’t buy into your sick fantasy about homosexuality is mentally ill. Ironically, that not only comes across as mentally ill while prejudices, more and more, are perceived as a form of psychosis.

    By the way, psychologists have affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

  • You slander of me and GLBTQ people indicates that you have no moral sense. I would be more concerned if you called me ‘good’ – for your values are inverted from reality.

  • Nope.

    Your replies are becoming increasingly impotent and incompetent. Perhaps we should just focus on whatever terrible evil you’ve committed, that drives you to demonize GLBTQ people with such depraved viciousness.

    What did you do, and who did you do it to?

  • Again, that is the sick claim that gets people murdered and raped.

    Do you even understand why murder and rape are wrong?

    Hell, do you know that murder and rape are wrong?

  • How many GLBTQ people have to be murdered or raped to appease you, to teach you that your claims about them are evil?

  • Your hate speech gets people murdered.

    What magic number, how many dead are required to convince you that your beliefs on this matter are evil?

  • “No, YOU cannot address the data,”

    Oh sad and pathetic liar, I did address the data, and provided substantive resources proving your claims are fraud.

    ” except by citing a known academic fraud,”

    As the data I posted demonstrated, you are the one citing frauds.

    “As for whom I have harmed…I don’t understand the question.”

    A moral person would understand it.

    “Anyway, off I go. Call it ‘running away’ as much as you like. But I
    think it’s clear there’s no reason to continue a discussion with someone like you”

    You are so desperate. I take you at your word, and then you break it again, posting after you said you would not. You have nothing but lies, db, and some deep shame to hide.

    Yep, you cannot discuss with someone like me because you have nothing but lies and fraud to offer anyone, and lack the ability to even begin to challenge the material presented.

    Who did you violate, harm, rape, murder – what is your crime, db, that drives you here slandering GLBTQ people and condemning yourself to eternal damnation? Was it a child? Since you yammer about pedophilia so much, it seems likely that your victim or victims were children.

ADVERTISEMENTs