Whenever the religious do something bad the rest of their sect turn around and say, well they weren’t true believers. They make them the other and then absolve themselves of any responsibility. What a disguting piece of shit Father John Owen is, he will not take any responsibility for the ethos, structure and practices of his church which provided the perfect place for the sadistic self righteous, selfish and paedophiliac to prey on the vulnerable. the vulnerable people and children are put in an even more vulnerble postion because of how venerated priests and his religion is. It’s a catch 22. Some of them may have been gay but they were also Catholics working within a Catholic system which protected them and which gave them access to children and which put enormous pressure on them to remain sexless against human nature. Catholics like him use any opportunity to vilify homosexuals or for political point scoring. This man has no humility or shame. He is beneath contempt.
I think we just caught a glimpse of what those children in Ireland were confronted by.
Fr Owen is a good man, and his comments are being misrepresented. It is a simple matter of fact that most of the abuse cases involving priests have not had pre-pubescents as their victims; to talk about paedophilia in these cases is simply incorrect. That doesn’t mean that he’s defending or justifying the criminals or their crimes, as James O’Brien (one the nation’s less intelligent voices) asserted. Fr Owen’s clearly utterly disgusted by the situation. But a solution can only be achieved if the problem is properly diagnosed.
As for David’s foul language – well, it speaks for itself.
“Fr Owen is a good man”
So, to create completely baseless accusations based upon no scientific reality, thus exposing the gay community to yet more abuse makes this piece of crap a good man.
I would hate to see your definition of a bad man!
Hasn’t this man committed a criminal offense with these comments? He ought to be prosecuted and forced out of his job and hang his head in shame.
The Archbishop of Cardiff is called Peter David Smith. He is the boss of this father Owen individual.
His Archbishop’s email address is email@example.com
Why not drop him a line asking what disciplinary action is to be taken against Owen
Dear Archbishop Smith
It was with utter horror and disgust that I listened to Father John Owen on BBC1′s Big Questions on Sunday.
My horror and disgust was with the way he tried to downplay the horrific, systematic paedophilic abuse by catholic priests against children by trying to blame homosexuals.
Is Father Owen stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the same as paedophilia? If so then he is probably guilty of the crime of incitement to hatred.
More seriously was the way with which he tried to downplay the horrific, systematic abuse of children by catholic priests over generations. Owen’s hateful comments try to scapegoat someone else for the crimes of the catholic clergy and creates a side issue. Owen has tried to remove the criminal aspect and tries to equate the rape of children by catholic priest with some sort of consensual adult behaviour. That is truly despicable, monstrous behaviour on the part of Owen.
Please confirm that Father Owen will face disciplinary action for his monstrously evil words and will be defrocked.
The catholic church for generations has engaged in revolting sexual abuse of children. Now when faced with the consequences of its clergy’s actions it is tryiing to blame someone else.
That is utterly unacceptable.
Father Owen is not suitable to be a priest and must be summarily dismissed. A refusal to do this is a tacit agreement with his evil comments.
…AND HE SHOULD CERTAINLY LAY OFF THE PIES…NOT MISSED MANY DINNERS, THAT’S FOR SURE.
I have sent the following email to the Archdiocese of Cardiff:
‘The Roman Catholic Church could hardly do more damage to society by engendering hatred of gay people, or to itself, by the evil remarks of Father John Owen.
The only possible means of rectifying such terrible remarks is to remove Owen from his post.
This incident reveals the importance of the current legislation on equality by removing the Waddington clause from the Act.
The egregious fool Owen’s remarks will certainly increase pressure to do so.
Please let me know whether or not Owen’s position in tenable. When will he be removed from his post?’
The email address for this is: firstname.lastname@example.org
I urge readers to do the same
I have also sent the following email to Cardiff police. It has been acknowledged and forwarded to an ACC.
‘Dear Chief Constable,
Homophobic language by a Roman Catholic Priest on Television
I wish to make a formal complaint about the homophobic remarks made by Father John Owen, communications officer for the diocese of Cardiff.
These remarks were reported in The Guardian on Sunday, 24th May and were made during a BBC broadcast – BBC’s The Big Questions.
A transcript of the broadcast can be obtained from the BBC.
I have already complained to the archdiocese and have told them that I am asking the police to investigate language used by Owens in relation to incitement to hatred.
I await your comments.’
The email address of the Cardiff police is
I urge readers to do something similar.
Ed my foul language speaks for itself, Ha grow up, I said the word shit. I found myself choosing my words carefully. I can think of other things I would like to call this man. You’ll notice that I mentioned vulnerable as not just being children but these abusers and their protecters and the policy makers within the church all were in postiions of power where they failed both adults and children. I imagine that even the homoesexual catholics abusing adults from their posiitons of powere were unlikely to be out and proud gay men but rather homosexual men who were too scared to identify as gay or live a politically out gay lifestyle because of fear of their churches religious interpretation and sanctions, dissaproval and vilification. I sure don’t see much contrition for the endemic and horrific abuse that has been uncovered in the latest Irish report.
Well done, Neville. Because nothing proves the strength of your position like trying to get the police to silence the speech of others. Clown.
Im not a native speaker, but it seems like damage-control by double-speak to me. What’s this guy implying?
Ed, one of my neighbours and one of my best friends were both abused in catholic run homes, one from the age of four and the other from the age or about seven or eight.
My neighbours three sisters were also abused, all four were in separate homes, having been split up for God only knows what reason.
They are the only people I know personally that have been victim of the Catholic church and I know from having tried to help my neighbour get some things sorted out that church and state were hand in hand in covering up and denying exactly what had happened.
Each of those vulnerable children was repeatedly abused by multiple adults over a number of years. They were not abused by gay men that ‘liked ‘em a bit young’, they were abused by a well orchestrated network of paedophiles.
Having delved into events that befell my neighbour and listened with abject horror to him recounting the relentless physical, sexual and mental abuse that he endured by the sickest f*ckers imaginable, culminating in him being almost being beaten to death, I find it nothing short of disgusting to hear these pious little sh*ts talking abut moving on and leaving the past in the past.
If Father Owen didn’t know what was going on, he needs his head examining. Maybe he’d like the thousands upon thousands of tiny children that suffered abuse, with no hope of escape from it, to come forward and say whether they think it was a gay man or a paedophile that abused them. Certainly in the case of my neighbour, it wasn’t just the priests that were at it, some of his abusers where also female – lesbians not doubt though Father Owen.
I too find suggestions that these people were gay man and not homosexuals utterly repellent.
I saw the programme and the priest’s comments were inaccurate, disgraceful, and very definitely homophobic. Even when his mistake was pointed out to him, that there isn’t one shred of evidence to like homosexuality to paedophilia, he seemed to stick his head in the sand and refused to listen to reasoned argument.
If that’s the attitude of the Catholic Church, God help the children of Ireland … and everywhere else!
Anyone who missed seeing this programme live can watch it on BBC iPlayer and the link below.
That’s bollocks. Paedophillia is a psychopathic trait (proven), homosexuality is completely different. Why can people not comprehend this???? A PSYCHOPATHIC TRAIT AND A MAN’S SEXUALITY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
The catechism of the Ctaholic Curch teaches thet homosexuality is unnatural. Not quite so unnatural as celibacy, I suggest. The right wing of the Catholic Church (and the Curia) routinely blame the pedophilia on gays – the fact that more boys were abused than girls had more to do with altar servers having to be male and therefore they were more accessible.
Neville, I’m not interested in arguing with you over your definition of paedophilia, other than to point out that psychiatrists would disagree. Know why I’m not interested in arguing? Because you’ve already made clear that you resolve disagreements by use of force (if not your own, the state’s), so trying to reason with you is a waste of time.
…and what are heterosexual men fixated on Vee? Slight generalised sweeping statement!
> Look at the recent sad events in Children’s Homes up and down the county.
Do educate us as to how your mind works…
Anyone who thinks that Owen is a good man must be deranged. Owen is a bigot! Unfortunately, he is also Roman Catholic chaplain at the University of Cardiff. It is worth communicating with the vice chancellor and asking him if he is prepared to have the university’s reputation besmirched by giving a platform to such a bigot.
Email address of the vice chancellor is FarnhamS@Cardiff.ac.uk
And, Vee, the bigot, the children of women who were not married were called bastards, and we all know how the Roman Catholic Church dealt with such women, particularly in Ireland.
Vee: Paedophiles ain’t picky. It’s a fetish. There have been studies that ask the obvious question that arises from these results: for those paedophiles who are also attracted to adults, which gender(s) are they attracted to? Mostly female-only. When it’s a case of a fetish (such as paedophilia) or necessity (such as prison), sexuality takes a backseat to lust.
Prominent Canadian homosexual activist John McKellar is on record saying:-
“You quickly discover that the optimum way to ensure future supporters to your cause and ideology is through the minds of the young. You skillfully master the techniques of invoking sympathy, hiding the truth and presenting a sanitized portrait of gay life. Introducing kindergarten and grade one students to alternative behaviours and lifestyles is psychological pedophilia. You don’t have to engage solely in physical contact to molest a child. You can diddle with their minds and emotions. And that is exactly what some of my radical brothers and sisters are up to.”
Sounds pretty clear and canded to me.
Whoa, I just looked up this John McKellar guy… He’s a nutjob. A man with a superiority complex who thinks he’s the only decent gay guy out there. Not surprising to know that he’s actually pro-reparative therapy. A failed ex-gay perhaps? Oh, and he’s also a transphobe. All in all, a bit of a scumbag.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that everyone watch this on the BBC iPlayer.
It is a spectacular performance by Owen. We should thank him for giving us such a vivid and valuable insight into Catholic thinking.
This man, John Owen, is a facet of the vile under-belly of the Roman Catholic Church. No different to the “religious Orders” in Ireland who STILL have not paid up their share towards compensation of victims of abuse by Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, despite agreeing to do so several years ago
May that vile abusive entity perish rapidly as we see it for what it is!
Who is this Vee and why is he/she on here?? Please tell me it’s not another self-loathing closet queer???
*Inciting homophobic hatred
VEE alert . . . VEE alert . . . Vee alert
“The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.”
– Thomas Macaulay (1840)
Click here to see it (10
Min 44Sec), it’s "VERY" shocking!
When I was young, the church in my Town had a Vicar, now it’s 1 Vicar to 5
churches. Congregations are falling fast. Homophobia will kill the church
eventually and outbursts like this will only speed up that possess.
What I don’t understand is how can the Catholic Church have Father John Owen
as a Church spokesman for the church and a chaplain of Cardiff University?
Linking homosexuality to paedophilia again . . .
“Is there really evidence and justification for this corollary?”
English lesson for the day for VEE:
Main Entry: vitriol
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: acrimoniousness, contempt, disdain, hatefulness, hostility, malevolence, maliciousness, nastiness, sarcasm, venom, virulence
Main Entry: disapproval
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: black list, blackball*, blame, boo*, boycott, brickbat, call down, castigation, catcall*, censure, criticism, denunciation, deprecation, disapprobation, discontent, disfavor, dislike, disparagement, displeasure, dissatisfaction, hiss*, nix*, objection, opprobrium, ostracism, reproach, reproof, slap on wrist, stricture, thumbs down, vitriol, zing*
Antonyms: agreement, approval, endorsement, sanction
Basically . . . a riot of disaproval
may I suggest youi refere to gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for his opinion of this most pernicious establishment.
As an institution, it was born in blood, faction, and hatred, and poltical expediency. It remains unchanged
John K,,,,exactly, brother!
Click here for
Comments in the Guardian Newspaper
Vee, go on, admit it! You LIKE coming to Pink News. You have very low self esteem which causes you to bully and denigrate others in order to make yourself feel better.
Interestingly, low self esteem is mentioned in this study of paedophiles….. :
^ Marshall, W. L. (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and deviant sexual arousal in nonfamilial child molesters. Behavior Modification, 21, 86–96
Vee walks into his psychiatrist’s office all wrapped up in nothing but clear wrap. The psychiatrist looks up and says “Well, I can clearly see you’re nuts!”
(okay,,,now i am being mean,,,but lol!,,,it’s just way too easy with VEE)
* Fundamentaist Christian
* Inciting homophobic hatred
Hank Alert . . . Hank Alert . . . Hank Alert
“Archives of Sexual Behavior, another peer reviewed journal, found that of 172 child predators in the state of Massachusetts there were none among them that were homosexual. The Journal of the American Medical Association has one study showing that 90% of pedophiles are male and that 98% are heterosexual. These are only a few of several studies into convicted child molesters that have shown that homosexual men and women are actually far less likely to molest a child than a heterosexual . Pediatrics Journal also states that a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a relative’s heterosexual partner than by a homosexual person .”
Again, the homohaters have their heads far up their ying-yangs!
Watched the programme and, although there were probably others in the audience who might have agreed with the Priest, no one was willing to put their head above the parapet. Even Angela Rippon give him a severe dressing down.
I am sure Father Owen will tell the Archishop of Cardiff to do his own dirty work next time.
All the best.
Vee and Hank
I would like a response to the research findings presented by jonnielondon which disproves your connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.
What upset me a lot about the cases both in Ireland and America was how so many bishops covered up these horrid crimes and simply moved an offender on. Are we to assume that the bishops were homosexuals in on the conspiracy? If so, just how many Catholic bishops are homosexual? I think Owen should take a fresh intake of wind and tell us.
And Vee, simply stating that homosexuals were known “throughout” Europe as ‘knabenshander’ does not make the statement true. Indeed it is to misunderstand how and why same-sex activities were seen as “offences against the natural order”. Individuals were not thought of as being actors with a different sexuality. What was described were the acts committed. Thus the commoner expression ‘sodomite’ (in various languages) was used for a man who engaged in anal intercourse, not because people thought he had a sexual constitution that inclined him to same-sex pleasure but because he had anal intercourse with another. St Paul had this confused notion when he talked about men “turning” from heterosexual sex. His belief – universally held at the time as far as one can tell – was that heterosexuals were engaging in such acts (though of course there was notion of a ‘category’ heterosexual at the time. Sex meant heterosexuality and everyone did it, including those heterosexuals who were homosexual! (The African/Vatican view of the world even to this day). The introduction of words (not ‘phrases’ Vee – your teacher would be so embarrassed) such as ‘invert’ and ‘homosexual’ was taxonomically important inasmuch as the new words ascribed propensities to actions by individuals with variant sexuality, not merely acts of which society disapproved; the first vague glimmerings of realization by heterosexuals that theirs was not the only way men and women lived. It’s sad that some have not yet come down from the trees.
I do not mean to disagree with any one of you.
You have every right to use your minds to rationalize and attempt to comprehend this kind of thing.
However, the RCC has its own brand of logic: the pope is right even when he’s wrong, and paedophile priests, bishops and what-have-you (who I believe do abuse children through a ‘well orchestrated network’) know that very well.
For example, cardinal Law was given a prestigious ministry, a soft job, in Vatican City as a reward for attempting to protect the reputation of the American RCC.
For those roman catholics who need and desire something tangible, a well prepared form to apostacize can be downloaded from www dot apostasie dot org.
I know it sounds French but the website is multi-lingual, and opens with a one minute video clip that says it all.
‘I can think of other things I would like to call this man’ – like an evil, fat little toad david?
There was another ‘Good Man’ (an Archbishop no less) reported in The Times as saying that the men who admited to the systamatic rape and abuse of children where ‘brave’ for admiting to it (all be it with imunity from prosicution) and that they where ‘taking comfort from children.’ If you don’t beleve me it’s in Saturday’s Times. Libby Purvis (sp) commented on it yesterday too. I wish I was making this up…
Good men all.
Let’s just calm down and consider this matter rationally.
I don’t see any point at all in complaining to the police about this man’s fatuous statements. People who have right on their side, as we have, don’t need to do that sort of thing. He has the right to talk tosh if he wants to, just as we have the right to reply.
As for the word paedophile, it all depends on your definition of the word. Back in the days when the age of consent for gay men was 21, there were people who would have been prepared to describe a 21-year-old guy who had consensual sex with a 19-year-old guy as a paedophile – which, of course, is ridiculous.
As I understand it, the word paedophile is used correctly to describe an adult who has sex with a pre-pubescent child. So a priest who has sex with post-pubescent boys or girls is not, strictly speaking, a paedophile. It is still a gross abuse of his position, however, as well as being a serious contravention of the law if the boy or girl is under the age of consent. The fact remains that the vast majority of gay men, whether they are priests or laymen, don’t behave like that.
What needs to be considered is this. If you want to have sex with adolescent boys, you certainly don’t need to be a Catholic priest in order to do it. Furthermore, you must know perfectly well that the law will, quite rightly, come down on you like a ton of bricks if you’re caught doing it, and that if you’re in a position of trust (such as the priesthood) the law will come down on you even harder. So what exactly is it that attracts such men to the Catholic priesthood? I have yet to see anyone have the courage and candour to address this question. Some months ago I e-mailed the editor of a right-wing Catholic magazine, who blames “homosexuals” for the “sexual abuse crisis” in the Catholic Church, inviting him to do so; he has not so far chosen to reply. I wonder whether Fr John Owen would like to take it on.
I see youv’e nicked stuff from the Friar_Zero website from Kentucky.
You are unable to discern that he uses flawed research to uphold his opinionated views favourable to homosexuality.
You really must do better.
Leaeding radical American lesbian Patricia Warren has cogently observed:-
“Whoever captures the kids owns the future”
The ultimate uninhibited aim is young fresh flesh.
Vee . . . you reveal your mission here so cogently through your quotation
Blimey, you here “The young are our future” everywhere. Everyone’s a paedophile then.
You hear it as well…
Trying to extinguish lunatic beliefs is really like trying to rid a garden of japanese knotweed. You can pull the rhizomes away, root and all, and somewhere, it pops its ugly head up again.
The cure for reliigous mania is just as elusive.
I have already posted the position of the AFA, which states in lengthy detail why child abuse and homosexuality are different phenomena. Do I really need to do this cut and paste job again?
ARE GAYS A THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN?
A discussion of gay sexuality and homosexual molestation
Source: Box Turtle Bulletin, authored by Jim Burroway
September 26, 2005; revised October 16, 2006. (see the website for citations referring to this article)
A bombshell exploded on September 29, 2006, when Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla) abruptly resigned after sexually explicit e-mails and Instant Messages he exchanged with former pages were made public.1 Almost immediately, gays and lesbians were confronted with the familiar charge that there is an inherent link between homosexuality and pedophilia:
We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. — Ben Stein, American Spectator 2
“Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley’s homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10 – a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?” — Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal
“While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys.” — Tony Perkins, Family Research Council4
While all of this was going on, Charles C. Roberts barricaded himself in an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania, where he intended to sexually molest the young girls in the classroom. But before he could do it, he started shooting. Ten girls were shot – five died – before he finally turned the gun on himself.5 This happened only a week after Duane Morrison burst into a classroom at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado. He took several girls hostage and sexually assaulted some before releasing four. Two were still in the classroom when a SWAT team shot its way in. Morrison shot one girl as she tried to run away and then killed himself.6
In neither case was the predator’s heterosexual orientation cited as an explanation for his crime. Psychotherapist and author Joe Kort points out that when men molest little girls, they’re specifically called “pedophiles” or “sexual predators.” But when men molest boys, they’re simply called “homosexuals,” as though sexual orientation were responsible for driving these men to their crimes.7
Gays are often singled out for suspicion of molesting children in numbers far out of proportion to their presence in the general population. In making this case, the arguments made by gay-rights opponents typically go something like this:8
Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys.
Gays make up a tiny minority of the population. (Anti-gay opponents typically cite a figure somewhere between 1% and 3%.)
Therefore, gay men are committing a disproportionate share of sexual crimes against children.
Child sexual abuse has a profound impact on victims and their families. Because we want to protect our children, we must ask: Are gays disproportionately abusing children?
THE STARTING POINT:What Do We Know About Molesters And Their Victims?
When it comes to statistics, we know surprisingly little about child sexual abuse. Official statistics are notoriously incomplete because too many cases are never reported.
Many researchers believe that many male victims who are molested by men may not come forward because of the stigma surrounding homosexuality. These victims often not only fear the false label of being gay, they may also fear harassment or condemnation because of it. Fortunately, our society has recently shown an admirable steadfastness in supporting these victims when they do come forward, and their example has, no doubt, emboldened other victims to do the same. If anything remotely positive could come from the tragedy of the clergy sexual abuse scandals, it would be the lowering of the stigma of same-sex abuse allowing more victims to come forward.9
The picture is very different when adult women molest boys. Sociologists and caseworkers note that many boys who are sexually involved with adult women rarely complain because they don’t feel they’ve been molested. In fact, they’re likely to brag about it to their friends, who in turn admire them for being enough of a “man” to have sex with an older woman.10 In one study of adult men whose first sexual encounter with an adult women occurred before the age of sixteen, 88% called it a positive experience.11
Because there is very little incentive in our culture to view this as harmful, such encounters rarely turn up in official statistics. Only now is there a slowly growing recognition that when older women exploit younger boys, these boys can actually be seriously harmed by the experience.12
Experts agree that official statistics significantly understate the sexual activity between adults and minors. One national probability-sampled survey of 4,008 adult women who were raped in childhood found than less than 12% of these incidents were reported to police.13
With so many cases not being reported, we cannot know the true proportion of males versus female victims. Because official statistics are so unreliable, estimates are made from other sources. The best guesses – and these are only guesses based on a large number of surveys – generally go this way:
As of July 2000, about 94% of all sexual predators against juveniles who were reported to police were male,14 although the proportion of female predators being reported has risen sharply in recent years.15
Using the best estimates from multiple sources, males appear to make up somewhere between 15% and 30% of all child molestation victims, with females making up the remaining cases.16
So, as far as we know, it appears to be true that almost all sexual predators are men. But notice however, that the “one-third” figure that anti-gay activists cite for the ratio of male vs. female victims represents the very highest end of the estimated range – which, of course, makes the problem of “homosexual molestation” appear worse than the data actually suggests.
(to be continued)
HOW MANY HOMOSEXUALS ARE THERE?
We know that the proportion of self-described gay men in the general population is very small — certainly much smaller than the one-sixth to one-third of children abused children who are male victims of adult me. Many gay rights opponents place the proportion of self-described gay men quite low, around 1-3%. But most large-population surveys support something higher than 3%.17, 18 For the sake of this discussion, we’ll accept 3%.
What does this mean? Well, let’s say we’ve gathered 10,000 adults in a stadium and asked them one simple yes-or-no question: “Are you gay?” If our 3% figure is correct, only 300 people in that stadium will answer “yes,” with the remaining 9,700 saying “no.”
This much is pretty obvious.
And for someone who answers “yes” to that question, what would we know about him or her? Again, most people would think this answer is pretty obvious as well. If he’s a man, that means he dates other men, he is sexually attracted to other men, and because he is comfortable enough to answer “yes” to a stranger with a clipboard, he is probably known by his family, friends and neighbors as being gay.
And you can draw the same conclusions for a woman who answers “yes” as well: she dates other women, is attracted to other women, and is confident enough to say so when asked. In other words, visibly “out” gay men and women are typically the ones who answer “yes” to this question in surveys.
And how do we know that this three percent mostly represents those who are “out”? Well, a recent online survey by Harris Interactive asked them exactly that. Those who identified themselves as gay reported that 92% are out to their close friends, 78% are out to their parents, 68% are out to other relatives, acquaintances and to casual friends, and 66% are out to co-workers.19
What’s more, many surveys show that this three percent does not include everyone who is behaving homosexually. Not only does this figure often exclude bisexuals, it also excludes those who don’t identify themselves as gay for any number of reasons – even though they may admit to engaging in same-sex sexual contact.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 57% of men who had sex with another man did not consider themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.20 A recent random survey of 4,193 men in New York City revealed that while 91.3% claimed they were straight, 9.3% of those “straight” respondents had sex only with other men in the previous year, while another 0.8% reported having sex with both men and women.21 When the authors included gays and bisexuals, they noted that among men who have sex with men, 73% identified as straight. Another representative survey found that more than 20% of all men have had a homosexual experience.22
And remember – these figures are all based on what these men voluntarily admit to doing. Who knows how many others refuse to acknowledge their sexual activity when asked for these surveys.
It’s important to keep in mind exactly who we’re talking about when we’re discussing this three percent. A lot of people behave homosexually without being among the three percent who identify themselves as gay. In fact, when it comes to homosexual behavior, this three percent is barely scratching the surface.
The Statistical Breakdown Breaks Down
With this data in hand, let’s go back to the arguments made by anti-gay activists.
Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
This appears to be true. According to reports to law enforcement, 92% of child sex abusers are men, although reports of women predators have been increasing in the past several years.
Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys.
This appears to be at the very highest rates of the estimates. A more reasonable range appears to be between one-sixth and one-third. Experts generally agree however that the true scope of the problem is barely understood due to massive under-reporting.
Gays make up a tiny minority of the population (i.e., somewhere between 1% and 3%).
This is a low-ball figure. The best estimates for out, self-identified gay men begin at about 3% and go up a little from there. But surveys which account for homosexual behavior regardless of identity range anywhere from 7% to 20%.
Therefore, gay men are committing a disproportionate share of sexual crimes against children.
Due to the flaws in the highly-selected data that anti-gay activists cite, this conclusion simply cannot be supported. What’s more, there may even be a significant overlap between the range of men who behave homosexually and the percentage of men who abuse boys.
Because of the great uncertainty surrounding these statistics – and the logical fallacy surrounding the use of the three percent figure – there is no basis for concluding that gays are responsible for a disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse.
But because the data is so unreliable, we also can’t prove that those who behave homosexually are not abusing children disproportionately, regardless of whether they claim to be gay or not. That means that if we really want to understand what’s going on, we have to look much more closely at the predators themselves.
(part 3, final part)
ARE GAY MAN ABUSING BOYS?
During the 1992 campaign for Colorado’s Amendment 2 (which would have barred local anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation), the group supporting the amendment, Colorado For Family Values, repeated the charge that 3% of the population was responsible for 30% of all child molestation cases. But Denver-area doctors, caseworkers and investigators knew that these charges didn’t match their own experience.
Dr. Carole Jenny was the director of the Child Advocacy and Protection Team at Denver’s Childrens Hospital, and she also directed medical programs at the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative. Three were molested by women, five were molested by both parents, and three others were molested by non-relatives. Only one perpetrator could be identified as being possibly homosexual in his adult behavior.23
Let’s consider what this means. If these men who abused boys in this study were in our stadium, all but one would have answered “no” to the question “Are you gay?” And not only did they say they were not gay, they were married, had girlfriends, or were otherwise known to have sexual relationships with women. If law enforcement had been looking for the perpetrators among gay men, they never would have found them. They would have missed 49 of these 50 sexual predators because they would have been hidden among the 9,700 in our stadium who said they were not gay.
Dr. Jenny and her associates concluded that even if you use the worst case possibilities in their sample, no more than 3.1% of child sexual abuse cases reported to the Denver clinic were abused by someone who could be identified as possibly being gay, a proportion that closely matches the proportion of openly gay men and women overall.
Two Types of Predators
As surprising as this may be, it only confirmed what Dr. Nicholas Groth demonstrated many years earlier. Dr. Groth was a leading pioneer in the field of child sex abuse, having treated more than 500 sex offenders by 1982.24 In 1978, he and Dr. Jean Birnbaum published a study of 175 convicted male child molesters in which they found:
“The child offender is a relatively young adult either who has been sexually attracted to underage persons almost exclusively in his life or who turns to a child as a result of stresses in his adult sexual or marital relationships. Those offenders who are sexually attracted exclusively to children show a slight preference for boys over girls, yet these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males.”25
Dr. Groth identified two classic types of child molesters that he labeled fixated and regressed.26 The fixated molester is one whose development is “fixated” at childhood. In other words, he has never grown up. He typically lives a Peter-Pan existence, in a Neverland of childlike identity and behavior. He doesn’t form adult relationships easily, or if he does, the relationships tend not to be very stable. Instead, he sees children as his peers. Other adults often see him as being “very good with children”, which allows him to obtain a position of trust as a role model, leader, or caretaker.
With his primary sexual interest in children and not adults, the fixated offender fits the classic definition of a “pedophile.” And because he is fixated on children, he cannot properly be considered to be either heterosexual or homosexual — he often finds adults of either sex repulsive.
On the other hand, the regressed molester is very different. His attraction to children is usually more temporary. Unlike the fixated molester, the regressed molester’s primary sexual attraction is toward other adults. But stressful conditions that go along with adult responsibly or difficulties in his adult relationships may overwhelm him, causing his sexual focus to “regress” towards children. This regression sometimes serves as a substitute for adult relationship, and his attraction to children may vary according to the varying stresses he encounters in his adult life demands.
In some cases, he may temporarily relate to the child as a peer, much as a fixated offender relates to children. But more often, he is simply lashing out against the stresses in his life, and the child becomes a convenient target. The offender may find a sense of power in his sexual relationship with a child that he doesn’t get with an adult. When that happens this relationship with the child is often violent. But regardless of the nature of the relationship, the gender of the child is often irrelevant — it’s the easy access and vulnerability that makes the child a target.
Regressed offenders are typically heterosexual in their adult relationships. Unlike our three percent sample, they date women and marry them. They often are parents, stepparents or extended family members of their victims. By all appearances — and by their own self-identification — they are straight. Drs. Groth and Birnbaum emphasized this point, saying:
“In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult relationships is heterosexual.”27
While Drs. Groth and Birnbaum were emphatic on this point, there’s no reason to believe that there’s no such thing as someone who is engaged in homosexual adult relationships while also molesting children. Surely they’re out there. I don’t think any group of fallible human beings can claim perfect innocence on this. But the experts generally agree: the phenomenon is rare.
Are These “Straight” Abusers Lying?
You’re probably shaking your head right about now. Why would a man who claims to be straight molest young boys? How could he not be gay, even if he refuses to admit it?
This contradiction concerned Dr. Kurt Freund and his associates at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, where many convicted sexual predators were sent for treatment. Using an instrument connected to the subject’s penis, Dr. Freund and his colleagues measured changes in its volume while the subject looked at pictures of nude men, women and children.
These phallometric (penis-measuring) tests, while controversial for many reasons,(28) supported the conclusion that as a group overall, GAY ME WERE NO MORE LIKELY TO RESPONDSEXUALLY TO MALE CHILDREN THAN STRAIGHT MEN. Furthermore these tests supported these sex offenders’ statements when they claimed to be gay or straight:
“These studies show that only rarely are sex offenders against male children diagnosed as androphiles [homosexual in adult orientation] and that phallometric diagnosis of gynophilic [heterosexual in adult orientation] and androphilic volunteers almost always corresponds to their claimed erotic preference.”29
So, they are telling the truth — at least according to how they responded physically to the nude pictures.30 When they say they are straight, they respond to pictures of adult women, and when they say they are gay, they respond sexually to pictures of adult men. Yet Dr. Freund determined that gays are less attracted to young boys than straights.
How Could “Straight” Men Be Attracted To Boys?
If these molesters aren’t lying when they say they’re straight, why would they abuse boys? What could possibly be the attraction?
Dr. W.L. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a similar set of phallometric tests on a sample of gay and straight men, except this time they used more photos of young boys and girls covering a wider age span. They noticed that for those gay men who were attracted to males under 18, they tended to be attracted to young men who were well past the age of puberty (age 15 or older), with fully-developed adult genitalia and other features that were characteristically masculine. But when heterosexual men showed an attraction towards younger males, they tended to be attracted to pre-pubescent males (ages 9-11):
“Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth.”31
This explains the apparent contradiction of straight men abusing young boys. They really are straight – they’re responding to the feminine qualities of pre-pubescent boys, qualities that gay men didn’t find appealing. After all, gay men are, by definition, attracted to men; the feminine characteristics of young boys were a turn-off to them.
“Homosexuality” and “Homosexual Molestation”
Part of the confusion between homosexuality and the molestation of young boys comes from the terminology used by researchers themselves. If an adult male molests a young boy, that type of molestation is typically called a “homosexual molestation”. But when described this way, the term “homosexual” is used as an adjective in its most literal sense — the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex. It doesn’t refer to the sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator.32
Unfortunately, researchers aren’t always careful with how they use the word “homosexual” in their academic writings. After all, they understand the clinical meaning of the word according to context. “Homosexual abuse” merely describes the same-sex nature of the abuser and victim, not the sexual orientation of either the abuser or victim. And they often use the shorthand “homosexuals” to describe the men who abuse boys. But when they go the extra step of determining the actual sexual orientation of child molesters, they tend to be more careful. Some, like Dr. Freund, prefer the clinical terms “androphile” (attracted to men) and “gynophile” (attracted to women) to describe those who are attracted to adults.
This point is crucial, one that many anti-gay activists are very hostile towards. Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, exclaimed, “Who cares if a guy is married? If he’s molesting boys, that’s homosexual behavior. It’s academic nonsense to talk about these people as heterosexuals.”33
But it’s not nonsense at all. If a man is married, he’s not among the 3% who said they were gay in our stadium survey. He’s not among the gay couples who are adopting children or seeking to marry. He’s hidden among those who claim to be straight. If law enforcement were to focus their efforts on finding sexual predators among the “out” 3% who claim to be gay, 97% of male abusers of young boys would go unpunished.34
A Firmly Established Tactic
Yet anti-gay activists insist on spreading this misinformation. Dr. Timothy Dailey (Ph.D., religion) of the Family Research Council quoted Dr. Freund’s statement of “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.”35 But he ignored Dr. Freund’s clarification in the very same report that:
Androphiles [homosexuals in adult orientation] actually responded significantly less to the male children.36
This echoes what Dr. Groth reported in 1982:
“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be a homosexual.”37
Of course, you don’t see what the research really says in Dr. Dailey’s article. Instead, you’ll find massive misrepresentations of the research — including that of Dr. Groth, who denounced Dr. Dailey’s misuse of his work:
“Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.”38
EASIER TO NAUSEATE THAN TO EDUCATE
It doesn’t matter how often the lie is repeated; it still remains false. Dr. Michael R. Stevenson conducted an exhaustive review of the literature in 2000, and concluded that “a gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity with children,” and “cases of perpetration of sexual behavior with a pre-pubescent child by an adult lesbian are virtually nonexistent”.39 The research is so strong that the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists40 and the American Psychological Association41 are on record saying that there is no relationship between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
These anti-gay activists know that their claims are false. They’ve read the research from the most knowledgeable experts in the field — the same research I reviewed here in this article. They must know that the falsehoods they are spreading contradict what the researchers themselves are saying.
But they keep spreading their accusations because they know how effective they are. Every parent would consider it his or her worst nightmare to discover that their innocent child has been sexually violated. And anti-gay activists feed on that fear to further their agenda because, as Colorado for Family Values founder Tony Marco observed, “It is easier to nauseate than it is to educate.”42
And while this lie is horribly libelous to gay men and women, that’s only a small part of the problem. The real harm is to our children. As long as we remain suspicious of the wrong people, predators will continue to have free reign to abuse innocent children. If they remain free from scrutiny because everyone else is focusing on gays and lesbians, more young lives will continue to be shattered and more parents will suffer the agonizing heartache of learning that they trusted someone who destroyed their child’s future.
We must not allow those leaders who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians to cynically jeopardize our children’s safety to further their agenda. The consequences are far too severe for the next generation.
So the definition of pedophile is someone who has sex with a pre-pubescent child. If that is the case the numerous men I had sex with in cottaging areas of Dublin before the age of 17 were not strictly speaking pedophiles.But if i was to go to the media and talk about this i think public perception might diagree with this.
At least this hatred of gays by the religous is based on scripture and faith. The hatred of people with mental disorders in the gay community is just based purely on ignorance and bigotry. So for the person who said the gay community mean me no harm you are wrong.
I really have no problem with being same sex attracted but I wonder if I chat to Gerry Ryan or someone on Irish radio and see how many others out there had lots of sex when they were underage in Dublin.Maybe this would reinforce the perception of some of the link between gays and pedophilia.Hopefully this may damage the gay communities standing.
People like Will on here who think they are articulate and bright just show their ignorance by there ramblings.Just because you have a grasp of language does not hide your ignorance and fanatical identity.Considering how hateful the gay community is maybe I can stir up some anti gay sentiment. I know of others who had sex with much older men when they were only 13 years old in Eire.
So there isn’t a link between the molestation of pre-pubescent boys but what about the 12 to 17 age group? Either way I dont care but if the Garda had evidence a large number on the Dublin scene would be done for underage sex.The gays in Eire are more bigoted than the most virulent homophobe and I wish to damage them, so maybe talkback radio this summer would be good when im home for a while.
Victim – you aren’t well, as your rambling post shows. Are you taking your medication properly?
Even if the men I had sex with were unaware i was underage i dont really care.Maybe it will stir up some hatred towards gays in Ireland.The so entrenched bigotry in the gay community they cant even see it,so know its time to harm these vile bigots. The historical persecution of gays makes there own bigotry even moe unacceptable,so its time to f–k these hypocrites.
Get professional help Victim, you’re ill, and possibly a danger to others.
Adrian T you just reinforce your bigotry when you talk about people taking there medication.You are blind to your hate.My experience of homophobia is mild compared to the spiteful bigotry of gays towards the different.There is no understanding of mental health issues and the complete wall of bigotry and ignorance is clear to see to anyone with any knowledge.If you espouse bigotry you can expect it back.
Victim, your trauma is well understood by some. Your younger-day activities are causing you some distress and hatred of other gay men, clearly. Stop posting on here and seek some further psychological help.
You are sick – you threaten to harm others, you are clerly a danger and you need to take medication. You need to seek professional help, and urgently.
It’s not a statement of hate, it’s a statement of fact. I’m saying it for your sake, before you go and do something you regret.
Luckily e-mail details are stored here.
Send him a message at
The man is a disgrace and you should talk the opportunity to express you horror at his views.
Vee, you are as big a sack of s–t as this Owen character. Why do you always try to vilify gays? live and let live for christ’s sake.
Brian Hurtin, you are no doubt a member of the biggest paedophile ring in the world – tha catholic church?
One can only wonder what all these “straight” bigots are doing trawling a gay news site. How do they even know it exists? Seems like there are a lot of people with issues wo are posting here. Go figure
I have a friend who works in a residence in NYC on East 16th St called The Bernard Fineson Rsidence. The manager Curtis Walker is a notorious sex abuser and drug addict. He’s had sex parties with dozens of DD males since his hiring. I can’t prove it but I know that this goes on in other group homes as well. This ais a group home for the severely retarded so most of them simply didn’t understand the activities they engaged in or the psychological consequenses of their actions. Is there any way to protect the DD population from this systematic abuse?
Well, we have them azll here today, don’t we? The medication-brigade. Old Hank with his so called “lung cancer”. Vee with his particular brand of hate. And not to mention the biggest mental job of them all, the aptly named “victim”…. take ALL you pills today Victim, they’re make you feel happy. Oh, and did I forget “reality check” the oximoron?
What an eclectic bunch of ignorance and how strange they all jumped in behind this weasel of a man, “father” Owens.
Its quite simple, there is no evidence that gays molest children any more then heterosexuals. And all the whining by a few sociopathic nuts on a gay web site doesn’t constitute proof in my book, or anyone else’s.
Ever hear of the legend of Sisyphus?
Merciful mother: why are we being infested by the homophobes and bigots?! there aren’t many places we can exchange views, and these twats decide they have the right to spout their nonsense wherecver they like.
I don’t CARE why I am gay. I don’t CARE what any church or religious group think. Keep out of my face, and life. Stop trying to impose your god-bothering whitterings on me, society, and the law. Stop trying to take away from me anything that you think your personal god doesn’t like.
“Gaystapo” – catchy but inaccurate. We’re pissed off by you bifgots and don’t want to listen to your hate speech any longer. We know that YOU want to destroy us: you’ve tried through the centuries – shielded by your Xianity. You did it during the WW2, in extermination camps. You hide your hatered behind platitudes, caring nothing for individuals merely their value as “god-fodder”. You feel persecuted because we want to obliterate your persecution of us, and refuse to be made doormats by you any longer, and reject the hate-filled exhortations of your tribal witch doctors and their acolytes.
I advise, again, my fellow posters to ignore the god-botherers since we can’t argue with them.
As for Victim (and well-named), he has got a massive problem with the gay community, maybe because he was rejected, maybe because his behaviour was so off the wall that people couldn’t understand and ran from him. He’d have had the same problem in the straight world only maybe worse (we gays are a little more empathetic or at least accepting) but since he’s gay (I think) he’s fixated on the injuries we’ve given him. He does need help, and knows he’s got a problem, but unless coming here is therepy for him, he’s not helping himself.
Rant over, sorry chums
COMMENT # 2 FROM STEPHEN C.
“I think we just caught a glimpse of what those children in Ireland were confronted by.”
Comment by Stephen C — May 26, 2009 @ 14:42
Stephen, I could not have put that better myself!
That is just exactly so.
There is no dissent in the Catholic Church; no discussion.
And the two words “BE SILENT!!” – that Owen shouted repeatedly and so paternalistically say all that needs to be said.
A school-friend of mine who is a Catholic religious (priest in a religious order) often told me that I was ‘OBSESSED’ with the Catholic Church.
It has just dawned on me, having watched Owen, that my friend was actually telling me to ‘Be silent!!’…too.
But, where would all these victims of the Catholic Church be, had they done as they were told and been ‘silent’.
Not found out that’s what!!
It is not for doing it that you ‘cop it’.
You ‘cop it’ -for getting found out..as the workers in other corporate bodies have discovered to their cost, the bankers and parliamentarians of recent weeks.
My friend told me that I was ‘obsessed’ because over the years I have asked him why the Caholic Church insists on its position on homosexuality; what he is actually telling me is… ‘that is the stand taken by the Church; take it or leave it.’..in other words ‘Be silent..!’
You won’t win with them.
I am not interested in the Scottish Kirk and the case of Mr. Scott Rennie up there, except to say that it is all the same rigmarole, as he will find out in a couple of years’ time when the pack of hyenas there have re-grouped and go in for the kill.
They are going to ‘examine’ the situation over the next two years!
What is “to examine”…?!!
Some new problem, is it..?!
Re-group for the kill, that is what it is, Mr Rennie.
The upper echelons of these ‘corporations’ are firmly entrenched in their rigid views and you will not shift them; you will ‘toe the line’ or get out.
The only hope is that people will gradually dwindle away, especially now, having seen the likes of Owen’s tirade on their televisions.
What effect his tirade has had on some good Catholic mum who has a homesexual son struggling with it; some sister, whose lovely brother is similarly placed….well, we can only wait and see; only count the emptying places in the pews; that is where the answer to this whole question lies; bums on seats.
That homosexuality is a choice and that paedophilia equates with homosexuality is firmly chiselled in the brains of these people.
And you can bet your last bob that already, the successor to Ratzinger has been earmarked and is being groomed by him in advance of his own demise; yet another trad. clone; just as Ratzinger was earmarked by Wojtyla to succeed him as his trad. clone.
Obviously, I meant that the ‘perpetrators’ would not be found out, not the victims.
You get my drift!
Don’t be so picky, peeps!
I am actually so incensed by that ranting Owens geezer that I cannot tripe stoot…er…strape tote…errmm…oh yes, that’s it TYPE STRAIGHT!!
He took me straight back to school with the Irish Christian Brothers and the 24 clouts I got hammered with, with the strap, in the course of one February day from 4 different brothers.
My protestations of “BUT SIRRR…I HAVE JUST HAD 6 …(12)(18) OFF BROTHER O’ WOTSIT AND BROTHER MACTHINGY..” all met with smirks.
.I hadn’t turned up for rugby the day before (6 of the best!)
..My Latin was all to pot. (6 more of the same)
…I had gone up for pudding ‘seconds’ but without permission…(yep, you got it in one… 6 more..!)
And just as I was packin’ me satchel to go home at 4, along comes
Rev. Bro. O’ Hooligan with six more as he is returning our maths homework from the previous day; my algebra had not met with his approval, so yep… another 6.
So there you are.
I was a higgerant, greedy pig even then.
But, by the same token, even then, they would not listen and they are not listening still.
No dissent; no discussion.
The sock puppet Archdeacon Brian Hurtin = Reality Check by the way.
No apologies for telling ‘Victim’ to get urgent help. It’s for his own good. He’s in a mess, and as you can see from his incoherent posts, he intends to do harm to others. It’s absolutely vital he does so, and urgently. If anyone were a good friend to him, they would say that.
What is disgusting Reality Check / ‘Archdeacon Hurtin’, is that you encourage such people, who are clearly not of sane mind, to vent their anger on here, just so you can prove your point. You should be ashamed of yourself.
To repeat, the moderators shold take a note of his e-mail /IPS details and consider hading them over to the authorities.
Hey. Its weird. Archdeacon Brian C–t was spouting off on another thread here. If you are not LGB or T Brian, what are you obsessing about? Why do our lives interest you so much? Is your life with Jesus so empty you have to fill it up with hatred?
I’m so sorry, I got Brian’s name wrong. Freudian slip. It should of course be Brian Hwhat-a-bigot-then?
Well, the way I see it, is it any surprise that their kind of god would “hate” homosexuality?
I mean, we’re talking about a petty, spiteful and very childish god. Look at the evidence:-
He likes to get fathers to chop their son’s heads off, and at the last minute tell them it was just a joke. What a laugh that day was. Of course, no regard to the consequences:- Isaac was in therapy for weeks, and his son, well, he went off the rails altogether. And could you blame him?
He got pissed off with Moses and caused him to die prematurely, his most loyal follower, because he banged his stick twice instead of once. While the rest of them dance naked around a metal cow and get off with a bit of thunder as punishment. What a bitch!
He puts a poison apple tree in the middle of the garden of eden, and then tells them no to touch it in the full knowledge that that Adam has a clear case of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
He murders Lott’s wife in cold blood, simple because she wanted to have one last look at her home she’s was evicted from by himself god. The landlords during the Irish Famine weren’t even that cruel.
And it doesn’t stop there, it seems god’s a racist too, he don’t care too much for “the blacks” according to the bible (So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled – II Chronicles 14:12). In my book slaughtering a nation on racial lines is called genocide. Hitler must be in heaven, kindred spirits and all.
And this puerile god created the universe? Looks like he could do with a course of Ritalin and some behavioural management.
I wouldn’t let this god rule over a hamster in a cage, let alone creation itself.
the basic facts behind this nonsense.
1. Priests are a male only identity – so you are only going to get men who are priests and therefore men will comit the offense. Also the child abuse scandal affects both girls and boys where homes were of both sexes.
2. For the generation of gay closeted priests who went into the church during the post war period , it was sanctioned as perhaps the only acceptable place to put yourself in society. If you were gay, then you were ever doomed or could go into the church. This was standard socially accepted alternative advice for many young men at the time.
3. These abusers will have therefore been the product of a society who rejected them both as adults and children and offered them an invisible alternative in the institution of the church where they suffered a doctrine of daily reminders that they were in effect bad people for feeling what they did. These maladjusted priests whose sexual development had been arrested in a state of trauma at adolecence were then exposed to young people. Is it no wonder that they then related to the developing sexuality of these young people and sought opportunities to instigate further exploration of their own encarcerated sexualities by initiating disfunctional and abusive sexual experiences in their relations with young people.
This is about the effect and consequences of our society who advocated sexual oppression on a vast scale and the tragic outcome that comes with harbouring those attitudes. The catholic church is as rotten as hell at it’s heart and is totally responsbile for both advocating sexual oppression in society and hiding it within it’s own walls.
Best evidence yet of the bible’s contradictions by Will @ comment # 82. Outstanding post!
Nicholson, well said. All of these lame insinuations by so called religious people is based on their assumption that straight people do no abuse. And the newspapers are full of abuse victims of heterosexuals that would seriously have an issue with this fallacy.
The truth of the matter is that they will grasp at straws to persecute gay people, and it doesn’t seem to matter to them that evidence isn’t needed for their hate.
Oh, and “victim” you DO need help, its rare to come across anyone on this site with such sever mental issues as yourself, and that’s saying much if you read the other posts by the religious ignoranti.
I really thought we had passed the stage of Gay men being associated with drug users, prostitutes and child abusers! Most Gay men would never hurt a child in this way! Its a proven fact that most child abusers are NOT GAY! (Oh yes and by the way, the Pope did not crown Napoleon 1st; he took the crown from the pope and crowned himself! Ed 33)
Will, love the synopsis of the bible stories, very funny man. And whats disturbing is they’re true.
They probably think Sisyphus is an effeminate cat :-)
And don’t get me onto Arsedeacon Brain Hurting……
When looking at this issue, you have to consider people who have sex with adults and people who have sex with children separately. You can’t combine the two, by saying 3% of men are gay but more male children are abused – it doesn’t work. You have to ask paedophiles what their sexuality is. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that paedophilia results from an obsession with childhood. So if men are abusing boys, it is because they are obsessed with their OWN childhood, or their childhood sexuality. It doesn’t mean that they are attracted to members of the same sex as such. This is why paedophilia is associated with childhood trauma – lots of paedophiles were themselves abused as children.
As pointed out, sex with adolescents is an entirely different issue, and one which affects gay and straight men alike. Does anybody else remember the national newspaper campaign (possibly in the Sun or the Star, can’t remember) where they ran a feature of a girl in a bikini each day in the week up to her 16th birthday, and on her birthday they finally published pictures of her topless. So don’t try to tell me that sex with adolescents is primarily a gay issue, as it quite clearly is not!
In any case, the priest in question is clearly a public relations disaster – he is neither aware of the issues in question, nor is he interested in engaging with them. I’m not particularly interested in the presence of bigots in the church, it only serves to make them even more outdated and irrelevant than they already are.
I think people should ignore the morons on here trying to justify what this facist priest says.
Keep focussed and get in touch with the following people:
Archbishop Smith – email@example.com – tell him that this priest must be defrocked
Vice-chancellor of Cardiff Uni – firstname.lastname@example.org – urge his to sack this priest
The priest himself – email@example.com Drop him a line and tell him what you think of him and his views.
Ignore the morons – they are winding you up and succeeding at it.
Will, I like your comment (82) on the ludicrousness situations in the bible that these religious types expect us to believe without question. When you read your comments, it shows how awful they think god really is. And that’s not my god of love and respect, the creator of everything, thats for sure.
I would love to hear their opinion on slavery, as slavery is more than acceptable, and in fact encouraged, in the bible. Maybe one of these things that call themselves victim, Archdeacon-whats-his-face, Hank and Vee can answer that one?
But they never answer these contradictions, do they. They know they’re wrong.
My theory is that they are all web-bots, programmed to give bible passages.
AdrianT, I just wanted to commend you on your excellent posting, I’m always impressed by someone doing a bit of homework on here before they post – and clearly you did.
I see however that it has made jack-sh*t difference to the opinions of the various numpties that seem to have appeared.
Ironically, half the problems in the Bible also seem to stem from misunderstandings in the meaning of words and phrases used in the original texts there too, which these self same people seem more than ready to misunderstand as well.
Ultimately people will believe what they want to believe, and people will often be hostile to others who are different to them. No amount to persuasion will convince them that they are wrong, once things have become ingrained.
In their minds gay is different to them and paedophile is different to them, therefore they must be the same. There’s a kind of a rudimentary logic to it – very rudimentary logic to be fair. If this is the kind of mentality we are arguing against, I would suggest the best solution is to keep it very, very simple.
Isobel – I’ve asked the slavery question before of Hank, and was deafened by his silence
Anybody who believes that the bible is the word of ‘god’ supports slavery; wife-rape and the murder of one’s wife for adultery.
The bible explicitly supports these things.
WILL!! What a great read!! Kudos to you brother!! How true. Jesus was the Original GayTranny Man. He was 35 and still living at home. He wore a dress, had long hair and hung out with all his dude-friends (disciples) who similarily all hung out together wearing the same fashion style. Lastly, but best of all, he made a banquet out of one lousy fish and a loaf of bread,,, who can cater that well ‘cept a gay man!??? The bible was written by a bunch of dudes (probably closet-queers if they even had closets back then,,haha!) who were so empty they write about little else but barbarism and racism and prejudice. Nice society back then. Almost as wonderful as those who dwell unnaturally in the House of the Homophobes in 2009. God sure was angry in that book!! I sincerely doubt he is that nasty of a guy…if he hated gays so much,,,why in Heaven would he have made so many??? If he hated blacks, why in Heaven would he have made so many?? Just sayin’.
The ‘god’ in the bible is a nasty, vengeful, petty, genocidal f*cker. Luckily he’s a work of fiction.
21st Century Roman Catholicism
The doctrine of Death
* Sentencing millions of people to HIV infections and Aids through its evil policy of denying condom use.
The doctrine of Misogyny
* Denying women the same rights of men, blocking ascendancy to the priesthood due to inherent hatred of women amongst its leaders.
The doctrine of Child Abuse
* Perpetuating organised rings of paedophile priests, and organised secrecy of their activities.
Is this really acceptable in the 21st century
* Medieval thinking
* Hatred of women
* Organised abuse of children
WILL ANY ONE BE PROTESTING
against Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK
Is that evil f*cker Ratzinger coming to the UK? When is that?
The Home Office has banned extremists like Shirley Phelps from coming. I reckon she should be request to keep that evil old b*stard out as well.
The poor archdeacon, – if is that what he is – like all religious people is mentally ill, for religious faith is a mental illness. The poor man seems as if he suffers from a particularly virulent form of religious mania.
Comment # 83 NICHOLSON
Comment # 96 John K and # 97 Simon Murphy…
Yep he is…how’s about a shoe-throwing event…?
It seems as if the Victim has a temporary leave of absence from his mental hospital! The poor archdeacon, – if is that what he is – like all religious people is mentally ill, for religious faith is a mental illness. The poor man seems as if he suffers from a particularly virulent form of religious mania.
No Neville, he isn’t an archdeacon – it happens to be just one of his monnikers on here.
Adrian T – what makes you think we’re dealing with one guy with several pseudonymns and not simply a number of them?
Quite frankly our task would be a whole lot simpler if we’re just dealing with one guy with many names, but I think the more obvious answer is that this site simply attracts homophobes like honey attracts flies.
I mean, if you wanted to find some gay people to troll on the net, where’s the obvious first port of call?
Unless you can detect a specific linguistic trait common to all of them (barring the obvious homophobia), I’m still working on the assumption they’re legion! Is the Occam’s razor approach too simplistic?
Besides Keith (72, 73) and me (46), no other comments appear to have been made by cradle catholics. Just an observation.
This Owen thing comes too close to home for me, but I have been following this thread with a good deal of interest and I really cannot disagree with anything said about the RCC.
To repeat from my post 46, the RCC has its own logic: the pope is right even when he is wrong. Keith is absolutely right when he says catholics are invited to ‘either toe the line or get out’.
Canadian cardinals have made that clear by saying that the ‘files’ on priestly celibacy, women’s ordination, and homosexuality are officially closed.
Dey don’t wanna ‘ear ‘nother word ’bout it, unless someone wants to defend the RCC’s reputation like owen.
Thank you Keith for wisdom distilled from experience.
As for paedophilia in the RCC, I agree with Sister Mary Clarence (14), and with John K (91) that children were (are) abused by a ‘well orchestrated network of paedophiles’.
I have just retired from 29 years as an RCC employee. The things I’ve seen and heard could fill volumes.
Also, I’ve come out of it walking proud. As an ex-monk, nobody in this town wanted to hire me, and I had two parents who needed me home. I buried the both of them 75 miles apart, which was how they experienced their catholic marriage where divorce is not an option.
In the meantime, I found the perfect man for me right here, 19 years ago. Life begins when you’re in love!
In my opinion, owen will be rewarded for protecting the reputation of the RCC just as Boston’s cardinal Law, who now collects a cool $4,000 a month doing what is known as a ‘soft job’ in Vatican City. (NCR Archives)
Finally, not that AdrianT needs any support from me, but I believe the man lives by the old saying:
‘Casting aspersions on the character of others undermines one’s own’.
Exposing a fraud is not slander and Adrian has never to my knowledge besmirched anyone. In fact when I read Adrian’s comments, I realize how foolish I have been to allow myself to mimick those who splatter others with mud in an attempt to gain the upper hand. I guess I needed to vent my rage somehow without hurting anyone close to me, especially not my partner.
Recommended reading: J.N.D. Kelly’s ‘Dictionary of Popes’, Oxford University Press….. to be prepared for the eventuality that ‘benny’ will set foot in GREAT BRITAIN.
I’m the publisher of PinkNews. We are aware that some of the comments on this article and others have spiraled out of control and have no real relevance to the article itself. We will begin a consultation process with our readers next week to examine the best way forward, not least with the introduction of a report to moderator link for every single comment. Other ideas are welcome to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Resident Christian Homophobes
(A brief list)
4. David Skinner
5. Reality check
6. Archdeacon Brian Hurtin
Yep; it IS ‘ toe the line or get out ‘ in the Catholic Church.
No deviation; no discussion.
Just look at Bishop Roddy Wright’s (Argyll and the Isles) case.
That wasn’t just that he wanted to marry; much more to that than was let be known at the time.
He blew off to as far away from Europe as he could, in order to get away from it all…as in N.Z.
You can’t get any further away than that, otherwise you’d meet yourself on the way back.
And he really stuck it to them by marrying a divorcee.
Rock the rock and you’re out on your ear!
Mr. Scott Rennie, up in your Queen’s Cross church, please take note, because you will be next, sir, sadly.
Benjamin Cohen (98):
This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine ! !
With lots of gratitude,
Flapjack, the fact that ‘Archdeacon Brian’ knew to return to an obscure thread on ‘Faith schools to be allowed to tell pupils homosexuality is wrong’ (which amassed 277 posts; true there was a big deal of sock-puppetry on that thread) and omit to change his name back to ‘Reality Check’ told me the two monnikers were the same person. William of Ockham himself would agree, I am sure, it was too obvious. Alas, the offending post has been removed now.
oops, this is spiralling off topic :-)
Your post 96 was not intended for me, but I can’t resist.
William of Occam (1290-1349) or (1285-1347), depending on whom you are reading, was a Franciscan and will remain one of my favorite 14th century philosophers.
However, in my opinion, Occam’s Razor has served its purpose of enlightening the Middle Ages by bringing some rigour back into the study of logic.
He felt that Aristotle had been misunderstood by many people and that this had led logic and the theory of knowledge to fall into the grip of metaphysics and theology.
Occam’s philosophy, known as Nominalism, held that experience and reason are the only authority in philosophy. Of course, he was excommunicated for that!
The fact remains that he represents one of the foetuses in the womb of the Middle Ages who brought forth the Age of Reason, the Industrial Revolution and the world discovered by Einstein (relativity), and in which we live with both its negative and positive characteristics.
Occam laid the seeds, as it were, of the collapse of the great mediaevel system of philosophy. For that he merits our applause.
To return to your post, this exchange between you and AdrianT exemplifies what contemporary philosophers see when they seek the truth about our mysterious reality, and they call it Ambiguity, e.g. a object can be one thing from one point of view and another from another point of view, like a Picasso.
We are all ambiguous and the trick is to feel comfortable with the fact that we are fellow-time-travellers in a voyage into the unknown. (Spooky, eh?)
It can be challenging and humanity itself is creating the future at this very very minute. We all contribute to it in our own way.
Did I say that?
Time for my green tea, gotta go check my tulips, see ya.
Hallo my friend. I’ve just been having a rest from computers and all those little irritations that build up over a period. Scotland is a wonderland of still waters. high, snow-capped mountains and fab wild-life. Scottish Boys are wonderful too. How have you been?
I cannot even be bothered to comment on the inane accusation that Gay people are to blame for paedophilia. I was aquainted with a Gay Catholic Priest a few years ago. He lived quite openly with a boy half his age. I wonder what he is thinking about the paedophile comments by the Catholic aid?
I have sent the following email to the Vice Chancellor of Cardiff University. I urge other readers to do something similar. The email address is FarnhamS@Cardiff.ac.uk
FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR
Dear Vice Chancellor,
Father John Owen, Roman Catholic Chaplain to the University
This is to draw your attention to the disgraceful homophobic remarks made by Father John Owen on the BBC television programme The Big Questions. This is available on the BBC iplayer at The Big Questions: Series 2: Episode 19.
Would you please tell me if you are going to allow a man who will besmirch the University’s reputation to be given a platform for bigotry at the University, or are you going to discuss with the Archdiocese his replacement with a chaplain who does not have such repellent views?
I await your comments with very great interest.
Adrian T/Jean Paul – thanks for your feedback… always welcome. I’m still unsure that two homophobes on a thread running to 277 posts is necessarily proof that Reality Check and the Archbishop are the same guy, unless the train of thought he started under one name was completed under another.
I’m not denying the possibility mind you, but I’d have to look at what was said to be sure.
That said, I haven’t seen Reality Check post anything new for a while, so you might be onto something! :)
Oops, meant to say ‘Archdeacon’, not ‘Archbishop’… I’m not in the buisness of handing out ecclesiastic promotions here!
Actually do bear in mind that Mr Owen was severely put in his place by everyone on the show – he did his diocese, the same one that tried to cover up a child abuse case a few years ago, no favours at all
(I think its still on I-player – did you see the nonsense at the end about animals, and ‘even wasps’, going to heaven? this, according to a church of england vicar…)
“…did you see the nonsense at the end about animals, and ‘even wasps’, going to heaven? this, according to a church of england vicar…”
This is in no way any criticism of your quote; just another angle.
I cannot understand why these ‘religiosos’ cannot take on board that if a Creator can be so wonderful as to create the ant and the elephant, have the earth going around the sun and make a blade of grass and a wasp..then He can have in His heaven who and what He wants; we should just stand back in amazement; what has it got to do with anybody else…?
SIMILARLY, what is the problem with accepting that homosexuality is part of that same diverse creation, as I am convinced it is, and for His, very good, own reasons..?
Again, and for ther same reasons as animals in heaven, what has it got to do with anybody else…?
Brian Burton (105):
That gays are responsible for the staggering presence of paedohilia in the rcc is fact the most implausible statement I have ever heard, and I have heard thousands of absurd sermons from rcc pulpits. Just thinking about them brings back the headaches, and so does fa-a-ther owen.
At one point I tried using earplugs, but they don’t really work when the main concern of the maintenance committee is to keep the p.a. system blasting as loud as possible.
I did try cutting the wires to the speaker closest to where I habitually sat, but it was repaired before I could feel any relief.
How have I been? It’s tough going sometimes, but on the whole I have been growing by leaps and bounds. A lot of clever lads here.
Who ever said growing older was boring didn’t have a laptop! But it is a good idea to slip it under the bed for a few days every now and then and tend to the tulips.
So you took the road to the Scottish Highlands, did you? I did notice that you had dropped out of sight. As I was saying to someone the other day, we have come a long, long way in a very short period of time debating on all kinds of topics.
I intend to make a sincere effort to refrain from using vulgar language, no matter how much fun it could be.
Now I must check out the still waters and the snow-capped mountains of Scotland on Google Earth! As for Scotties, I grew up with a blue-eyed, red-haired, virile Scot, whose name is Brian by the way. Love ‘em!
It’s good to have you back, old chum.
Hey Neville, you said, ” like all religious people is mentally ill, for religious faith is a mental illness.”
Well one of your idols is probably Nietzche who had nothing good
to say about religon and coined the statement “God is dead,” occurring in several of Nietzsche’s works (notably in The Gay Science), has become one of his best-known remarks.
But then in 1889 he exhibited symptoms of insanity, living out his remaining years in the care of his mother and sister until his death in 1900. On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche suffered a collapse which seems to have triggered a psychotic break.
Commentators have frequently diagnosed a syphilitic infection as the cause of the illness. While most commentators regard Nietzsche’s breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy, some, including Georges Bataille and René Girard, argue that his breakdown may have been caused by a psychological maladjustment brought on by his philosophy
Bertrand Russell (another of your idols?) in his epic History of Western Philosophy was scathing in his chapter on Nietzsche, calling his work the “mere power-phantasies of an invalid” and referring to Nietzsche as a “megalomaniac”.
Sounds like Nietzche could have used some spiritual help with
his psychological problems don’t you think?
Hey Isobel… and …Mary Clarence…you said, “I would love to hear their opinion on slavery, as slavery is more than acceptable, and in fact encouraged, in the bible. Maybe one of these things that call themselves victim, Archdeacon-whats-his-face, Hank and Vee can answer that one?
But they never answer these contradictions, do they. They know they’re wrong.
My theory is that they are all web-bots, programmed to give bible passages.
Mary Clarence said “Isobel – I’ve asked the slavery question before of Hank, and was deafened by his silence”.
HANK’S REPLY: I’ve answered this briefly in the past but will offer a bit more detail:
My comment is: you people like to use wide interpretation with such words as : abomination…sexual sins…Sodom’s sin being pride and inhospitality… to know them….a man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman…. gone after strange flesh..and many other phrases that you use your own interpreation to say that homosexuality is not condemned in the OT and the NT.
So…using your “approach or methodology” to explain, justify, or clarify…I’ll do the same with slavery and the Bible, If you want God’s entire view, look at the references in the Bible as they explain it in detail.
Again…you shouldn’t select a few phrases or verses out of the Bible…it’s not a “cookbook” version that you select a single recipe and ignore the entire meal offering. Do you do that with a man-made philosophical system and ignore the majority of the writing….I hope not!
Did you know that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament?
You also say that God of the Bible approves of slavery, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
Nowhere does the Bible say God supports slavery. You have to understand that discussing the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from slavery in today’s society, as we understand it — where people were captured and sold as slaves.
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16). What’s more clear that God punished this act when you understand slavery in God’s view..
Our modern day view of 17th century slavery practices of using Africans who were captured and forcibly were brought to work on plantations is not the same as slavery in ancient days
(and that’s where your argument and thinking is consistently wrong about slavery and the Bible. You have to read the subject in its entirety so you can stop making erroneous accusations about it).
Outside of some God-given support for those in need, there were no welfare programs for ancient Middle Easterners who couldn’t provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who couldn’t provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would RECEIVE FOOD AND HOUSING IN EXCHANGE FOR LABOR. (Isn’t this better than letting someone die of starvation and neglect?)
So, of course there were rules about slavery in the Bible – and those rules existed to PROTECT the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party and these were the DO’s and DONT’s
1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,
2 slander a slave,
3 have sex with another man’s slave,
4 return an escaped slave.
5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years).
6 The slave owner was encouraged to “pamper his slave”.
So if you’re not prejudiced when looking for facts, you’ll see that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery IS FALSE. Any Jewish person caught selling another person into slavery was to be EXECUTED.. The exception was in cases of voluntary slavery (for the well-being of people unable to care for themselves) which God permitted to be widely practiced during biblical times as long as the laws to protect the lives and health of slaves were followed.
There’s a clarifying letter in the New Testament (Philemon15-21) that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery.
You said, “Ignore ignorance.”
Please elaborate on your sparkling, intelligent statement — I’m
afraid I don’t see its penetrating explanation.
Hank: “Nowhere does the Bible say God supports slavery.”
Oh, dear. How wrong can he be?
Listen and learn, idiot.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
My, fairly straight forward to me. Now, what bit don’t you understand, Hank, you seem to take the bits about homosexuality so literally….
Ignore inconsistencies . . .
In one instances Hanks subscribes to – Scholarly exegesis
In the next instance Hanks subscribes to – Fundamentalist exegesis
Hank you cannot have your cake and eat it
Hank says,”The exception was in cases of voluntary slavery.”
No, Hank that wasn’t the only exception. There was another very important exception, namely in their dealigs with non-Hebrews.
“The servants you have, men and women, shall come from the nations round you; from these you may purchase servants, men and women. You may also purchase them from the children of the strangers who live among you, and from their families living with you who have been born on your soil. They shall be your property and you may leave them as an inheritance to your sons after you, to hold in perpetual possession. These you may have for slaves; but to your brothers, the sons of Israel, you must not be hard masters.” – Leviticus 25:44–46
Well put Will. And John, you’re so right. Thus Hank twit just flip-flops when it suits him. To deny the bible supports slavery is quite frank;y indicative of his lack of knowledge. A very distasteful individual. Thankfully he’s a very. very small minority in Europe.
And this playing in gay sites for “insights”… now there’s something very, very wrong there.
I agree with your idea that he is playing gay sites for insights. . .
My own feeling is that by promoting his exgay fundamentalist Christian agenda, Hank believes he can steer vulnerable LGBT people into the perverse Narth web of self-loathing and homophobic hatred.
My turn, my turn…
Could you speak a little louder, I’m deaf in one ear.
In the meantime, and I quote, just for you, and fa-a-ther owen:
‘Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man
Plac’d on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much.
-Alexande Pope (1688-1744)
Or, nobody’s poifect!
“So…using your “approach or methodology” to explain, justify, or clarify…I’ll do the same with slavery and the Bible, ….”
So you accept this argument when its used in relation to homosexuality then do you?
I said it once and I will say it again,,,,,,
It is only a book like any other book , made by a man
Who was told by a woman to get lost when he tried to have his way with her
So he made this story so that men were better than woman
How else did all this shit that woman are 2 end class people of this earth
In every bloody Religion us women are always down trodden
Throughout time, religion has bean a pain in the ass and the men behind it
Women have had the s–t kicked out of them in the name of religion
Women are still killed women are still raped butchered made to do all sorts of bad things
Way is it with all the shit that is going on in the world the god will not come out from were god is and say to gods followers that you are all a bunch of twats,
Would a god tell a Muslim man to cover all the Muslim women in a bed sheet so other men could not see her, fuck no, god would not, it was a Muslim man a jealous of other men looking at his wife
What a twat
Did not god say love people love life
We are the only things on this planet that will kill ones own for the sake of it
no other living thing on this planet is so CUREL to its own kind.
and most of it is done in the name Of Religion .
The perverts in the church are sex starved , what do you expect when you can not have sex
Religion has caused so much shit in this world HOW many people have been KILLED.
KILLED because she had a black cat oh my god she must be a witch burn her at the stake
If she drowns she is not a witch .
Which twat thought of that oh yes it was a religions man
The fucking world is round, we came from the sea as slime and evolved to who we are to day look at us where have we got to .
F—–G nowhere, it is the year as we know it 2009 and we still kill our own kind
I,am a Transsexual Lesbian Woman I treat people how I want to be treated
Some of the people in this world just make me sick at how they treat people
Deference is dead, John OWEN.
You do not go ranting from your pulpit today, like some absolute ruler; disgraceful.
Its demise started in WWI, it was finished off in WWII and was buried with the coming of the 60′s.
John: “Hank believes he can steer vulnerable LGBT people into the perverse Narth web of self-loathing and homophobic hatred.”
How right you are, John. And how wrong he is if he thinks that even one of us here would for one second buy into a ridiculous and damaging process like “gay conversion”, even if it did work!!!
I wouldn’t care if 50 bibles told me I should not be gay, or if there actually WAS scientific proof that homosexuality is not “natural”, I would STILL be gay. Nothing can change that, not least Hank and his low brow ideals.
Why would I chose to remove a part of who I am, and why would I give up my happy live with my adorable partner? Just so I can fit in with the febrile rantings of another person to make them feel better?
The very notion is absurd.
I’m gay and proud to be so, all the more so because I have to fight for my place in this world.
And in that alone I have achieved more than Hank, which his futile internet dribble, ever could.
And its sad that he hasn’t the brain power to comprehend that.
Will I agree
“Why would I chose to remove a part of who I am, and why would I give up my happy live with my adorable partner? Just so I can fit in with the febrile rantings of another person to make them feel better?”
This is why in my view Hanks and exgays are very dangerous.
Put it like this, what is the difference between destroying a part of oneself and actually destroying another gay person because they remind you are what you have chosen to eradicate. Psychological murder in my view is not far away from actual murder.
So hank, if a man bums a woman is he too going to hell? You know…..for bumming her???
Lezabella . . . excellent point.
Hank seems oblivious to the range of sexual practices of heterosexual, in favour of an obsession that all gay men have bum sex . . . interestingly, he also ignores lesbian sex
In the heterosexual male’s mind (for the majority, anyway) one of the ‘best things’ a woman can do for him is to allow him to have anal sex with her. It’s one of THE main fantasies/wishes. So in Hank’s mind what will happen to these men?
The people most obsessed with the acts that homosexual men participate in are the religious fanatics. They’re literally obsessed. “Sodomy this”, “Anal intercourse that”! Ob-sessed! Which is funny because I’m sure you guys couldn’t give a dman what they do to their wives!
And ofcourse Hank doesn’t mention lesbian sex, because to people like him what we do isn’t really sex for the simple fact that no penis is involved. You see, in their mind, we (lesbians) can be ‘cured’, and guess what? Their penis is the answer!
Fucked up a bit aren’t they?
Yep Lezabella (and to hell with comments spiralling out of control) let’s hear it for the biblical penis! :-)
This thread is almost crazy enough for a Turner prize….
‘Biblical Penis’ – ha ha ha well done Adrian that’s quality! :) And that’s what it’s all about isn’t it?
It could win a Turner prize. No doubt.
But what I don’t get is why muppets like Hank et al come here just for an argument? An argument they can never win.
Someone should tell them about Charles Darwin, or maybe little things called ‘dinosaurs’; maybe then they’ll realise that living their lives according to a book of stories, many that are violent, will not give them happiness. Only intolerance, narrow-mindedness and self-righteousness.
It has been fun, hasn’t it? Let’s have it framed and mounted.
Pumkin Pie – Better be careful how you mount this thread! Wouldn’t want to upset Hank ;)
(Lezabella – believe me, we have discussed precisely that topic on another thread in February, threw Dawkins, Sagan, Darwin, SJ Gould at him, to absolutely no avail…. I think Benjamin Cohen will go through the roof if such an argument were to be repeated; it went on for about 130 postings…. but I genuinely hope he might take up my recommendation to read Francis Collins’ ‘Language of God’ one day)
Lady Tanya (123):
I hear you loud and clear, and I am delighted to see you here.
You do have a universal point of view and we need to hear more of it. Men – me and the rest of us guys – have got to get off this patriarchal merry-go-round. We are no better than women.
Many, many average women are more intelligent than the average man.
Women have been getting deprived of a life’s-time worth of happiness and why, why, tell me why?
Why was my mother raped – raped – repeatedly by her chronic alcoholic husband, then had to work her fingers to the bone at a sewing machine to buy the groceries for six children?
I’ll tell you why – it was because dad used to get drunk with the parish priest who made it clear to him that he was to control his wife and that she had no right to refuse him getting his rocks off. Sound like something that idiotic fa-ather owen would say? fa-a-ther of what? fa-a–ather of fa-a-a-a-rts.
Sorry, Lady Tanya, but when AdrianT said this thread was getting a bit crazy, I took that as a personal invitation ! ! Ha !
I’ll have my tea and calm down in a minute, but speaking of women and the ca-a-tholic church, there are more women in the rcc with a PhD in theology than there are bishops in the entire world. I can show you the statistics.
If all women left the ca-a-tholic church, it would crumble in a minute. Ironic, eh? A boys’ club built on the backs of women !
What’s more, women with PhD’s in theology don’t have a slave-woman working at minimum wages with no social benefits and no pension plan. Women do their own work at every level.
Slave-woman? What slave-woman?
Who do you think presses fa-a-ther owen’s trousers, who shines his shoes, who does his laundry, who makes up his bed every morning, who cleans his loo, who cooks his meals, who answers his phone, who does the floors, who does the windows, the dusting, the vacuumimg, who cleans the fireplace, who puts out the garbage, who does the dishes, who puts up with him ?
A slave-woman till she’s ready to drop. Then he’ll give her a wooden rocking chair bought at Wal-Mart for $29.99, put a plastic red ribbon on it, have his picture taken with her as she accepts her last check with a humble smile on her face, and pin the picture on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the church. What a nice guy! Let’s all give fa-a-ther a round of applause, now.
Speaking of a face, look at fa-a-ther owen’s face and what do you see? Un cochon!
Water’s boilin’, tea time. Cheerio.
‘Tis very true, Jean-Paul. The Bible was written by a very specific subset of society for a very specific subset of society. Every god in the world resembles those who worship it, because it was they who created it to protect their self-serving ideals.
Pumkin Pie – Better be careful how you mount this thread! Wouldn’t want to upset Hank
I was going to make a mounting gag myself, but I figured I’d let somebody else have the fun. :D
Talk about ‘mosaic eyeballs’ after reading 137 comments. I must say I did not understand some of it and wondering if I am a Biblicle Penus or Lezabella’s bummer, Hank asking for penitration! Jean-Paul and slavery? “I had many a slave in my Leather, Biker days!!” Dear Adrian T. wanting a Turner Prize (So he should! Lady Tanya–so genteel! Poor Victim and Bigotry, dos’e He/she have the word ‘Victim here’ tattooed on the ass? Will is a very forthright pussycat with his (listen and learn) Idiot ajenda! Well all you dear, dear Children of Pink, I love you ALLLLLLLLL. And in the fulness of time, your dreams will come true…..And Goodby!
As I write this, on my sundrenched balcony, a spider is sinking its fangs into the neck of a hapless bumble bee, which strayed from the clamatis and now lies enshrouded and suffocating in silk. Is this also ‘sent from heaven above’? If you’re going to proclaim this for All Good Things, you must claim it for the bad things, too.
Actually, I am going to start a thread on the pink news Forum about how to deal with religious fundamentalists. A kind list of usual suspect Q&A’s, that we’ve encountered, a bit like what the guys at Talkorigins.org do to rebuff creationist gibberish.
(go to ‘My’ and select forum – to contribute, you have to create a profile for yourselves)
Huh? How long has PinkNews had a forum for? :o
Yes, it’s been tucked away so nobody whatsoever notices it.
Yesterday I joined AdrianT’s forum.
It’s a first for me, and if I can do it, anybody can. It really is user friendly, except there seems to be a problem in the profile section when trying to find your date of birth.
In my case I ended up being born in 1910 even though I entered 1945. It just looks strange to see my profile read that I am 99 years old! And I Think AdrianT is 109 year old!
Anyway, it looks like it could be a fun way to communicate, and I would encourage everyone to join Adrian’s Wall!
I too have Jpoined Adrian Ts wall. Poor Adrian, 109 years old. In fact he looks cute!
On the basis of this pearl of wisdom it is nice to know that most of you enjoy undermining your own character (that is if you have any).
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO., June 13, 2005. A forty-eight page study to be published two weeks from now in the peer-reviewed journal, Psychological Reports, compares extensive and newly released Center for Disease Control (CDC) data, concluding that homosexuals are far more likely to engage in illegal and socially dangerous behaviour than heterosexuals. In fact, according to the study, homosexuals are over 107% more likely to have been booked for illegal activity than heterosexuals.
A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.
The new statement says:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”
Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, “If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.”
“The term ‘homophobia’ is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds,” NARTH explains. “Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled ‘homophobia.’”
Perhaps you will stop using this ridiculous accusation now although I doubt it as truth is not high on your agenda. All that matters is making the assertion and hoping someone will believe it (that’s if they are stupid enough).
Using a report that hasn’t been published yet isn’t going to get you many points. Define “socially dangerous behaviour”. Y’know, the same sorts of things are said about the black community. Does being black make you a bad, bad person, or could there possibly be social factors at work here?
If you’d read what you’d actually posted, you’d see that they haven’t said there’s no “gay gene” – they just haven’t found one. And genetics is not the only way for something to be innate – the effect of hormones in the womb are another prime suspect for sexuality. You might also be interested to know that while the jury’s still out on exactly how sexualities come about, the verdict is most certainly in on the fact that sexuality CANNOT be altered. Even the villainous NARTH have admitted that the best they hope for is to stop homosexuals from acting on their desires.
NARTH are a closed circle group with a Christian bias who have produced no convincing evidence, let alone peer-reviewed studies, to back up any of their specious claims. They are most certainly homophobes, as their fears are completely unsupported by rigourous scientific study. You can not “morally, scientifically and medically disagree” with homosexuality any more than you can with being Chinese. What do they mean by “disagree”, anyway? They mean they just don’t like us, plain and simple.
Then “Prof” Douglas Abbott doesn’t know shit about genetics. Genetic traits can be dormant and be triggered by other factors, such prenatal environment. A first year college student would know that.
Could it be you’re lying, or Douglas Abbott is an idiot?
Just another sick uknowwhat of the church. Looking to blame gays for the church’s crimes.
1. Denying mankinds basic urge beyond food, and creating a group of sex starved individuals.
2. those individuals want to establish their authority. Just like prisoners like to establish their authority over the weaker of the population. And the standard means of doing that is to rape the weaker person. Exactly what led to the church sex scandal. BTW, rape of a woman generally has little if anything to do with sex, and everything to do with power, and denigration and control. The exact same things the church does.
And the alter boys wwere just the handiest victims to be.
And we must really ask why the church hid these crimes for decades, and knowingly just sent their self created perverts elsewhere to continue their trade. There can be only one answer – because the rot reaches all the way to the top.
and that was before Razi the Nazi took over.
Neither. Just a case of you performing true to form which is when you are caught out with the truth you descend into childish ranting and raving, abusive language, pathetic name calling and an attitude of “how can ANYONE know more than us homosexuals.”
Bottom line – you hang yourselves with your own words.
Congratulations to Fr Owen for telling it like it is. Homosexuals are a clear and present threat to all young boys.