"Who am I to judge?" redux
#41
(03-20-2014, 10:07 PM)loggats Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 10:00 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 09:19 PM)loggats Wrote: So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.

Well, homosexual behavior and pederasty (which is often mistakenly referred to as pedophilia) are highly correlated.  This is factual.  Of course that does not imply that all men predisposed to SSA are also predisposed to pederasty. 

You could start by reading Goodbye, Good Men if you're interested

You said "young children" not "young men." And again, without entering into what age a person is ready for sexual contact of any sort (remembering that it wasn't too long ago that puberty was the benchmark) there are laws of consent in the West that regulate these behaviours. If homosexual men are predisposed to pederasty, then heterosexual men are predisposed to having sex with girls just shy of sexual maturity - because that's the nature of the beast. You want to reduce all sexual contact to a matter of fertility? Why not think about that, rather than indulge a prurient interest in SSA.

What do you mean, "I said"?  I didn't use either of the phrases you have in quotes.  I'm curious what you're talking about.

Unfortunately in reality, as opposed to theory, the correlation between homosexual behavior and pederasty is stronger than that between heterosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior with minors.

I'm not going to debate the point, since I don't think you're open to this conclusion.  You can find evidence if you search.

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase "indulge a prurient interest in SSA", which I find offensive.  I am replying to a thread on the forum.  I am not the person putting comments from prelates about homosexuality in the news.
Reply
#42
(03-20-2014, 11:23 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 10:07 PM)loggats Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 10:00 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 09:19 PM)loggats Wrote: So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.

Well, homosexual behavior and pederasty (which is often mistakenly referred to as pedophilia) are highly correlated.  This is factual.  Of course that does not imply that all men predisposed to SSA are also predisposed to pederasty. 

You could start by reading Goodbye, Good Men if you're interested

You said "young children" not "young men." And again, without entering into what age a person is ready for sexual contact of any sort (remembering that it wasn't too long ago that puberty was the benchmark) there are laws of consent in the West that regulate these behaviours. If homosexual men are predisposed to pederasty, then heterosexual men are predisposed to having sex with girls just shy of sexual maturity - because that's the nature of the beast. You want to reduce all sexual contact to a matter of fertility? Why not think about that, rather than indulge a prurient interest in SSA.

What do you mean, "I said"?  I didn't use either of the phrases you have in quotes.  I'm curious what you're talking about.

Unfortunately in reality, as opposed to theory, the correlation between homosexual behavior and pederasty is stronger than that between heterosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior with minors.

I'm not going to debate the point, since I don't think you're open to this conclusion.  You can find evidence if you search.

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase "indulge a prurient interest in SSA", which I find offensive.  I am replying to a thread on the forum.  I am not the person putting comments from prelates about homosexuality in the news.

Had you confused with the person I actually addressed my post to, Thomas More.

And yep, any defense that involves 'you search for it, I'm not going to explain myself' is a fairly lame one.
Reply
#43
(03-20-2014, 11:31 PM)loggats Wrote: Had you confused with the person I actually addressed my post to, Thomas More.

And yep, any defense that involves 'you search for it, I'm not going to explain myself' is a fairly lame one.

Challenge accepted!  I'll meet you back here tomorrow.
Reply
#44
(03-20-2014, 07:30 PM)Saint Thomas More Wrote: Vox,

This is your forum and you are entitled to your opinions as such but I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. There is no difference in SSA with the attractions stated above.

I'm not sure what this sentence means.

Quote:Let's not play favorites here just because we have some people with SSA on the board. Would you be so happy for and excited for a man that tells you he likes young children to come on the board and then tell you he wants to start a group at the church? What's the difference if he's not wanting to act on his "attraction"?

There's no difference in terms of his pastoral care. If a pedophile knows he is ill and never wills to act on that illness, if he never wants to harm a child, then I'd have no problem with there being a support group for him and others like him. I'd keep my kids far, far away from him, but don't want to see people dehumanized because of desires they have not a lot of control over.

Quote:I also have to say that for whatever reason YOUR preoccupation with mentioning the evil deeds of active homosexuals in a public forum is both scandalous (since you are a self proclaimed trad) and appalling. We all know what the word sodomy entails we don't need a more detailed description of it.

No, actually, "we" don't know. Some people include oral sex in the definition. Others just include anal sex. And for many who include just anal sex, they seem to be only worried about homosexual anal sex.

Quote: Just like I don't need to think about the details of men/women who sexually abuse children or men who love animals, or the guy and his red car. The topic of homosexuality with it's details of sodomy is appalling on this site and not something that trads or even Catholics in general should be speaking about. Remember scripture says "For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of." Ephesians 5:12 Douay Rheims bible.

I don't know where you're getting "the details of sodomy" anywhere on this forum, but you're not getting it from me other than stats.

Quote: I'll just say that and end it there. I won't be going to the "hellos goodbyes" forum I'll just say GOODBYE here. I hope you seriously consider what I've said. I'm not the only one that thinks so either. Feel free to delete this if it offends your sense of justice for people with SSA, at least I'd know you read it and I didn't just stay quiet and say nothing being passive aggressive.

I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks as you do. That's the problem.

Reply
#45
(03-20-2014, 10:07 PM)loggats Wrote: You said "young children" not "young men." And again, without entering into what age a person is ready for sexual contact of any sort (remembering that it wasn't too long ago that puberty was the benchmark) there are laws of consent in the West that regulate these behaviours. If homosexual men are predisposed to pederasty, then heterosexual men are predisposed to having sex with girls just shy of sexual maturity - because that's the nature of the beast. You want to reduce all sexual contact to a matter of fertility? Why not think about that, rather than indulge a prurient interest in SSA.

I pray that you keep things not "personal" by intimating A Catholic Thinker himself has a prurient interest in SSA. Your overall point, though, is well-taken by me. I think there is, in general, a prurient interest in this topic and that the automatic equation of "homosexuals" with "sodomites" (by which is meant folks who engage in anal sex) is evidence of it. I don't think it's cool to single out a poster for that sort of reality check, and I'd never accuse A Catholic Thinker, a married man, of having a prurient interest in all this, but I definitely think that the total lack of logic displayed by so many when it comes to talking about this matter, along with the vehemence, the hypocrisy, the severe lack of empathy and mercy and, as always, that constant focus on "sodomy" is tired, old, wrong, and the source of a lot of pain.

In another recent thread, for ex., someone responding to a post about homosexuals felt the need to replace that word with "sodomites." In this thread, we have someone thinking it's awful for groups like COURAGE -- which encourages chastity! --  to exist. There's just something way, WAY off in how people deal with homosexuality and homosexuals. There's a viciousness about it. It's scapegoating, like I've said.

I tell you what, if I were a homosexual, I'd want little if anything to do with trads given the above. And I doubt that Jesus Christ is at ALL pleased about this situation. All this makes it very hard to minister to homosexuals, to evangelize them, to bring them to Tradition, which is where God wants EVERYONE. "Oh yes, Mr. Homosexual! God loves you. He made a Church, and it's the Catholic Church. This and that happened since Vatican II, so the trad way is the way to go. Now -- go check out trad forums and watch folks go on about "sods"! People who think you should just shut up and suffer alone and never mention your strugglesl! People who even think groups that encourage chastity are a bad idea if you faggoty-fags are involved! People who think that because you're homosexual you automatically engage in anal sex! People who will diss you as a "sod" (even if you've never engaged in sodomy in your life) while saying nothing about the heterosexual sodomites! People who think that if you let others know what your deal is, then you're just looking for attention and are proclaiming that you want to act on homosexual desires! Welcome! Feel at home! Know that God is love!"

It's sick.

I wish people would just start thinking and ask God to give them some prudence and charity. 


Reply
#46
(03-20-2014, 11:37 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 11:31 PM)loggats Wrote: Had you confused with the person I actually addressed my post to, Thomas More.

And yep, any defense that involves 'you search for it, I'm not going to explain myself' is a fairly lame one.

Challenge accepted!  I'll meet you back here tomorrow.

This is going to have to wait till tomorrow (life intruded into the Internet).
Reply
#47
First up:

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

Of course, this is a Christian source, so will be scoffed-at by secularists (who themselves tend to be far less objective).

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

“It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh,” wrote Baldwin. “However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family.”

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly’s Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state’s public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists’ “efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement” constitute an “unmistakable” attack on “the family unit.”

Baldwin’s research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.”

...

Baldwin says his research not only “confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” but it found that “the mainstream homosexual culture” even “commonly promotes sex with children.”

“The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,” Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

• The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
• In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
• Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”

There's more in this article.

Who, actually, isn't aware of the historical association of homosexual behavior and pederasty?  In fact, they have been highly correlated in numerous cultures over a timespan of many centuries.

And how many people here are aware of the fact that one of the founders of the "North American Man-Boy Love Association" was a priest?


Here's something from the Mayo Clinic:

http://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correlat...pedophilia

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia). [3,6,10,29] The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%). [5,7,10,19,29,30] This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children. [19] Individuals attracted to females usually prefer children between the ages of 8 and 10 years. [3,5,31] Individuals attracted to males usually prefer slightly older boys between the ages of 10 and 13 years. [3,5]

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. [15] Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. [15] A study by Abel et al [32] of 377 nonincarcerated, non-incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts. These studies confirm law enforcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults. [1] Studies that used self-reports and polygraphs show that pedophiles currently in treatment underreport their current interest in children and past behaviors. [33,34]



A Catholic source - mostly a bit of commentary:

http://catholiclane.com/homosexualityped...rrelation/


It has been known for many decades that experiencing sexual abuse as a child is correlated with becoming a homosexual, and transitively that those who are abused are more likely to be sexual abusers themselves:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthroc...revisited/


Goodbye, Good Men and The Rite of Sodomy (Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church) document that more than 80% of the victims of priestly sexual abuse were boys - and most of them post-pubescent, actually (so this is more properly termed pederasty).  This is pretty widely-acknowedged to be true.  These books demonstrate with a great amount of evidence that the "pinking" of the priesthood is heavily correlated with the sexual abuse of underage males.  I have these books and could perhaps go through them (I read them many years ago) and offer quotes.

What this evidence says is just that homosexual behavior is highly disordered - as the Church teaches.  This is something that everyone here is aware of.  It would seem to be logical that such disordered, immoral behavior would be correlated with other forms of disordered, immoral sexual behavior.  No Catholic who suffers from SSA should feel the slightest personal association with any of these things.


Anybody see the recent LifeSite article about the musician who's being persecuted for writing a song about the *true story* of a man who reverted from homosexual to heterosexual through therapy?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/italian-singer-defends-song-about-gay-man-becoming-straight-but-says-it-rui?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d0abcd8c4c-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-d0abcd8c4c-326226098

Famed Italian singer Giuseppe Povia says the persecution he has suffered from homosexuals and their allies in the entertainment business following his controversial 2009 song “Luca era gay” (Luca was gay), about a man who converts from the gay lifestyle to heterosexuality, has ruined his career.


Finally, here is what seems to be a good (I can't say I've investigated it beyond the cursory) Catholic resource on getting out of the homosexual lifestyle:

http://josephnicolosi.com/fathers-of-male-homosexuals/

"You don't have to be gay" is his slogan.

EDIT: Typos, formatting
Reply
#48
(03-21-2014, 12:51 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 10:07 PM)loggats Wrote: You said "young children" not "young men." And again, without entering into what age a person is ready for sexual contact of any sort (remembering that it wasn't too long ago that puberty was the benchmark) there are laws of consent in the West that regulate these behaviours. If homosexual men are predisposed to pederasty, then heterosexual men are predisposed to having sex with girls just shy of sexual maturity - because that's the nature of the beast. You want to reduce all sexual contact to a matter of fertility? Why not think about that, rather than indulge a prurient interest in SSA.

I pray that you keep things not "personal" by intimating A Catholic Thinker himself has a prurient interest in SSA.

It does not seem that any retraction or apology is forthcoming from Loggats.

His assertion that I have a "prurient" interest in SSA because I commented on SSA (from the orthodox Catholic viewpoint) makes as much sense as the same nonsensical insult leveled against St. Paul himself (many liberal commentators, of course, have suggested the "homophobia" he expresses in Scripture is evidence he was "gay").

The charge is so nonsensical that it doesn't do anything but reflect poorly on the accuser.  It belies an emotional rather than objective response.

Loggats, you apparently mistook me for someone else in one of your replies, but no such retraction or clarification was given in this case.  It is certainly warranted.
Reply
#49
(03-22-2014, 10:51 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: The charge is so nonsensical that it doesn't do anything but reflect poorly on the accuser.  It belies an emotional rather than objective response.

But it isn't nonsensical. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Like I said, I don't want anyone singled out unnecessarily, but there is such a thing as prurient interest in all focus on anuses, etc.

As to the Goodbye, Good Men reference above, I think it's crucial to separate pedophilia from ephebophilia, and I repeat that telling homosexuals to hide themselves away is just begging them to hide away in seminaries. 

As to ephebophilia, I was a 16 year old girl once. I got hit on ALL THE TIME by older men. I don't think homosexuals have that market cornered. There might be something to the rates of pedophilia, as your studies show, if some people become homosexual because of their own childhood abuse (not the majority of the cases at all).

Reply
#50
(03-23-2014, 11:23 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-22-2014, 10:51 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: The charge is so nonsensical that it doesn't do anything but reflect poorly on the accuser.  It belies an emotional rather than objective response.

But it isn't nonsensical. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Are you now declaring we have evidence that St. Paul was a homosexual?  Am I misinterpreting you? 

Secondly, asserting that because there is some general correlation of A->B the correlation always exists actually is nonsensical.  It is an elementary error of logic - but then, again, we're really speaking of something driven by emotion.

Young black males in America, sadly, are far more likely statistically to find themselves in prison than young white males.  Would it then be sensible for a poster on an internet forum to assume, because another poster was black, that he was incarcerated?

I read the abstract of the paper you cited.  I admit it is curious.  Of course, it is not at all uncommon to find scientific studies discredited due to improper methods, controls, bias in interpretation, etc.  For a hot-botton political issue like this - the secular left would certainly love to be able to assert what this study does and what you just did: that "homophobia" comes often (primarily?) from men who suffers from SSA - certainly some skepticism is warranted.  If that is the case, the orthodox Christian teaching against homosexual behavior is pretty much shown to be bunk, isn't it?  It's just a natural side-effect of a patriarchy that created the rules - a patriarchy with skeletons in the closet!

You can see that's where that type of thing is going, can't you?  Any skepticism at all about this study?

Homophobia defined as a distaste or disgust for homosexual relations - which is at least in part the common definition - is a good & holy characteristic.  How could anyone say the opposite?  How could anyone say that good Catholics should *not* have distaste for such *actions*, as they should have distaste for all gravely immoral actions?

I don't understand why you sometimes seem to acknowledge that "homosexual" is not an immutable attribute of a human being, but most of the time argue as if it is.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)