[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker

World News
See other World News Articles

Title: Bomb kills 25 at Shiite funeral in Pakistan
Source: AP Wire
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap ... NH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD96F64G80
Published: Feb 20, 2009
Author: Ishtiaq Mahsud
Post Date: 2009-02-20 08:39:07 by war
Keywords: Pakistan, Talibian, Muslim, nuclear
Views: 1233
Comments: 107

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A bomb tore through a huge funeral procession for a slain Shiite Muslim leader in northwestern Pakistan on Friday, killing at least six people and wounding several more, police said.

Rising sectarian violence threatens to further destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan just as it faces renewed U.S. pressure to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Friday's explosion tore through crowds streaming toward a graveyard for the burial of Sher Zeman, a Shiite leader who was gunned down in the city the day before.

City police official Miran Shah said at least six of the estimated 1,000 mourners were killed. Others wounded by the explosion were rushed to nearby hospitals, he said.

Police said people angered by the attack fired on police officers rushing to the scene. An Associated Press reporter in the city heard the gunfire and said troops had arrived to help restore order.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

However, relations between this Muslim nation's strong Sunni majority and Shiite minority are under growing strain from a series of attacks attributed to sectarian extremists.

Much of the violence has been in the northwest, where the Taliban and other violent Sunni groups have gained sway.

In the deadliest recent incident, a car bomb killed 29 people and wounded scores near a Shiite mosque in Peshawar in December. On Feb. 5, a suicide bomber killed 24 people at a Shiite mosque in a central city.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

The US has never veto'd a resolution unfavorable to Israal in the UNSC?

When Gazans see spent ordinance in the rubble of their homes, they see MADE IN - --? Can you fill in that blank?

IN 1983, the US put Marines boots on the ground in Lebanon why?

IN October of 1973, the US publically announced that it had put its troops on worldwide alert why?

The US guaranttes every penny of debt of what nation other than the US?

By "intervened" I thought you meant the US meddling and manipulating Israeli government policies per what the Israel Lobby does stateside.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Also, would intelliegnce gathering be included in your proscription or just the analyst on up?

You raise a good point. Intel gathering positions should not have dual citizens in place.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:31:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Pope John XXIII in 1961 banned gays in the priesthood.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

The US Cathloic Church for years refused to defrock and expose its pedophiles and merely chose to play a shell game when them whenever complainats arose.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

By "intervened" I thought you meant the US meddling and manipulating Israeli government policies per what the Israel Lobby does stateside.

Israel is defacto a US protectorate. We cannot help but intervene...in fact, we do everything up to and including slaying the fatted calf for them even at the cost of our own starvation.

Where you and I get off track is in your belief that should the US cut Israel loose, we're free of Jihad. It doesn't work that way.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   11:42:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different issues.

With regards to pedarest abuse cases that occurred in the US Catholic Church, which I thought was the subject under discussion, the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

The Vatican had a study commissioned to study the particulars of all the cases, and over 85% were male predator on young male cases.

But perhaps this was all an unfortunate "coincidence."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Where you and I get off track is in your belief that should the US cut Israel loose, we're free of Jihad.

Cutting Israel loose would be a good starting point. It would not "free" us entirely from Islamic fundie hatred but this step would take a lot of wind out of AQ's recruiting sails. Our playing BullyBoy on behalf of Israel and being a biased peace negotiater in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a numero uno problem for us.

Read some interviews or books by Michael Scheuer to understand what other things our government should do. Scheuer is the former CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   11:56:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the vast majority of abused involved young males and their abusers were gay priests.

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

war  posted on  2009-02-23   13:40:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did he ever fess up to writing Imperial Hubris ?

war  posted on  2009-02-23   13:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did he ever fess up to writing Imperial Hubris ?

The answer to your question, its implicit snideness notwithstanding, is yes, Michael Scheurer's identity was revealed 2 weeks before the release date of "Imperial Hubris."

However, for your information it was the CIA that required Dr. Scheuer to with hold his name. It was not Dr. Scheuer's choice.

www.bostonphoenix.com/bos...ge/documents/03949394.asp

But at issue here is not just the book’s content, but why Anonymous is anonymous. After all, as the Times and others have reported, his situation is nothing like that of Valerie Plame, a covert operative whose ability to work active overseas cases was undermined when someone in the White House blew her cover to journalist Robert Novak in an apparent payback for an inconvenient weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence report by her husband, Joseph Wilson. Anonymous, on the other hand, is, by the CIA’s own admission, a Langley-bound analyst whose identity has never required secrecy.

A Phoenix investigation has discovered that Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all — and that his anonymity is neither enforced nor voluntarily assumed out of fear for his safety, but rather compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience. In the Phoenix’s view, continued deference by the press to a bogus and unwanted standard of secrecy essentially amounts to colluding with the CIA in muzzling a civil servant — a standard made more ridiculous by the ubiquity of Anonymous’s name in both intelligence and journalistic circles.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   16:58:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I hadn't seen anything that had revealed that they had also engaged in adult same sex relationships.

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

Here you go - a nice little article about the Sodom and Gomorrah environment of US Catholic seminaries by Stanley Kurtz from The National Review, a journal which you appear to trust and like reading.

www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

"Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" By Stanley Kurtz 06/03/02

Some cut and paste:

"...After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. The homosexual orientation itself, it was stressed, was not sinful. So as long as a homosexual adhered to the very same vow of celibacy taken by his heterosexual counterpart, there was no reason to deprive him of a priestly vocation. This was a compassionate stance, and one that promised to incorporate a heretofore stigmatized minority into a venerable institution, thereby strengthening the institution itself.

Yet imagine that an opponent of this new openness to homosexuals in the priesthood had uttered a warning cry. Imagine that someone had said, back in the 1970s, when homosexuals were flooding into Catholic seminaries all over the U.S., that substantial numbers of gay priests, far from accepting the rule of celibacy, would deliberately flout that rule, both in theory and in practice. Suppose that someone had argued that homosexual priests would gain control of many seminaries, that many would openly "date," that many would actively cultivate an ethos of gay solidarity and promote a homosexual culture that would drive away heterosexuals — especially theologically orthodox heterosexuals — from the priesthood. Suppose this person went on to argue that, at its extreme, the growing gay subculture of the priesthood would tolerate and protect not only flagrant violations of celibacy, but even the abuse of minors. Then suppose that this person predicted eventual public exposure of the whole sordid mess, an exposure that would precipitate a crisis within the Church itself.

Naturally, anyone prescient — and foolish — enough to say all of these things in the wake of the Sixties would have been excoriated and ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. It is simply bigoted, he would have been lectured, to claim that large numbers of homosexuals would take the vow of celibacy without making a good-faith effort to adhere to it; and even more so to claim that gay priests would embark on a campaign to deliberately subvert the Church's sexual teachings. And surely our foolish (and hysterically homophobic) friend would have been assured that an institution like the Catholic priesthood would attract only the most conservative homosexuals, not a bunch of "queer" radicals. Besides, even if a very few homosexuals did go so far as to actually abuse the children who had been given into their care, surely the number of such cases could never rise to the point where the stature and credibility of the Church itself would be put into doubt.

SUBVERSIVE SUBCULTURE

Yet all of these things have happened. Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct.

Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole.

It is also true that cultural changes abroad in America in the wake of the Sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well. Yet heterosexual priests disenchanted with celibacy tended to leave the Church. Gay priests who rejected celibacy, on the other hand, tended to remain within the Church and, in word and deed, opposed the requirement of celibacy.

The existence of an influential and intentionally subversive gay subculture within the Catholic priesthood has everything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. To show this, I want to hark back to "The Gay Marriage Debate," an extended exchange I had (on National Review Online and in a number of other venues) in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, the two most prominent conservative advocates of gay marriage. Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In our 2001 exchange, Sullivan assumed that only those gay couples prepared to be governed by the traditional ethos of monogamy would marry. I challenged that view, citing an important sociological study by a lesbian advocate of gay marriage — which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, indeed with a conscious desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals take us beyond even this predictive research: They represent a concrete and historically important case in which a significantly expanded homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than in a "sexual-domestication" effect.

In my exchange with Sullivan, I also challenged his "arithmetical rebuttal" of the cultural-subversion argument. Sullivan had argued that any subversive effect on marriage coming from the open promiscuity of gay-male couples would be numerically offset by the notable fidelity of lesbian couples. I countered this point with the example of a strict college honor code — one that leaves it up to students themselves to refrain from cheating, and to confront and report those who do cheat. It would take only a small number of rebels against this honor code to subvert it, I said, since any significant group willing to sign the pledge against cheating, while also openly acting and speaking in violation of the code, would tend both to "break the spell" of the code and to put honest students at a disadvantage. In effect, this is what has happened with the open subversion of clerical celibacy: The open flouting of the rule, in belief and in practice, has helped to demystify it, and also put those who continue to uphold it at an unfair disadvantage. And particularly when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors, we have seen that egregious violations of a sexual code of honor by even a relatively small number of individuals can bring suspicion and discredit on an entire institution — and to the code that governs it..."

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-23   17:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well, it's obvious that you have not bothered to read the 3 article links I provided you earlier which described the seminaries of the US Catholic Church as being riddled with actively practicing homosexual priests.

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-25   10:52:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I never said nor would I say that the priesthood was not "riddled with" gay men.

I did say that it's never been shown that the gay men were also pedophiles.

With regards to the US Catholic Church, if you read the articles and the remarks I posted previously on this thread, the following was noted.

a. the US churches and seminaries were riddled with actively practicing gays

b. the vast majority of the abuse cases in US Catholic churches were those involving adult male priests victimizing young male alter boys or parishioners

With regards to statistics about risk factors of pederasty/pedophilia in the gay population re: adult male on young males, I have read the following statistics in a report by physicians:

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

www.lifesite.net/features...fence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-25   13:32:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   9:20:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, the "lumping" of homosexuals with pedophilia is based upon the gender of the victims of pedophilia rather than the overt adult relationships that pedophiles have.

Regardless, the above report was written ON BEHALF of the Catholic Church. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you did not know that.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   9:26:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

a. BTW, the "lumping" of homosexuals with pedophilia is based upon the gender of the victims of pedophilia rather than the overt adult relationships that pedophiles have.

b. Regardless, the above report was written ON BEHALF of the Catholic Church. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you did not know that.

a. speak English

b. The group of physicians I cited analyzed a breadth of information published in a variety of medical journals. They did NOT write a report for the Catholic Church. The C after some of their names denotes their citizenship. That is, C denotes Canadian, not Catholic.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:03:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You don't "see" antything odd about that group? It lept right out at me.

I see that several of the MD's are noted as being Canadian. What did your wee biased closed mind see?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:04:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

speak English

I do. Lord only knows what I may type tho. What did you not understand?

As for your "B"...do a google search on the "analysis" and you will find that a good portion of the "research" was done for the benefit of...wait for it...

The Catholic Church, itself.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   13:06:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What did your wee biased closed mind see?

Given that I am on the Board of Trustees of a Canadian Prep school, believe that the US should adopt a hybrid of the Canadian Health Care model, specifically, its prescription drug program and that I am in Canada just about every 6 weeks, do you wish to revise and extend your ignorance based remarks?

war  posted on  2009-02-26   13:09:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Given that I am on the Board of Trustees of a Canadian Prep school, believe that the US should adopt a hybrid of the Canadian Health Care model, specifically, its prescription drug program and that I am in Canada just about every 6 weeks, do you wish to revise and extend your ignorance based remarks?

What do your "credentials" mean exactly and how are they relevant to anything and in particular to this discussion about medical statistics regarding gays having a higher risk of male on male pederasty than heterosexual adult males??

And why should I revise my remarks about your closed biased mind?

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's, who individually have 8-10 years more of education and training than you, just because you assumed they were Catholic and that religion would make them less credible. You made very revealing snide remarks because your mind is mired in PC thinking and is closed to statistics that show gays in an unfavorable light. You want to believe that Catholic gay priests abused young males not because they were lecherous homosexual males, abusing their positions of trust and authority to prey on young males but rather because the Catholic Church prevented the priests from marrying and they had pent up sexual urges that they released on altar boys out of "convenience. "

As I said before you display a closed biased mind and it has nothing about being biased to Canadians per your attempted "dust up" to cloud the issue at hand.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:32:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What do your "credentials" mean exactly and how are they relevant to anything and in particular to this discussion about medical statistics regarding gays having a higher risk of male on male pederasty than heterosexual adult males??

Please. I know its not raining when someone pisses on my leg. You immediately ASSumed that I was somehow BIASED against Canadians. It was a stupid thought and even more stupid thing to riposte with.

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's

The moderator deleted that post.

You ridiculed the findings of specialist MD's, who individually have 8-10 years more of education

A) You have no idea how much education I have, snob.

B) You have not successfully argued that being a cardiologist or a radiologist somehow qualifies one as an expert on pedophilia, homoosexuality and the priesthood. Nor have you succesfully argued that their "research" is in fact supported by anything other than your own willingness to quote it.

C) Chew on this...Look familiar at all?

war  posted on  2009-02-26   13:41:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I do. Lord only knows what I may type tho. What did you not understand?

As for your "B"...do a google search on the "analysis" and you will find that a good portion of the "research" was done for the benefit of...wait for it...

The Catholic Church, itself.

Do more research.

The good doctors, many of whom were Canadian, presented their analysis of medical journals to the Canadian Parliament when it was considering making gay marriage legal.

The Vatican had its own rules in place since 1961 - which the US Catholic Church ignored for decades - regarding not accepting gays into the priesthood. The Catholic Church did not need any physicians telling it what it already knew.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:42:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Please. I know its not raining when someone pisses on my leg. You immediately ASSumed that I was somehow BIASED against Canadians. It was a stupid thought and even more stupid thing to riposte with.

I did not assume that at all and you know it. You assumed C stood for Catholic and that's what I called you on - your knee jerk bias against CATHOLICS. You had egg on your face which you tried to dodge with that Canadian "credential" nonsense, not wanting to admit that you thought C stood for Catholic. You have no courage to admit you are wrong. I've noticed that trait in you earlier.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   13:46:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

A) You have no idea how much education I have, snob.

B) You have not successfully argued that being a cardiologist or a radiologist somehow qualifies one as an expert on pedophilia, homoosexuality and the priesthood. Nor have you succesfully argued that their "research" is in fact supported by anything other than your own willingness to quote it.

C) Chew on this...Look familiar at all?

b. Are you naturally thick or do you only get thick when the topics - eg. gays and higher risk of pederasty - are near and dear to your heart? The physicians did not do the research. They analyzed the results of research that appeared in a broad spectrum of medical journals. They are MD's and are very accustomed to doing research themselves because in the course of their 2-3 year fellowships - which many appear to have pursued - they had to do mucho research. They are bringing their credentials to attention to demonstrate that that they are not people with basket weaving undergraduate degrees. They are medical professionals. One more time - they analyzed research from other medical journals, peer reviewed medical journals. One does not get published in medical journals like one does in Redbook magazine.

c. Chew on this:

"A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians. The heavily referenced brief titled "Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments" warns that the new law will result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour."

Don't you get it? Life Site got permission to publish the report from the physicians who made their presentation to the Canadian Parliament. The physicians were not paid by Life site to do the research for the Catholic Church.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   14:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you naturally thick or do you only get thick when the topic - gays and higher risk of pederasty - are near and dear to your heart? The physicians did not do the research. They analyzed the results of research that appeared in a broad spectrum of medical journals.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

NOWHERE have you or your beloved doctors shown that adult gay males, that is males who have consensual sexual relationships with other adult gay males are more likely to also be pedophiles than adult male HETEROSEXUALS in HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   15:17:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BLAH BLAH BLAH

NOWHERE have you or your beloved doctors shown that adult gay males, that is males who have consensual sexual relationships with other adult gay males are more likely to also be pedophiles than adult male HETEROSEXUALS in HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

a. First off, you appear to be quite thick as well as PC brain-washed and therefore are unable to comprehend the gravity of the statistics that the MD's whose analysis I cited with regards to demonstrating the 10-25 times higher risk factor associated with gays engaging in pederasty/pedophilia. Let me repeat the statistics for you.

"... the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”...

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

b. Secondly, as for your changing the terms of the discussion about gays and the high risk of their potential for engaging in pedophilia/pederasty and the incidents of gay priests' sexual abuse of young males representing the vast majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church, which represents a real life situation supporting the medical statistical data, to your new topic of gays and heterosexual males in "made in heaven" consensual adult relationships - sorry, you are rather clumsy when it comes to kicking up dust [ changing the goal posts] on a debate that you have no courage to admit you lost.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   15:34:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

“the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.”

Doofette...again...show me where the "statisticians" are defining "homosexuality" as an adult male who has had consensual ssxual relations with other adult males rather than an undefined adult male who has had sexual relations WITH BOYS.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   16:00:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Secondly, as for your changing the terms of the discussion about gays and the high risk of their potential for engaging in pedophilia/pederasty and the incidents of gay priests' sexual abuse of young males representing the vast majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church, which represents a real life situation supporting the medical statistical data, to your new topic of gays and heterosexual males in "made in heaven" consensual adult relationships - sorry, you are rather clumsy when it comes to kicking up dust [ changing the goal posts] on a debate that you have no courage to admit you lost.

WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.

war  posted on  2009-02-26   16:00:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

“the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.”

Doofette...again...show me where the "statisticians" are defining "homosexuality" as an adult male who has had consensual ssxual relations with other adult males rather than an undefined adult male who has had sexual relations WITH BOYS.

Do you not understand the statistics? These are not sexually "undefined" male predators. The fact that these statistics are about adult males bonking young males in the anus for sexual gratification and the fact that they identify themselves as homosexuals means - tah dah - they are HOMOSEXUAL MALE PEDOPHILES/PEDERASTS. Get it?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   16:13:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.

I'm done with you. It's a waste of my time.

It's obvious that medical statistics that jar your deeply entrenched PC ideas about the risks of gays and pederasty are unacceptable to you.

So go engage a "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" about homosexuality PC-blindered poster like Ferret Mike. I'm sure you will enjoy a much more mutually supportive discussion with Mike.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-26   16:20:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The fact that these statistics are about adult males bonking young males in the anus for sexual gratification and the fact that they identify themselves as homosexuals means - tah dah - they are HOMOSEXUAL MALE PEDOPHILES/PEDERASTS. Get it?

Actually, if you had actually read what YOU told me to read, there is no evidence that the sampling overlaps between self identified homosexuals and recognized pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   9:29:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's obvious that medical statistics

...can be manipulated as easily as any other. You're being asked to support your data at a most rudimentary level. You've fallen worefully short of being able to.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   9:31:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

there is no evidence that the sampling overlaps between self identified homosexuals and recognized pedophiles.

Are you daft?

The Canadian physicians analyzed stats from the Journal of Homosexuality. The vast majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church were those of adult gay priests preying on and bonking the anuses of young males.

Is that not enough evidence for your fine mind to demonstrate the high risk of gays engaging in pederasty?

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-27   12:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's obvious that medical statistics

...can be manipulated as easily as any other. You're being asked to support your data at a most rudimentary level. You've fallen worefully short of being able to.

Choke on your garble. I have no use for your dodgy assinine behavior.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-27   12:05:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's obvious that medical statistics that jar your deeply entrenched PC ideas about the risks of gays and pederasty are unacceptable to you.

Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-27   12:06:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

- Frank from Queens (a caller to the defunct Bob Grant show, WABC, NY, circa 1992)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-02-27   12:21:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Canadian physicians analyzed stats from the Journal of Homosexuality.

Yep. And what was cited from that Journal was overlap in THE ORGANIZATIONS...not the POPULATIONS. Look at how the wording appears, doofette.

There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: 'pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…' (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1- 24.). There is an overlap between the 'gay movement' and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)

Also note who is diong the claimiing as to the overlap.

Again, pedophilia is a mental pathology. Homosexuality is genetic.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:32:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.

Two different issues. The fact is, given the relative populations of hetero and homo and stipulating to scrappie's data. a child would still be more likely to be sexually assaulted by a hetero. Which, of course is irrelevant. What scrappie is failing to recognize is that a good snick of pedophiles have 0 adult sexual relationships but get lumped into homosexual because their pedophilia is manifested against children of the same gender. What she has been asked and failed ot provide is of the priests so identified as pedophiles, HOW MANY were practicing homosexuals outside of their pedophilia. It's a very simple question. It's also one she hasn't answered.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles

Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.,1;2;4 Howard E. Barbaree, Ph.D.,1;2 Anthony F. Bogaert, Ph.D.,3 Robert Dickey, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C),1;2 Philip Klassen, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C),1;2 Michael E. Kuban, M.Sc.,1 and Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D.1;

ABSTRACT: Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Subjects were 260 sex offenders (against children age 14 or younger) and 260 matched volunteer controls. The subject's relative attraction to male and female children was assessed by phallometric testing in one analysis, and by his offense history in another. Both methods showed that fraternal birth order correlates with homosexuality in pedophiles, just as it does in men attracted to physically mature partners. Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested.

~snip~

Sorry scrappie...you lose.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   12:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

. What scrappie is failing to recognize is that a good snick of pedophiles have 0 adult sexual relationships but get lumped into homosexual because their pedophilia is manifested against children of the same gender. What she has been asked and failed ot provide is of the priests so identified as pedophiles, HOW MANY were practicing homosexuals outside of their pedophilia. It's a very simple question. It's also one she hasn't answered.

What the fudge are you talking about? Adult males who choose to have sex with boys and/or men are homosexuals, are they not? Do these adult gays need to have gay "relationships" with adult males before they prey on and bonk adolescent boys in the anus to satisfy your "high standards" of scientific method that they are indeed both gay and pederasts?

Here are the facts:

1. According to the John Jay report that was done on behalf of the American Catholic Church, over 80% of the abuse cases involved adult male priests sexually preying on adolescent males as well as young boys. "... 22 percent of the victims were under 10. It added that 51 percent were 11 to 14 years old and 27 percent were 15 to 17 years old..."

www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0401118.htm

Why do you think these adult male priests chose to get their sexual gratification by abusing young males rather than young female parishioners?

2. Here's the article, I posted earlier to you about the Sodom and Gomorrah environment of US Catholic seminaries written by Stanley Kurtz from The National Review, a journal which you appear to trust and like reading showing that American Catholic Churches and seminaries had a growing sub-culture of gay priests indulging in decadent sexual promiscuity.

www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

"Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" By Stanley Kurtz 06/03/02

Some cut and paste:

"...After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. The homosexual orientation itself, it was stressed, was not sinful. So as long as a homosexual adhered to the very same vow of celibacy taken by his heterosexual counterpart, there was no reason to deprive him of a priestly vocation. This was a compassionate stance, and one that promised to incorporate a heretofore stigmatized minority into a venerable institution, thereby strengthening the institution itself.

Yet imagine that an opponent of this new openness to homosexuals in the priesthood had uttered a warning cry. Imagine that someone had said, back in the 1970s, when homosexuals were flooding into Catholic seminaries all over the U.S., that substantial numbers of gay priests, far from accepting the rule of celibacy, would deliberately flout that rule, both in theory and in practice. Suppose that someone had argued that homosexual priests would gain control of many seminaries, that many would openly "date," that many would actively cultivate an ethos of gay solidarity and promote a homosexual culture that would drive away heterosexuals — especially theologically orthodox heterosexuals — from the priesthood. Suppose this person went on to argue that, at its extreme, the growing gay subculture of the priesthood would tolerate and protect not only flagrant violations of celibacy, but even the abuse of minors. Then suppose that this person predicted eventual public exposure of the whole sordid mess, an exposure that would precipitate a crisis within the Church itself.

Naturally, anyone prescient — and foolish — enough to say all of these things in the wake of the Sixties would have been excoriated and ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. It is simply bigoted, he would have been lectured, to claim that large numbers of homosexuals would take the vow of celibacy without making a good-faith effort to adhere to it; and even more so to claim that gay priests would embark on a campaign to deliberately subvert the Church's sexual teachings. And surely our foolish (and hysterically homophobic) friend would have been assured that an institution like the Catholic priesthood would attract only the most conservative homosexuals, not a bunch of "queer" radicals. Besides, even if a very few homosexuals did go so far as to actually abuse the children who had been given into their care, surely the number of such cases could never rise to the point where the stature and credibility of the Church itself would be put into doubt.

SUBVERSIVE SUBCULTURE

Yet all of these things have happened. Consider Jason Berry's extraordinary account in Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children (1992), all the more striking for coming from the pen of a liberal Catholic who would himself like to see a liberalization of the Church's sexual teachings. According to Berry, as the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood increased dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high-school students. Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." According to Berry, Richard Wagner, author of the original study of these gay priests, found that 34 percent of his interviewees called their sexual partners "distinctly younger." (Wagner did not say how young.) What's clear from Berry's account is that sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests (the typical form of abuse in the current scandal) was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood, a subculture that effectively enabled the abuse of minors by encouraging flagrant homosexuality, and openly flouting the rule of celibacy itself. Indeed, in a now infamous case, a priest who has been the subject of abuse allegations over a period of three decades, the Reverend Paul Shanley, went so far as to advocate abuse in an address to the convention that led to the founding of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Here, the connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture was frighteningly direct.

Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole.

It is also true that cultural changes abroad in America in the wake of the Sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well. Yet heterosexual priests disenchanted with celibacy tended to leave the Church. Gay priests who rejected celibacy, on the other hand, tended to remain within the Church and, in word and deed, opposed the requirement of celibacy.

The existence of an influential and intentionally subversive gay subculture within the Catholic priesthood has everything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. To show this, I want to hark back to "The Gay Marriage Debate," an extended exchange I had (on National Review Online and in a number of other venues) in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, the two most prominent conservative advocates of gay marriage. Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In our 2001 exchange, Sullivan assumed that only those gay couples prepared to be governed by the traditional ethos of monogamy would marry. I challenged that view, citing an important sociological study by a lesbian advocate of gay marriage — which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, indeed with a conscious desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals take us beyond even this predictive research: They represent a concrete and historically important case in which a significantly expanded homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than in a "sexual-domestication" effect.

In my exchange with Sullivan, I also challenged his "arithmetical rebuttal" of the cultural-subversion argument. Sullivan had argued that any subversive effect on marriage coming from the open promiscuity of gay-male couples would be numerically offset by the notable fidelity of lesbian couples. I countered this point with the example of a strict college honor code — one that leaves it up to students themselves to refrain from cheating, and to confront and report those who do cheat. It would take only a small number of rebels against this honor code to subvert it, I said, since any significant group willing to sign the pledge against cheating, while also openly acting and speaking in violation of the code, would tend both to "break the spell" of the code and to put honest students at a disadvantage. In effect, this is what has happened with the open subversion of clerical celibacy: The open flouting of the rule, in belief and in practice, has helped to demystify it, and also put those who continue to uphold it at an unfair disadvantage. And particularly when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors, we have seen that egregious violations of a sexual code of honor by even a relatively small number of individuals can bring suspicion and discredit on an entire institution — and to the code that governs it..."

3. A number of MD's presented to the Canadian Parliament at the time legislators were considering legalizing gay marriage and adoption of children by gays their analysis of peer-reviewed medical journals including the Journal of Homosexuality regarding the "dark side" of homosexual behavior and risks therein. The findings of the learned good doctors as to the risks of gays engaging in pederasty/pedophilia were as follows:

"... The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”...

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

4. What more proof do you need, war? You have sat on your iron pantied butt and have produced nothing to rebut what I presented. Hey, go ahead and hire a gay babysitter nanny for your male grand child in the future. In fact, hire a gay couple to do the baby sitting. Be my guest and put your PC theory to the test.

scrapper2  posted on  2009-02-27   13:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Adult males who choose to have sex with boys and/or men are homosexuals, are they not?

No. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.

war  posted on  2009-02-27   16:24:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (86 - 107) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]