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: 1447
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-67) not displayed.
.
.
.
#68. To: war (#65)
(Edited)
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.
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.
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.
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.
WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.
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?
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.
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.
...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.
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?
...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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.
You couldn't even answer a basic question about "what [you] presented" even though I finally broke down and showed you that what I had asked you was CLEARLY denoted in the research that YOU had posted. The premise that men who have sex with boys are homosexual is corrupt. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with boys or girls, i.e., children, are pedophiles.
Because they have a mental illness. Is man/woman rape a heterosexual act?
Because they have a mental illness. b. Is man/woman rape a heterosexual act? a. They committed the same crimes over and over again on a multitude of young victims. They set up and groomed their victims. They knowingly and consciously manipulated the loosey goosey PC mores of American society regarding gays and infiltrated the American Catholic and put themselves in positions of trust and power with access to adolescent males to pursue their sexual gratification needs. You call this "mental illness" and therefore blameless? Are you implying that they knew not what they were doing was criminal? Are you so PC addled in your thought processes that you do not recognize the forethought that went into these heinous sexual crimes by adults against minors? Ponder these stats, Mr. Forgiveness and Understanding: over 10,000 children and adolescents - most of whom were males - were sexually abused and had their innocence robbed by their adult predators. Here's a glaring example of the humongous numbers of young victims which a relatively small number of sexually promiscuous and perverse gay priests affected, an example being that 149 gay priests were responsible for almost 28% of the sexually abused minors; 149 gay priests sexually abused almost 3000 male minors - let me repeat for you the staggering magnitude of these crimes against minors: ONE HUNDRED FORTY NINE gay adult predators shoved their penises into the anuses of THREE THOUSAND adolescent males. And you think this is mental illness? No this is CRIMINAL ACTION which should be punished by life imprisonment with no parole and with no protective custody while being imprisoned. b. an adult male who rapes an adult female commits a criminal heterosexual act of sexual violence. an adult homosexual who rapes an adult homosexual commits a criminal homosexual act of sexual violence.
And hence the thread comes full circle. Why? Compare and contrast the proclivity of Sunni mullahs to boink little boys with that of the Shia imams. ----Article Snippet follows---- Mullahs and Heretics by Tariq Ali, London Review of Books, not available at their site anymore, but worth digging for if you like this excerpt...... We also explored the many burned houses. How were they burned? I would ask the locals. Back would come the casual reply. 'They belonged to Hindus and Sikhs. Our fathers and uncles burned them.' Why? 'So they could never come back, of course.' Why? 'Because we are now Pakistan. Their home is India.' Why, I persisted, when they had lived here for centuries, just like your families, and spoke the same language, even if they worshipped different gods? The only reply was a shrug. It was strange to think that Hindus and Sikhs had been here, had been killed in the villages in the valleys below. In the tribal areas - the no- man's-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan - quite a few Hindus stayed on, protected by tribal codes. The same was true in Afghanistan itself (till the mujahedin and the Taliban arrived). One of my favourite spots in Nathiagali lay between two giant oaks. From here one could watch the sun set on Nanga Parbat. The snow covering the peak would turn orange, then crimson, bathing the entire valley in its light. Here we would breathe the air from China, gaze in the direction of Kashmir and marvel at the moon. Given all this, why would one need a multi-layered heaven, let alone the seventh layer that belonged to us alone - the Islamic paradise? One day, to my horror, my mother informed me that a mullah from a neighbouring mountain village had been hired to make sure I completed my study of the Koran. She had pre-empted all my objections. He would explain what each verse meant. My summer was about to be wrecked. I moaned, groaned, protested, pleaded and tantrumed. To no avail. My friends were sympathetic, but powerless: most of them had undergone the same ritual. Mullahs, especially the rural variety, were objects of ridicule, widely regarded as dishonest, hypocritical and lazy. It was generally believed that they had grown beards and chosen this path not out of spiritual fervour, but in order to earn a crust. Unless attached to a mosque, they depended on voluntary contributions, tuition fees and free meals. The jokes about them mostly concerned their sexual appetites; in particular, a penchant for boys below a certain age. The fictional mullah of the storytellers and puppet-shows who travelled from village to village was a greedy and lustful arch-villain; he used religion to pursue his desires and ambitions. He humiliated and cheated the poor peasants, while toadying to landlords and potentates.
Pedophiles and pederasts select their minor victims based on their own sexual proclivities. Therefore and thusly, these focused adult sexual predators are either homosexual or heterosexual pedophile/pedarests depending on whether the victims the predators choose are the same sex or the opposite sex. Thank you for demonstrating that you possess zero common sense and that you bring less than zero honesty to debate.
Men who have sex with male minors are homosexual pedophiles/pederasts. Men who have sex with female minors are heterosexual pedophiles/pederasts. Unless they are bisexuals themselves, adult pedophile/pederasts seek out their minor victims based on their own sexual persuasion be it hetero or homo. To omit reference to the sexual predators' personal sexual persuasion is to pretend that the sex of the minor victims is random and unfocused. This is dishonest and an example of transparently false PC thinking. It's your kind of PC blindered misguided lefties who promote the idea of gay males adopting young male children is being A-okay, not paying attention to the statistically higher risk for sexual abuse in those situations, not paying heed to the statistics of male on young male abuse that occurred in the American Catholic Church. Here's what happened when practicing gay priests were put into positions of trust with access to male minors. Do you want this to be repeated with adoptees so you can hug yourself with regards to your non-judgmental open and tolerant mind? You are not the young boy/teen who is being bonked by his adopted fathers in the dark, so it's easy for you to parse precise descriptors of pedophiles/pederasts. "...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...."
Excellent as well as the rest of your arguments here. The blatant display of obscene liberal stupidity and "tolerance" that you are debating is par for the course for these hypocrites. PC morons would never hire a fudge packer to babysit, but they think YOU should!! Statements like this: Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.. are why people like War are on BOZO.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace ALAS, BABYLON
Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it.
You may take the chorus of crickets that accompanies your excellent missives as plaudits also. You've cleaned out the woods with an 8-guage this afternoon.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. So you answer is "yes" rape can be heterosexual sex. Thanks. PS: Your answer should have been "no". Rape is a crime of sexual violence. It cannot be parsed and bifurcated. It's a crime based upon the pathology of the individual. It's the same with pdeophilia.
Huh? Spoke a little too soon did you not? Scrappie is the classic info spammer. I highly doubht that you read all everything that she has posted. I am the one enagaged with her here and it has taken me several days to read, research, cross reference and investigate what she has posted here. That said, it all comes back to the same issue which was when I pointed out to her that the Catholic Church has an issue with dealing with its pedophiles. Her counterclaim was that the church has a long standing policy against homosexuality. She posted an opposition study of the health risks of gay marriage undertaken by a group of Canadian doctors that appears to have been supported if not funded by the Catholic Church. Secondly, the research underpinning that study in and of itself has at the base of its claim, i.e., homosexuals=pedophiles, a statement from a published article - NOT RESEARCH - that was written by a founder of NAMBLA and published nearly 20 years ago. It also has at the base of its claim a dubious study regarding birth order and homosexuality and the cross claim that this same birth order has overlap between homosexuals who are partnered with consenting adults and male pedophiles who prey on young boys. So, no, she has FAILED miserably at supporting her thesis. And when she was questioned on that most basic point, rather then herself offering up an answer, she once again information SPAMMED.
You have an aversion to common sense?
war is a liar, an information twister, and a self-important little man with no courage or integrity to admit when he is wrong. Case in point - war states: "She posted an opposition study of the health risks of gay marriage undertaken by a group of Canadian doctors that appears to have been supported if not funded by the Catholic Church. " war's initial knee jerk conclusion after seeing C's after some of the MD's names was that they were Catholic. LOL. When I pointed out the fact that the C's indicated those that were Canadian, since this group of MD's were making a presentation to Canadian Parliamentarians so a differentiation, as a courtesy gesture, was done, war - caught in his bigotry against the Catholic Church- then pretended I was accusing him of bigotry against Canadians so war pulled out a stream of minutia regarding his links to Canada - war's attempt to misdirect the discussion failed- I did not take the Canada link bait and called him on his game playing - and so it goes, when a poster tries to have a serious discussion with war - he kicks dust on the subject, he misdirects, he throws in irrelevant information for the purposes of derailing sequential thought. war likes to win at any cost and when he is losing he plays dirty and dumb. Still to this day war cannot accept the findings of Canadian MD's and the 10-20 times risk they found between homosexuality and pedarasty. Postscript to war - if you don't like me re-posting info from links then perhaps you should read the info and comment on it from the get go. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to decide whether you are merely stupid and need repetition to assimilate information OR that you are a weeeny wuss who can't admit when you are wrong and thusly need to have your face rubbed into the facts several times before you cry out "uncle."
Given the economic mess that we find ourselves in, I find that I have little time and inclination to catch up on the minutiae of this scrap over homosexuality and pedarasty and whatnot. My mind is elsewhere. But I'll have to say that war's relentless and militant discourteousness alientate me from giving much credit to what he has to say. Kudos to your patience with him, scrapper. Mine has run out. I've never used a bozo filter on a forum, but I'm getting close to pushing that button.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. Yes, indeed, ditto for me. I've decided to give my unrelenting economic worries the day off by watching some hockey - several great games on today if you are a fan of the sport - classic rivalries.
Nope. That is what you assumed and even if I had, which I did not, it is wholly irrelevant. I'll challenge you now to post where I said that they were all Catholic.
Nope. That is what you assumed and even if I had, which I did not, it is wholly irrelevant. I'll challenge you now to post where I said that they were all Catholic. Your smarmy post #58 implied as much - you were positively giggly in pointing out your brilliant find - and I had to correct your anti-Catholic Church knee-jerk bias in my #60 response that the C represented CANADIAN not Catholic because this presentation to the Canadian Parliament was done by MD's, some of whom were not Canadian. At this point you hurridly back peddled and try to save face by listing your Canadian credentials. And still at this point you cling to your erroneous observation that the C stood for Catholic as you snidely seed the idea that these MD's were in league with or in the pay of the Catholic Church per your #96 post to randge. You have no courage to admit that you are ever wrong. That would take courage and humility, both qualities which you appear to be sorely deficient in. ________________________________________________________________________________ #58. To: scrapper2 (#57) 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 _______________________________________________________________________________ #60. To: war (#59) 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 _______________________________________________________________________________ #61. To: war (#58) (Edited) 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 ____________________________________________________________________________ #96. To: randge, scrapper2 ... She posted an opposition study of the health risks of gay marriage undertaken by a group of Canadian doctors that appears to have been supported if not funded by the Catholic Church.... war posted on 2009-02-28 9:43:41 ET ______________________________________________________________________________
Which differs from me saying that you assumed it how? And since you're female and chromosomally incapable of admitting error I'll take your use of the word "implied" coupled to you trying to get away with telling me what I meant as a tacit admission that you deliberately distored the truth. What "lept tight out at me" was the fact that not one of those doctors had any apparent clinical background in human sexuality that is unless I misunderstand exactly what medical discplines a cardiologis, a radiologist, a neurologist and a dermatologist do.
b. What "lept tight out at me" was the fact that not one of those doctors had any apparent clinical background in human sexuality a. that misogynistic remark is not too terribly surprising coming from the likes of you b. why would the various sub-specialties of the MD's be questionable? it was clear from the link I provided you that these MD's were presenting an ANALYSIS of what had been published in medical journals regarding homosexuality and risk factors and not their own original research - their credentials were noted to demonstrate that they were highly trained medical specialists and therefore had the standing/gravitas to be recognized by Parliament. No, it wasn't the MD's credentials that caught your eye, it was the C's after their names. Anyways, it's obvious that this thread holds no interest for other posters so for that reason alone, it needs to draw to a close. And furthermore, now that you have revealed your poor regard for females, I have no interest in debating you any further. Too bad that you did not show your bad faith attitude 100 posts ago - it could have saved me a good deal of time and energy.
Their "sub specialties" [sic] aren't questionable at all. They exist. What is questionable is a using the station of cardiologist or dermatolgist as an expert in human sexuality and sexual manifestations of mental pathologies. No, it wasn't the MD's credentials that caught your eye, Any you're just plain wrong. But I pointed out earlier that you were probably going to attempt to tell me what I meant. It's a sophomoronic debating technique and, therefore, one I am not surprised that you employed. The discuussion, that you have attempted to contort through spam, insult and defelection, is the prevelance of pedophilia in Catholoc priests as well as the Church's failure to deal with it. Your riposte was to post a atatement that the Church has a policy against homosexuality. When it was pointed out that pedophiles are simply that PEDOPHILES, you responded with a health statistics "study" opposing gay marriage that had in its foot notes two dubious sources "supporting" your claim that there was overlap. their credentials were noted to demonstrate that they were highly trained medical specialists... ...who were trained in their disciplines to give opinions of matters of health and NOT to define homosexuality or pedophilia. That is what you are not getting here. Well, I am SURE that you've gotten it. Refer back to my statement about not being able to admit error. that misogynistic remark is not too terribly surprising coming from the likes of you Putting your - as if I could give a shit - indignation aside, you know nothing about "the likes of me".
I hold females in the highest regard... But let's have a little "fun".... When was the last time that you admitted that you were wrong...? I did so about 10 hours ago...
Here's more Bad Faith to riposte your Blind Faith...
A) You have no idea how much education I have, snob.
#69. To: scrapper2 (#68)
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.
#70. To: war (#69)
BLAH BLAH BLAH
#71. To: scrapper2 (#70)
“the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.”
#72. To: scrapper2 (#70)
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.
#73. To: war (#71)
“the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.”
#74. To: war, Ferret Mike (#72)
WTF are you babbling about? I've asked you the same gioddamed question from the onset.
#75. To: scrapper2 (#73)
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?
#76. To: scrapper2 (#74)
It's obvious that medical statistics
#77. To: war (#75)
there is no evidence that the sampling overlaps between self identified homosexuals and recognized pedophiles.
#78. To: war (#76)
It's obvious that medical statistics
#79. To: scrapper2 (#74)
(Edited)
It's obvious that medical statistics that jar your deeply entrenched PC ideas about the risks of gays and pederasty are unacceptable to you.
#80. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#79)
Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.
#81. To: scrapper2 (#77)
The Canadian physicians analyzed stats from the Journal of Homosexuality.
#82. To: Rupert_Pupkin, scrapper2 (#79)
Just like data about black on white vs. white on black violent crimes fall deaf on PC ears.
#83. To: scrapper2 (#77)
#84. To: war, Rupert_Pupkin (#82)
. 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.
#85. To: scrapper2 (#84)
Adult males who choose to have sex with boys and/or men are homosexuals, are they not?
#86. To: scrapper2 (#84)
What more proof do you need, war? You have sat on your iron pantied butt and have produced nothing to rebut what I presented.
#87. To: scrapper2 (#84)
Why do you think these adult male priests chose to get their sexual gratification by abusing young males rather than young female parishioners?
#88. To: war (#87)
(Edited)
a. Why do you think these adult male priests chose to get their sexual gratification by abusing young males rather than young female parishioners?
#89. To: war (#87)
(Edited)
#90. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
The premise that men who have sex with boys are homosexual is corrupt. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with boys or girls, i.e., children, are pedophiles.
#91. To: war (#85)
No. Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.
#92. To: scrapper2 (#84)
(Edited)
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.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#93. To: IndieTX (#92)
Excellent as well as the rest of your arguments here.
#94. To: scrapper2 (#93)
(Edited)
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#95. To: scrapper2 (#88)
an adult male who rapes an adult female commits a criminal heterosexual act of sexual violence. an adult homosexual who rapes an adult homosexual commits a criminal homosexual act of sexual violence.
#96. To: randge, scrapper2 (#94)
You may take the chorus of crickets
#97. To: IndieTX (#92)
Statements like this: Men who have sex with men are homosexual. Men who have sex with children are pedophiles.. are why people like War are on BOZO.
#98. To: war, randge (#96)
Scrappie is the classic info spammer.
#99. To: scrapper2 (#98)
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#100. To: randge (#99)
Given the economic mess that we find ourselves in...My mind is elsewhere.
#101. To: scrapper2 (#98)
war's initial knee jerk conclusion after seeing C's after some of the MD's names was that they were Catholic.
#102. To: war (#101)
war's initial knee jerk conclusion after seeing C's after some of the MD's names was that they were Catholic.
#103. To: scrapper2 (#102)
Your....post #58 implied as much
#104. To: war (#103)
a. And since you're female and chromosomally incapable of admitting error
#105. To: scrapper2 (#104)
why would the various sub-specialties of the MD's be questionable?
#106. To: scrapper2 (#104)
And furthermore, now that you have revealed your poor regard for females
#107. To: scrapper2 (#104)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest