GarthP2000

And there are folks (more and more I might add) who have gotten sick and tired of your particular rendition of 'His ways are higher than our ways' method (read: copout), and manipulating bible verses to back it up, of justifying and sanctifying what would be otherwise regarded as abusive behavior towards people, be it in the TWI context, or in wider religious contexts in general. And we don't have to be God, or any other form of 'higher and spiritual entity' in order to see this scam for what it is. ..... So *you* get over it.

:o And you want us to worship this kind of critter?? :o And you wonder why some call themselves atheists.

You refuted them??? ROFLMAO!!!! Oh Gawd, Smikeol! ... Stop it!! ... You are TOO much!!! :lol: ((Wiping tears of laughter away)) *Whew* ... Well, I got my Laugh for the Week.

Dumbo sez, "We're outta toilet paper here!!"

"You mean to tell me I have to come out and beg for my victims here??" -------- "Whaddya mean I get to play the part of the shark instead of the shark hunter in Jaws VIII? You couldn't even get a real shark this time??"

Mike, Keep that brief, but glaring, bit of honesty in mind when you are recalling the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write, ...... ya think? ;)

Bliss, Aaahhhhhh, ..... You mean this one? my precioussssss!!

??? I no understand. :huh:

ROFLMAO!!! Good one Raf! ... Should've made that an AO-Hell CD. :D Smikeol, 'strategery'?? :blink: Face it dude. You're getting nowhere here, and your pitch just ain't gonna sell, especially the one about how the OLGs are going to have to answer to God for not paying attention to the PFAL collaterals. I mean, there are FAR worse crimes that one can commit, ..... Like ohhh, ..... ..... getting a parking ticket?

One last spank?

Looks like Santa has joined the outsourcing parade. :(

ROFLMAO!!! w/ tears even!

But Psalmie, I thought that you would be pickle---err, ahh, tickled pink. ((ducking))

From George Bush Sr. "Read my pants! No new taxes!!" Bill clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that pants!" Jimmy Carter "If I ever lie to you, please don't pants for me." Richard Nixon "I am not a pants!" John Kennedy "Ask not what your pants can do for you. Ask what you can do for your pants!"

*Somebody's* been into a few too many Calvinus's.

Considering Psalmie's flying piggie, that was cruel, Dave. Really cruel.

Hape4me, Apparently I stand corrected in that PETA themselves don't (so far anyway) commit the illegal activities. They do however, not only not disavow the illegal activities of ELF and other like groups, they help to fund them as well. Source 1 Source 2 which, in my humble opinion, doesn't move them very far away from actually doing the activities themselves. It's sorta like a Mafia godfather paying a hitman to murder someone, then saying "Hey! I didn't pull the trigger!" ... Oh wait, here is something illegal that a few of their members actually took part in: Ooopsie! Now it doesn't seem like much, but it is an ironic event considering PETA's rigid usage of avoidance of hurting animals, don't you think?

Hape4me, Given, I didn't see the Contact Us button (altho' I did look over the site for any Contact Us info. Evidently I missed it). However I didn't 'miss' reading about documented incidences re: PETA committing (sometimes illegal) acts of property damage or even causing hurt to come to people, in order to protect animals and the supposed rights thereof. THOSE 'weapons of mass destruction' are for real. Now maybe there are many PETA members who don't believe in activities like that, and they disavow them. Good for them. But even with the portraying "Daddy is a Murderer" because he fishes? And how many animals eat fish, and yet are not regarded as murderers? And before you answer with the "but animals aren't moral creatures like us humans" argument, read my rebuttal about that, and why that argument is flawed. PETA, as an organization, even with the positive actions you describe, still has quite a ways to go before I would ever take them seriously, and I consider myself on the same side as many moderate liberals re: the environment and the treatment of animals. But there is a rational way of dealing with the animal cruelty situation, and then there is the irrational (read stupid) way, and I for one view PETA as largely in the latter camp, due to a lot of what they do as an organization. I stand by what I say. B) Johnny, Interesting situation about the vegen teacher, particularly since she (as far as I am concerned) is also violating the principle of separation of church and state in what she's doing, because she is utilizing tax dollars to propagate her beliefs, just as much as if she were an evangelizing Christian doing the same in preaching Jesus in the classroom.

DrtyDzn, First off, I don't think that anyone here are disputing their right to free speech (even those at Ron's store; even as they most likely didn't want the flyers passed out on their private store property, altho' I am guessing at this point.) Yet keep in mind that we too, have the same free speech rights in letting everyone here know what we think of their tactics, which by the way, haven't always been legal. And yet they (PETA) haven't apologized nor taken back ANY of their illegal activities, including those that has caused harm to people, and destruction to property. They are the animal rights/vegen version of the KKK and Al-Qaida Lite. Ie., they sometimes use terrorist tactics. A link for you to 'dialog' with them, ehh? Bet you 10 to one that if they have any reason to view you as part of the 'meat eating enemy' (especially if you let them know that you disagree with their tactics), they might target you with spam, viruses, ... or even worse. Sorry Charlie, but these people have gone beyond reasoning and rational discussion to push their views.

You mean to tell me that you never heard about when about a few years back, the Catholic Church updated its Official Ecclesiastical Judgement regarding Gallileo. All along they knew that he was right, but they never Officially admitted it until 1992 when Pope John Paul officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary - it revolved around the sun. ... Ok, so it was more like 350 years. Still quite a long time for the Church to officially concede to a scientific point that was known for years even by schoolchildren. I stand corrected regarding the meaning of pederasty then. That it is being used as a focus against homosexuals and trying to link homosexuality with sexual abuse of minors however, I stand by what I say. And that it is flawed and dishonest. And in addition, that it is a strawman argument being used by the Church to relieve public pressure off of its responsibility in this travesty. And that you support trying to sell the idea on the relation to homosexuality angle is quite manipulative and dishonest on your part, and all in the name of Defending the Catholic Faith and its dictates. "Look lady, the real blame why your son was molested wasn't really due to the policies of the Catholic Church, but due to a few homos who managed to sneak in past the Pope's oversight." I mean, there is only so far you can argue based on loyalty, you think? As well as the shoddy usage of some research findings. With their anti-homosexual biases, you think that's such an unlikely possibility? Oh, so it didn't work itself into this mess because they looked the other way while the abuse was going on until the public nearly revolted due to it? Oh wow! So NOW they are worried about making sure their numbers are straight, hmmmm? Tell me something. Haven't you ever heard of someone trying to doctor the numbers so that a plausible scapegoat (in this case the gays) can be offered on the public sacrificial alter, while the heterosexual (and usually higher ups, like Bernard Law) leave unscathed? That kind of crap happens all the time. ..... Except in the Catholic church, or so you would have us believe.Man, and you say that *I'm* losing the argument?? :o With the exception of your listing homosexuality as a significant (and causal) part of the problem, I think that you're _finally_ getting my main point here (altho' you contradice yourself here "I list homosexuality in the priesthood as a significant factor" and here "Fact is that if a priest is capable of being celibate, it really and truly doesn't matter who he is attracted toward", but I nitpick). And I do see your valid point here "If he's not capable of being celibate, then, according to the rules of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, he has no business being a priest." at least from a Catholic perspective; ie., they made the celibate commitment, let them stay that way. Altho' from a Protestant perspective, maybe letting them marry is another viable alternative. :P But, that is another debate for another day. Anywho, stick a fork in me, I'm done with this show. Peace dude. B)

Mark, In all seriousness, let me clarify (make clearer) my main point here. The 86% (or whatever the percentage happens to be) doesn't tell the whole story about the homosexuality factor vis-a-vis priests who take sexual advantage/molest their young male charges. There is often other components and factors to take into account. Like: 1) Are the priests in charge of an all boy class or school? 2) Is it a priest who is in high 'need' of sexual gratification, and yet there is no females around, so he uses that as an excuse to focus on his young male charges? There could be a number of other scenarios that go beyond the simple percentage quoting to prove why homosexuals are more of a risk for priest-on-youth molesting. Also keep in mind that in prison, male-on-male rapes are reportedly common, so-o-o does that make the prison population highly gay too? The study you use, while credible in its own right, fairs poorly in support of your specific arguement here.

((Twilight Zone Music playing eerily in the background)) "Garth and Ron, two GSers with usually opposing viewpoints were discussing one day and on the way to a particular thread, they took a detour. ... A change. ... And this will be a day like none they've ever spent --- in agreement --- and they'll spend it, ... in the Twilight Zone." :blink: (Lifted and hatcheted from an actual Rod Serling intro to a Twilight Zone episode. :D Mucho apologies if any Rod Serling fanatics are deeply offended at my poor attempt.)

Mark, Something I've noted too, and that its usually that I've 'taken something out of context' when my position clashes with someone elses, and I'm quite blunt about it, but if we agree, *voila* all context is in harmony again. ... Hhmmmm. <_< Allow me to show you why they are NOT out of context, particulrly in how YOU use Jay's work, for your own purposes (and you'll see a little more of my modus operendi): But it was YOU who tried to have that used in the specific topic relating homosexuality and priests with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. And in any event, the author still states that the empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited, which still provides limited resource as to the topic. And you've gone beyond that to link homosexuality itself and the priests dealing inappropriately with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. An attempt to get more mileage out of it than is actually there. And the other 'jewels' are based on the same principle. Also, your endeavor to make a distinction between the real world and the more narrow context of priests fails. In that the statistics, facts, et al remain the same across the cross-section of society. A fact which gives me more pause to question where he got his 86% figures from. Because many examples of this same kind of comparison outside of the Catholic Church and its priesthood shows a more equal balance between sexes that are targets of child molestors, be they pre-puberty kids, or post-puberty. (And to those sickos, it rarely makes a difference, even taking into account the emerging sexual awareness of those reaching puberty.) Oh, and speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forget to mention that sexual awareness reaches different kids at different ages, thus at least putting into question the age demarcation. Also, have you thought about that, even with your 86% figures being correct, that doesn't put homosexuality as being causal to the problem? Because it doesn't. That's like saying that because AIDS hit homosexuals the hardest first, that makes it a gay disease. Notice the missing factors in that overly simplistic usage of percentages as well. Please explain these descrepencies. Tell me something. Did you also try to sell them on the relation to homosexuality angle? Using the 86% figure and all that? That would be despicable too! Frankly Mark, what we are dealing with here is basically technical semantics re: puberty, and whether it is pedophilia, or whether it is ephebophilia (or pederasty). And I think that has a lot less to do with the homosexual priest question than many people might like to think. Add to all this the increasing scientific findings that homosexuality is more natural to certain people, and less regarded as a 'sinful lifestyle'. Then again, maybe I should go easy on the Catholic Church on realizing these new scientific findings. I mean, it *did* take them over 400 years to _finally_ make the Official Decision that Galileo was right after all. :D Oh Mark, Remember what I said about real life examples here testify to this? Ie., your lines of demarcation, while looking good on ecclesiastical paper, ain't so solid in reality. With the past 5-6 posts here, I can now say "I rest my case!"

You can call him John, ... or you can call him Jay, ... or you can call him Ray, .... ...... but whatever you do, DON'T CALL HIM SUE!!

Mark, Read what I typed again -- s l o w l y if you have to. Notice my point of criticism. Notice that it wasn't John Jay and his work. Notice that it was your usage of John Jay's work. ^-- Now, read this last paragraph again --^ ... A lot clearer for you now, isn't it? Me, and many others, including plenty of parents and children who did experience the abuse. See, despite whatever clinical deliniation that is made between pedophelia and ephebophilia (or pederasty) there might technically be (as tho' there really is some sharp line of division between the two), real life delineation becomes a helluva lot more blurred. The real life examples here testify to this.And yes there are lots of studies done that back me up in disconnecting the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia (even ephebophilia for that matter, as in no more than in a heterosexual context would be). Try googling the two terms and you'll come across quite a number. And from plenty of independent medical authorities to boot. But John Jay's study hardly touches on any connection between homosexuality and ephebophilia, even with the numbers you give. Your connection of ephebophilia and homosexuality is just your interpretation of the numbers. If that is so much of an accurate and important conclusion, don't you think your expert would have made more of an affirmative mention in his article than he has? But, if anything as touching this, its uncertain and inconclusive. and yet you state here: Make up your mind, would you? What are you really driving at here? And no, I don't believe I derailed this thread, just nailing one of your biased mis-interpretations of some authority in relation to this thread. Back to an earlier point. Why is it that extra concern is given to the homosexual priests and young teen boys just passing puberty, and yet not the same concern for heterosexual priests and young teen girls passing puberty? Does your authority that (supposedly) backs you up deal with that? Frankly, I think that the relationship between homosexuality and pederasty is just a smoke screen; the real reason for the Catholic Church's opposition against homosexuality, even with the countering increasing scientific findings re: homosexuality, is because of their allegience to their particular brand of orthodox doctrine. Oh, and you said, "... the point is that there are many experts in the psychological field that do not consider ephebophilia to be a pathos as they do with pedophilia". Tell that to the victims and their relatives, whatever their ages would have been. You need to keep in mind that there is more than physical age that we're dealing with here.