"policies of "zero tolerance", and other steps that have come from the Holy See, the Church is doing what is needed to effectively solve the problem."

Haven't excluded Cardinal Bernard Law, a known enabler, from being a member of the church.

"The root problem is that of homosexuality and the sooner that everyone, including the Church, recognizes that, the better."

Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse. Abusers abuse victims because of opportunity and need. There are heterosexuals who are just as guilty of perpetrating crimes on people. One quarter of the abuse is on the opposite sex, clearly though there are more opportunities for adult men to come into contact with boys, than girls.

Even if homosexuality comes into it, which I would agree that in part it does, why are homosexuals in other religions not given the same scrutiny? Why not homosexuals in other areas of life. Why not heterosexuals?

"And basically neither trait is a "learned" one, but rather either a genetic trait or a mental difference."

There is a belief that people choose to be homosexual. I do not know first hand as I speak as a heterosexual, however I find it exceedingly illogical that there would be a crowd of people, outside the counter culture realm, inside the conformalist arena, there are lots who largely going with the flow, are mainstream and yet are gay. I'm not talking about the marchers with the assless chaps and rainbow outfits. I'm talking about "the normal crowd" the guys at the office or plant who on the weekend kisses other guys. So what right? But who would chose this one area to be different because simply they chose it when there is an active stigma. Who would choose this lifestyle with the higher rate of AIDS risk?

Read about something here...

An article, with citations and a reference to a physical difference between a homo-heterosexuals humans' brain.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

An article on homosexuality in animals, which are not subject to the same type of environmental and marketing influences that humans are influenced by.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

It is my firm belief that this is nature and genetics and life. Another point, on sex offenders, who would chose this type of behavior? Who would chose to harm a child? Why do animals kill the offspring which isn't theres? Why does life attack weak things? It's nature, in these cases, it could be that these offenders have a need to injure to harm to leave a scar on their victim that is not visible but clearly has a severe impact.

Our society has created plenty of opportunities for the weak and strong to intermix daily and in nature strength attacks weakness. We apply these struggles in war, in politics, in sports, in so many areas it's easy to just overlook the constant struggle of nature. Certainly most of us don't live in a pure natural environment and the result of this combined with a high emphasis on influenced behavior leads to socially objectable behavior.

Within the allpsych article, it is expressed that among pairs of identical twins (That's identical DNA) only 52% were both gay. While that says that the closer the DNA, the more likely it is to be tied together, it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%.

So, your own article says there's no definite answer and disproves that there is a 'gay gene' or that a homosexual is born that way, ie identical twins would always both have the same sexual orientation.

I gather this was directed at Dan, as I clearly stated I do not know. And I do not. However, the DNA of identical twins is not 100%. And the cause of homosexuality (or pedophelia) is not known. It could be choice, it could be genetic, or it could be mental (which is not strictly genetic). The general consensus is that it is a born trait, not a learned one.

But how it comes about, while important in some circles, is not really germaine to this issue. Priests dont become homosexuals, or pedophiles, homsexuals and pedophiles become priests. The evidence is very strong that those with a predilection to pedophelia migrate to professions where they can carry out their pervase behavior. Otherwise, why the greater than normal (in relation to the general population) percentage of these individuals in teaching and non-catholic ministries. neither of which share the requirement of celibacy with the Catholic church, but both of which share the interaction of trusted adults with children?

Let me first say that I added this article into the discussion to point out that there is no known cause of homosexuality. I don't even know if it is credible but I have no reason to suspect it is not. I do believe that it is well sourced and objective.

"Within the allpsych article, it is expressed that among pairs of identical twins (That's identical DNA) only 52% were both gay. While that says that the closer the DNA, the more likely it is to be tied together, it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%.

So, your own article says there's no definite answer and disproves that there is a 'gay gene' or that a homosexual is born that way, ie identical twins would always both have the same sexual orientation."

Before you put words in my mouth or on the paper in my handwriting consider...

I didn't assert that genetics is the sole cause of homosexuality. I just pointed out a study which has some information on homosexuality.

What I said was...

"An article, with citations and a reference to a physical difference between a homo-heterosexuals humans' brain.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html"

The specific section I was referring to is here...

"D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind."

Let me remind you there is no known direct causation of either heterosexuality or homosexuality. There is speculation, theory, guesswork, and some possibilities ruled out but as of yet, it's still a debate about genetics, environment, and choice, because it just isn't known.

If you look at it logically, I find it hard to believe homosexuality exists in nature, in places where it is forbidden, in places where it is taboo, in places where it is stigmatized, and places where it is accepted, purely because people will it. In all walks of life and culture it exists. To me that means it's a genetic/born trait. I find it hard to believe that homosexuals in Nazi Germany or other places of forbidden non-conformity in history it was still a way of life which existed at the risk of death. That to me is appears to be a natural drive, not a learned response, or a chosen trait.

People with Polio, on the whole, cannot choose to walk, obese people cannot choose to be thin, people with serious debilitating diseases cannot choose to just shrug them off, knowing that and understanding it, can you tell me that people who have a deep drive to be romantic with members of the same sex rather then opposite are choosing that over it being chosen for them by nature? How about the people who have sex reassignment surgeries because they are born in the wrong body and identify with the opposite sex? I do not know if that occurs in nature in the animal kingdom but I do know homosexuality does.

When I write "It is my firm belief that this is nature and genetics and life." Forgive me for intermixing terms, I mean to say I think it is a born trait rather then a learned one. As to if it is genetic or not I don't know much about the human genome. I do know homosexuality occurs in animals in nature and so why not humans. Animals have fewer learned abilities and more instinctive and born traits than do humans because of their experience. To me that means it is likely that homosexuality is a born with trait similar to how with genetics you are born with traits.

As for a "gay gene" I don't know if there is one or of it if there is.

"it also proves conclusively that DNA is, in fact, not the sole cause of homosexuality. If it was, it would be 100%."

NO IT DOES NOT! at the end of the article it says...

"We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer... Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

If you want to comment on an article READ THE WHOLE THING OR DON'T BOTHER! THANK YOU.

"But how it comes about, while important in some circles, is not really germaine to this issue. Priests dont become homosexuals, or pedophiles, homsexuals and pedophiles become priests. The evidence is very strong that those with a predilection to pedophelia migrate to professions where they can carry out their pervase behavior. Otherwise, why the greater than normal (in relation to the general population) percentage of these individuals in teaching and non-catholic ministries. neither of which share the requirement of celibacy with the Catholic church, but both of which share the interaction of trusted adults with children?"

The meat and potatoes of the debate summed up in one paragraph. Excellent ending question too by the way Dr.

Why do offenders gravitate towards occupations of trust. Maybe it's a sub-conscience thing as well as environmental and genetic thing rolled into one.

it could be as simple as willy sutton's propensity for robbing banks because banks are where the money is.

it might also be that both pedophiles and molestors are, in some respects, perpetual children stuck at age 7 (or 12 or whatever)wearing adult bodies, as such, they continue to enjoy the company of children currently of a corresponding age and are drawn to activities and other social situations which appeal most to those same children.

I don't like to talk about it, because it's always dismissed, but Satan is in fact at work in our lives. The offenders are often those in positions of trust around children because that was the temptation thrown at them by Satan.

So people say they were born that way, so that it's not their fault that they can't control themselves. And we let them, because that means we're NOT born that way, and it will never happen to us.

Dr. Guy, what's up with this? "The DNA of identical twins is not 100%." I must admit I learned this in public school, so I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that identical twins were born from the same egg and sperm as each other, and therefore their DNA was identical, hence the term, identical twins. Did I miss something?

As a whole, when I say the Catholic church has a lust problem, the reality is the whole of America has a lust problem, which is the root of homosexuality, pedophilia, and every other perversion of what God intended. Lust is the root, not some difference in the brain.

I read the whole article, Dan, but that doesn't make the conclusion valid. It cited a study that identical twins were not always the same sexuality. Therefore, if their DNA is 100% (which may not be a valid presumption, as Dr. Guy has challenged it), then homosexuality cannot be an in-born trait based on genetics.

in her reply #39, lulapilgrim faulted me for using 'pedophilia' inaccurately.

she objected to using this term as a catchall definition of sexual predators whose victims are above the age of pubescence. it seemed to me then a specious distinction but was aware i had been using it otherwise innacurately.

in my reply #40, i conceded the point, thanked her and then excerpted additional text from a source i'd cited earlier in the discussion for further clarification.

at risk of appearing to quibble--but in the interest of precision--i'm re-quoting that portion here. my reason for doing so goes beyond misapplication of the terms pedophile/pedophilia in this thread.

i dunno if any of you are aware of a person who recently attracted considerable attention to himself--none of it to his advantage--by professing publicly to be a pedophile. he was operating a website on which he listed places of potential interest to other pedophiles due to the number and ages of children to be found there.

responding to angry parents' demands he be arrested, the lapd explained pedophilia is a psychological condition which cannot be criminalized by our legal system because it involves no action. sexual molestation, assualt or any other activity is an entirely different matter.

with that in mind, consider this:

twins (or triplets or quadruplets) not exact clones of each other. my next younger sisters are twins who looked so much alike as kids only family members--and not all of those--could tell them apart. as alike as they may sometimes seem, there are also vast differences between the two.

there's nothing factual about the above. you may believe it to be true. it may even be true. nevertheless, facts depend entirely on verifiable evidence. as far as satan goes, there isn't any.

next time someone's books don't balance, try tellin them it's satan's doing.

Satan worked in the thief's life, causing him/her to need money, usually right after the opportunity presents itself... some people don't take the money, some do. Some do to feed their family. Is it still wrong? Yes, but that justification is just another way Satan attacks...

No, I can't prove to you that Satan is working in your life.

But, I figured since you all shared your beliefs, I could share mine. Dan Greene believes homosexuals are born that way, I believe it has a lot more to do with lust and demons. If it's his firm belief, does that make my firm belief less valid? No. As you said, it may even be true. It IS true. But provable does not equal truth, as many innocent people put in prison will tell you. Truth just IS. Perception is what makes something provable or not, not truth.

fact and truth intersect but are by no means the same thing.

satan's existence is by no means a fact. nor ia this:



i suspect you know the difference (which is why you won't be telling anyone satan's responsible for accounts out of balance).



as do i. while there's no conclusive evidence supporting either position at this time, current ongoing research of which i'm aware seems more likely to confirm our position than yours.



factual validity isn't mitigated by belief. no matter how convinced you may be in your ability to turn base metal to gold by force of will, it ain't gonna happen.



neither jury nor judge can determine innocence. their duty is to decide whether sufficient evidence exists to support--beyond a reasonable doubt--conviction or acquittal.

Dan Greene posts #76

Lula posts:

To my knowledge, no member of the Church involved in this scandal, whether as an abuser or one who wittingly or unwittlingly shuffled them from one parish to another, has been ex-communicated. Excommunication isn't the way the Church works with sinners. Those clergy who were found guilty of sexual abuse were de-frocked, made to resign, but not excommunicated. Those who are not in prison, are sent to a monastery-type place where they will live the remainder of their lives in contemplative prayer seeking God's mercy and receive His healing grace through repentance.

We know now that some bishops who unwittingly moved predators around did so based on the unsound advice of therapists who assured them that the individuals in question were safe. They have since acknowledged innocently contributuing to the problem and are taking their responsibility working to provide effective steps to resolve that it doesn't ever happen again.

Dan Greene posts #76

Lulapilgrim posts:

Dan, you say that "Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse."

In this case, I must disagree based upon the following:

1--We know now that 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse. In a study put out by USA TODAY, it was determined that in the nation's 10 largest dioceses, 234 priests who have been accused of sexual abuse, 91 percent of their victims were male.
2--1.8 per cent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.
3--Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People, too", estimates that between 1 and 1.5 per cent of priests have had charges made against them.
4--Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals so says Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara U. found that 80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent and teen boys, not pre-pubescent children.
5--The numbers show that BOston which was the epicenter of the scandal is even worse. There the clergy sex abuse cases that were referred to prosecutors in Massachusetts more than 90% involve male victims. The most prominent Boston lawyer for alleged victims said 95% of their clients are male.

First of all, the homosexual connection is NOT being discussed and therfore is not what is receiving scrutiny; it's politically incorrect to do so. Pedophile can be mentioned day-in and day-out, but not homosexuality.

Second, even though there is sexual abuse of children found among Protestant clergy and among Rabbis, even moreso than in the CC, there is more money to be made by suing the Catholic which as a whole is much, much larger than are the individual Protestant denominations for example.

DAN GREENE POSTS #76



Ah, here again comes the question of choice...

The argument goes---Homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma or of being infected with AIDS.

First, I have to give credit to the success of the so-called "gay rights" crowd for their amazing triumpth of clever deception over simple logic. I haven't been able to find any one who argued that homosexuality was innate before 1986, have you?

The argument is invalid since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. More than that, there are way too many homosexuals who freely admit their lifestyle is a voluntary preference. Furthermore, if "sexual orientation" (which is also a term devised by the talented sophists of the "gay" (oops another term) movement), is fixed from birth, why do some homosexuals switch from heterosexuality or bisexuality?

ON the question of choice, it must be noted that all sexual activity, except rape, is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a person's conscious choice.

Let's suppose I honestly believe that I've been born homosexual. Am I required to engage in homosexual acts? Am I not capable of controlling my sexual desires and remaining celibate?

How different is this from the heterosexual person who chooses to be sexually promiscuous in spite of the devestating consequences of emotional turmoil, diseases, etc.?

Either way, we are all personally responsible for our own behavior sexual or non-sexual---while we may have strong desires, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct.
A choice must still be made.

Dan Greene posts: #76



Dan, you say, "It's just so easy to overlook the constant struggle of nature".

Constant struggle? Nah. Nature, like her Maker, is good and perfect. It's only when man interferes with nature that a struggle ensues.

But getting back to the topic of nature and the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality, I'd say that unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human.

All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. The body parts fit; they are complimentary for their natural intended purpose and use...the chemical processes are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design.

In nature, a male to male or female to female oreintation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural. This brings me to the conclusion that homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender sexual conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. The human being by nature is designed and rooted in heterosexual physiology.

This is true of homosexuality, but not of heterosexuality as I have pointed out in previous posts.

It certainly isn't based upon science that the homosexual movement denies homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate.

Homosexual activists are the ones making the claim 'they are born that way' but they can't prove it becasue to date there are no truly objective means of determining that. We must depend entirely upon a person's claim that his or her homosexuality is innate.

On the other hand, there is evidence that homosexuality is not innate. There are testimonies of tens of thousands of people who once lived as Homosexuals yet have renounced their former lifestyle in self identification and desire. Besides that there is overwhelming evidence that homosexual desire results form traumatic childhood experiences such as sexual abuse especially during the latency period, or a troubled family environment. For in-depth information citing numerous studies read, HOmosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. Family Research Institute.org also has done scientific studies and empirical research on homosexuality.

I agree with Scott Lively, "7 steps to recruit proof your child", who wrote, "In the theory of special creation based on the Bible, God would not have created an entire class of people with no choice but to engage in a behavior He had condemned. ON the contrary, the Bible specifically states that God gives each person free will and holds him accountable for his choices."

Why is the question of immutability so important? Becasue if homosexuality isn't innate, it must be acquired and if it's acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. Thus far, homosexualists have been successful in trying to equate homo-sex behavior as biologically just the same as race or gender as far as obtaining same-sex partner health benefits and getting so called "gay rights" passed.

"I don't like to talk about it, because it's always dismissed, but Satan is in fact at work in our lives."

You can believe that if you want, however if it is true Satan was in our lives, in the 40's and 30's and 20's, and this type of behavior did not manifest itself as prevalent or counter measures would have been taken before the incidents in the 60's.

"I read the whole article, Dan, but that doesn't make the conclusion valid."

I didn't assert that it did make a correct conclusion. Clearly if you read what I put into "" one could see that it does in fact, not draw conclusions, but show evidence, facts, which may or may not mean anything. I find your arguments to be increasing less valid, when you start asserting "Satan" as a cause yet deny evidence as valid which is a scientific fact found in the article, whether or not it makes a conclusion, you seem to think that it does. It's time for you to read it a third time, or stop discussing it because you have no ground to stand on regarding it.

Prove to me that Satan does anything, that could not be the actions of a chosen person. Prove to me Satan exists anyplace but beyond your mind. I have shown you an article in which scientific persons have found physical differences in brains between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that doesn't mean for sure that is it a cause.

"No, I can't prove to you that Satan is working in your life."

Than you can't be using that as a fact, or suggesting it's Satan's fault.

Generally in science, you have to look at a combination of factors, in the case of priests abusing children it isn't one single thing. Homosexuality though in part, is not a direct cause of this.

You were the one asserting that a conclusion was drawn from the article and now you are saying it's wrong because it came to the wrong one. Again I remind you that I presented the article to show you that evidence exists to indicate homosexuality is not learned practice.

Your statement

"Stamp out the lust and you stamp out everything, pedofilia, homosexuality, and even heterosexuality, which isn't allowed for a priest either."

Just how do you propose you stamp out sexual evolution (LUST) in animals? Sex isn't a entirely a learned trait, it's instinctive, it's marketed in our society because it sells products, and because it stimulates us, we are stimulated because that's how you get procreation to happen between opposite sexes. In other societies sex progresses without near the fanfare. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, all types, even sex with minors in some other cultures is accepted.

If you will recall from history this nations grand idea of prohibition and ending alcohol sales/brewing/consumption, imagine trying that with cigarettes, and then imagine trying that with sex. Good luck.

What you need is law enforcement against sex offenders and any organization that would allow offenders to perpetrate crimes to be legally sanctioned.

"But, I figured since you all shared your beliefs, I could share mine. Dan Greene believes homosexuals are born that way, I believe it has a lot more to do with lust and demons. If it's his firm belief, does that make my firm belief less valid? No. As you said, it may even be true. It IS true. But provable does not equal truth, as many innocent people put in prison will tell you. Truth just IS. Perception is what makes something provable or not, not truth."

You are welcome and entitled to believe in whatever you want. My beliefs are no more valid than yours. However without proof of fact, of which you cannot even lend any to the existence of your force, (SATAN) which supposedly, as you assert, is the acting force on these people, you have to face responsibility for that.

I have no evidence to say that Satan does not exist, but show me what evidence exists to say Zeus does not exist? That Zeus, King of the Gods, is not throwing down lightning from the heavens because he can. Why is that religion treated as mythology today rather than fact? Just because your belief is different doesn't make it irrelevant but your assertion that homosexuals are acting on lust and because of demons is. Is your heterosexual conduct lust also?

Why must all homosexuals be guilty of demonic acts, lust, why must two people who love each other, who commit no crime, but are of the same sex not be characterized exactly as you and I?

Certainly acts in our society, between adults and minors are not right. But what of the 16 year old who loves her 19 year old lover. Is not that adult guilty of the same crimes someone of 30 or 40? The lines blur really quickly between these issues.

What is clear is that the church has chosen to keep some of the bishops and cardinals who made the decisions to shuffle these sex offenders around the church and that some of these offenders were able to repeat their offenses over and over because of their decisions and actions. That's not right.

As for homosexuals and heterosexuals, in our country you ought to have sex with whoever you want, who is of age, nobody need tell you how to live your life in your personal pursuit of happiness. Nobody ought be denying you the rights or privileges between your partner/spouse. Thats my opinion on it. We are a country of free people, free people don't deny people of their rights or of their privileges, nor should they.

"We know now that some bishops who unwittingly moved predators around did so based on the unsound advice of therapists who assured them that the individuals in question were safe."

Convenient excuse, unfortunately for lots of church communities, not good enough to keep the collections in the coffers in the church.

Lil pilgrim posts some stats on the numbers of homosexual/heterosexual cases, of course she did not cite her source beyond USA TODAY, please cite the article.

I wrote "Homosexuality is no more at fault than heterosexuality for the abuse." In light of what your stats say I'll write,

Homosexuality is just as at fault as heterosexuality is for the abuse.

Lil pilgrim you can stop with the straight rights agenda. I'm interested in logic and facts. It pains me when you write...

"The argument goes---Homosexuality must be innate because no one would choose to be "gay" and incur the resulting social stigma or of being infected with AIDS.
First, I have to give credit to the success of the so-called "gay rights" crowd for their amazing triumpth of clever deception over simple logic. I haven't been able to find any one who argued that homosexuality was innate before 1986, have you?"

I wasn't around online in 1986, nor was homosexuality accepted in employment circles or protected the way it is today by equal opportunity laws. Beyond that, rather than confronting my question of...

Who would logically chose a behavior that by demographic is statistically more dangerous because of AIDS, and is stigmatized both because of that, and by religions? In the group of people who are not counter-culture, why would there be a segment of our population who is homosexual if it were not a chosen thing?

Beyond that, you won't even touch the question I ask, why are animals in the animal kingdom who are not Human, HOMOSEXUAL TOO?

Answer that before you crap all over my arguments supporting the idea that it's more than just a choice thing.

Your reply in 91 is a total misunderstanding. Partly my fault, but you go on and on about homo/heteroseuxal conduct when my analogy of nature's "strength vs weakness" theme wasn't about sex hardly at all. It was a paragraph where the strong are "priests" versus the "weak" adolescents, weak adolescents who are attacked by the "strong" priests. Why do male bears kill the young cubs? Why do priests fuck kids?

I supposed they do because...

A. The opportunity exists for male on male contact to a much higher degree than male on female contact in church situations...

B. Nobody could argue that young males isolated would be in the strong position versus a priest, both physically and in a society caste, type perspective.

C. Nature attacks weak things through natural selection. I know it's a small stretch, but there are millions of examples of where young members of a species are the most vulnerable, and there are stronger dominant types which prey on them, either to improve the odds of their offspring succeeding or providing more resources for themselves. Happens in nature in either almost or every species. In fact I challenge you to show me a species where natural selection does not play a factor. Meaning, it's a powerful instinctive and driving force, sub conscience but just like hunger, or sex drive.

D. Sexuality plays a part but you shouldn't discount that opportunity also plays a part. Think of the psychology as well, would a young woman be more likely to tell than a young man embarrassed, at the time, that they were abused? Would they be believed by their parents outright? How would their parents react? Obviously a predator doesn't attack the target which has the least chance of being successfully defeated. They attack the most likely to keep it a secret, or to feel the most powerless. You take away a young mans dignity and put him in a position where he has to accuse an authority figure at the expense of upsetting and possibly ruining his parents relationship with God and you give a young man a very hard choice to make.

I'm not minimizing a choice or victimization by a woman but I'm not a woman, and I'm not trying too. Perhaps someone could offer the psychological perspective there.

This sounds like a sick argument and I'm ready to puke, but it's a sick topic to be honest.

"Why is the question of immutability so important? Becasue if homosexuality isn't innate, it must be acquired and if it's acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized to our children. Thus far, homosexualists have been successful in trying to equate homo-sex behavior as biologically just the same as race or gender as far as obtaining same-sex partner health benefits and getting so called "gay rights" passed."

You go ahead a raise your kids how you want Lil Pilgrim. But if one of them comes to you one day and says, Mom or Dad, I'm sorry to tell you this cause I know how you feel about it, but I'm Gay. It's not a choice, but it's who I am. I hope you can accept me for it but if you can't I'll understand.

What's your response gonna be? Is it gonna be thumping that bible up and down until they decide to change their mind or is it gonna be to love your kids no matter what? Honestly why does it matter if your kids are gay? Why does it matter if anyone is? Even if they choose it? So what? Does that make them less of a person? Does it make the person love their partner any less, or any less valuable to society?

I would argue that is does not. I mean no disrespect towards the bible or the church when I say, why is it acceptable to exclude or declare certain people as acting on demons or lust when lust and demons are just as dangerous to heterosexuals as homosexuals as evidenced by your own stats showing that some heterosexual abuse did in fact, take place as well?

Should not the church instead of ramming rhetoric down your throat and mine, allow people to live how they want and stick to teaching "do unto your neighbor as you would have done to yourself"

Maybe people like me, who don't have to take the bible literally or figurative or at all, in this country, a country founded on freedom to preach and teach and live the religion of choice, or no religion at all if so chosen, just look at it different.

Why should my homosexual neighbor be demonized by you, be stigmatized by you, be denied rights which you have because you or your religion do not like it? To me it's not a question of right or wrong morally, morals differ between people and religions, it's a question of right or wrong ethically. Ethics are much more consistent in my opinion. It is ethically right to deny two people of the rights and privileges to live as partners if they so chose?

Given that lots of people do in fact "choose" to live this way regardless of the debate about if being gay is choice or genetic, and that it affects you in zero ways, if you don't let it, i.e. be gay, why should their rights and privileges be denied?

Lets get one thing straight er clear here LOL. Nobody is looking to recruit gay people, Just because you don't agree that people are either are gay or not, doesn't mean that they are all wrong, or me, because they believe it is a non-chosen thing. You aren't gay or are you? I'm not gay and I don't know for sure one way or the other. You aren't gay or are you, but assuming you aren't you can't know for sure if its a chosen thing or not. Ethically though, can you agree with denying other people their rights and privileges, who believe that they are gay and that they are gay for a purpose?

What you are spouting Pilgrim is fear, and lack of understanding, in my opinion. Maybe you are clouded by your religious beliefs or guided by them, maybe you are a bigot. That is for you to decide, what I do know is, our country has a history of denying people rights unfairly and then when called on it, changing that for the better.

I'm done talking about the whole priest and gay thing for today thanks folks interesting conversation.

"Sex isn't a entirely a learned trait, it's instinctive, it's marketed in our society because it sells products, and because it stimulates us, we are stimulated because that's how you get procreation to happen between opposite sexes."

Heterosexual sex is instinctive, and procreative. Homosexual sex is not procreative.

"Just because your belief is different doesn't make it irrelevant but your assertion that homosexuals are acting on lust and because of demons is. Is your heterosexual conduct lust also?"

Yes, except in marriage.

"Why must all homosexuals be guilty of demonic acts, lust, why must two people who love each other, who commit no crime, but are of the same sex not be characterized exactly as you and I?"

There is an inherent selfish/selfless relationship in homosexual relationships. It's becoming that way with heterosexual relationships too, but it doesn't have to be that way as it does with homosexual relationships. Also, let me remind you that a lot of people love each other without sexual relationships.

"As for homosexuals and heterosexuals, in our country you ought to have sex with whoever you want, who is of age, nobody need tell you how to live your life in your personal pursuit of happiness. Nobody ought be denying you the rights or privileges between your partner/spouse. Thats my opinion on it. We are a country of free people, free people don't deny people of their rights or of their privileges, nor should they."

I certainly won't deny people the right to have sex with whoever they want, who is of age, and I won't tell non-Christians how to live their lives. I won't deny rights.

That's the greatness of freedom. Not only are we free to do what's best for us, we're also free to destroy our lives.

Dan,

Re: Your apology for using profanity and your post #93. It's sad to say that you evidently don't mean what you say and don't say what you mean.

Dan,

Do not belittle her name. It does nothing for your argument. And probably more than the offensive term stopped her from continuing the debate.

Name calling is the last resort of those who have no points to make.

Doc, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not. If you are, please be assured that I'm not bothered in the least when someone gets my name wrong.

Dan uses profanity again in post 93, the last sentence of about the 38 paragraph down that begins with , "Your reply in 91".

It is you, and I have already asked him to refrain from profanity. However, I do not forbid it on my blog since I do use it and it would be hypocritical for me to ban it. However his denigration of your name, while fine with you, is really beneath the level of discourse you have had. You both have had some very good points, and I have appreciated reading them. using school yard taunts is not up to the level that I have been reading.

Dan Greene posts:




I don't see humans as compared to animals at all. Human nature isn't the same as animal nature. Humans are totally distinct creatures and the latest scientific insights into the design of DNA prove that quite concusively.


Human beings have an immutable nature that demands acting in accord with reason given that humans have an intellect or ability to think, understand and act based on conscience (while animals don’t). All non-rational creatures like animals participate in the natural law only by instinct. We, humans, are unique, rational creatures that participates by inclination and rational free will.

There is a huge difference between human behavior and animal behavior. The intellect enables us to think; the free will allows us to choose. The natural order here is the rational governs over the emotive. In this sense, we cannot compare our human sexuality to animals wild, domestic or otherwise.

What is the point? Do you think that animals have alot to teach us about sexuality? Should we decide to include the practices of animals in our decisions of how the world should be? It's preposterous to take instances of animal "homosexual" activity and transform those into general statements about the naturalness or normalcy of homosexuality in people. What happens sexually in the animal world is irrelevant to what occurs in the human one.

Animals do all sorts of things we civilized humans abhor and would never consider natural or normal. They kill and eat members of their own species and their own offspring. They compete with each other for dominance often killing or debilitating the rival, and they breed with relatives.

Yes, thank you and I appreciate that. There have been lots of very interesting discussions throughout JU in which I do not participate solely because of profanity.



I took it as only mis-spelling. Lots of people do that...Lula is fine. As I said, no harm done there.

Hopefully with this, Dan will get the message and be a more careful.