4 ms·

> Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. Being a pedophile isn't against the law, only engaging on pedophiliac desires is illegal

> Being gay isn’t a sin according to Catholicism, only having gay sex. Being a pedophile isn't against the law, only engaging on pedophiliac desires is illegal. Therefore I should be ok with pedophiles being leaders of our community and teachers. Right? Wrong. Examining the technicalities of the rules is just pedantry. There is an obvious intent and overall meaning behind the rules. >Perhaps you can think of a justification for all this, but I haven’t seen a coherent one given so far in this thread. Thanks for being so polite. This is obviously against the rules here, you're saying it to trigger me.

foldr 4y ago
Pedophilia has victims and pedophiles are a potential danger to children. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  > Pedophilia has victims. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. Not necessarily. Depending on the state, it's technically pedophilia/rape when a 18 year old female has sex with a 17 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is a virgin and kind of innocent while the 17 year old is a big burly guy and has already had sex with dozens of people. In this case, many states classify 17 year old male as the one getting raped. The technicalities here literally mask the intent. Intent is what matters here and the circumstances here make the intent less clear in such a way that the technical law can't fully articulate true justice. But you don't need me to explain this. You are fully aware of what I mean here. When a homosexual man becomes a teacher for an all boys school something is wrong. When a homosexual man joins an organization against homosexuality something is also wrong. It makes perfect sense for organizations to spend money to get rid of these people. >The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. I throw this right back at you, your response is not in good faith. You're trying to start something here. I think you're very intelligent and attempting to deliberately turn this conversation into a witch hunt against me. It is also not inappropriate from many peoples perspective including the people in the article. Homosexuality from the perspective of many conservative and religious groups is Just as deviant as pedophilia. From this reasoning, it makes sense why such a group would form to weed out homosexual priests. Unfortunately, the technical wording of the catholic rules on this matter doesn't govern their intents and feelings about it, and thus they act on their feelings rather then the rules themselves. It's not about whether the existence of these groups is right or wrong. It's whether these anti-homosexual groups exiling a homosexual who joined their group is right or wrong. I'm sorry to say, it's right. Those people shouldn't have joined in the first place. If you're not supporting and acting for the principles of this group you shouldn't join. Bottom line. The intent of the action is right, the intent of the people joining the group IS NOT. I also flagged your post. Despite me giving you a good faith answer, I still consider your answer as someone who is obviously trying to start a witch hunt and get me banned. You are not acting in good faith; you have an agenda and your answer is manipulatively hiding that fact. This type of behavior is a hundred times more vile and insidious then someone who is just trolling (and I'm OBVIOUSLY not). I recommend we end the conversation here before it gets out of hand. Good day. Edit: This sentence here was ADDED to your response AFTER I made this reply: "If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men. " Obviously you're trying to retroactively change what you wrote so others seeing it will misconstrue your intent. You could've just responded to me instead of trying to change what you wrote earlier. Complete garbage.
  - foldr 4y ago
    Paragraphs and paragraphs about pedophilia when you could just have chosen another analogy to make your point. Apologies for the late edit (which I made without having seen your comment), but I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. There has to be a better way to make your point than this. Again, even if Catholics somehow see homosexuals as being deviant in a way comparable to pedophiles (and I hope that most don't!), homosexuals clearly don't present the same danger to others that pedophiles do. This is why the analogy fails for me, and I'd rather you found another one. I have no interest in 'getting you banned', by the way. Edit: On closer reading, I am surprised to find this sentence in a comment from someone who earlier claimed to be a supporter of gay rights: >When a homosexual man becomes a teacher for an all boys school something is wrong I think perhaps we are now seeing your true point of view.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      > Paragraphs and paragraphs about pedophilia when you could just have chosen another analogy to make your point. Apologies for the late edit (which I made without having seen your comment), but I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. There has to be a better way to make your point than this. Except if you read ANY of the paragraphs you'll see that it's relevant. Many Catholics view homosexuals in the same way they view pedophilia (with disgust) and don't want homosexuals in leadership positions. I'm sorry this analogy is apt and you know it from your other comments. Live with it. >I have no interest in 'getting you banned', by the way. Then don't accuse me of not commenting on good faith. Don't point fingers. Accusations and attacks on someones character as if they're in violation of the rules here can get people banned. >I think perhaps we are now seeing your true point of view. What view? That homosexuals are the same as regular human beings with ulterior motives and incentives? What? you think I should just assume that if someone is gay then he's a paragon of moral goodness? If a man who loves sushi goes to a place that exclusively sell sushi it is reasonable to assume he wants sushi. It is reasonable to question that act. If that man went to a food court that happens to have sushi then it's reasonable to assume otherwise. But such is not the case when a gay man becomes the leader of a boy scout troop. He may have good intentions, but it is highly highly reasonable to assume he does not. >Edit: On closer reading, I am surprised to find this sentence in a comment from someone who earlier claimed to be a supporter of gay rights: I support gay rights in the same way I support human rights. I don't give you or gay people special treatment. If a gay person commits a crime he's a criminal. Your statement here is trying to put me in a box. It's like you're saying that If someone can even just assume that a gay person could have the proclivity of doing something unethical then how could that person be a supporter of gay rights? Impossible!

foldr 4y ago

Pedophilia has victims and pedophiles are a potential danger to children. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men.

kilgnad 4y ago
> Pedophilia has victims. There is no victim when two adult gay men have consensual sex – unless one of them is harassed out of his job by people spying on him. Not necessarily. Depending on the state, it's technically pedophilia/rape when a 18 year old female has sex with a 17 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is a virgin and kind of innocent while the 17 year old is a big burly guy and has already had sex with dozens of people. In this case, many states classify 17 year old male as the one getting raped. The technicalities here literally mask the intent. Intent is what matters here and the circumstances here make the intent less clear in such a way that the technical law can't fully articulate true justice. But you don't need me to explain this. You are fully aware of what I mean here. When a homosexual man becomes a teacher for an all boys school something is wrong. When a homosexual man joins an organization against homosexuality something is also wrong. It makes perfect sense for organizations to spend money to get rid of these people. >The comparison with pedophilia is so obviously inappropriate (and liable to unnecessarily inflame emotions in the context of this thread) that it makes me question whether you're engaging with this topic in good faith. I throw this right back at you, your response is not in good faith. You're trying to start something here. I think you're very intelligent and attempting to deliberately turn this conversation into a witch hunt against me. It is also not inappropriate from many peoples perspective including the people in the article. Homosexuality from the perspective of many conservative and religious groups is Just as deviant as pedophilia. From this reasoning, it makes sense why such a group would form to weed out homosexual priests. Unfortunately, the technical wording of the catholic rules on this matter doesn't govern their intents and feelings about it, and thus they act on their feelings rather then the rules themselves. It's not about whether the existence of these groups is right or wrong. It's whether these anti-homosexual groups exiling a homosexual who joined their group is right or wrong. I'm sorry to say, it's right. Those people shouldn't have joined in the first place. If you're not supporting and acting for the principles of this group you shouldn't join. Bottom line. The intent of the action is right, the intent of the people joining the group IS NOT. I also flagged your post. Despite me giving you a good faith answer, I still consider your answer as someone who is obviously trying to start a witch hunt and get me banned. You are not acting in good faith; you have an agenda and your answer is manipulatively hiding that fact. This type of behavior is a hundred times more vile and insidious then someone who is just trolling (and I'm OBVIOUSLY not). I recommend we end the conversation here before it gets out of hand. Good day. Edit: This sentence here was ADDED to your response AFTER I made this reply: "If you do have a point to make, could I ask you to please find a way to make it without reference to pedophilia, which has nothing to do with gay priests using hookup apps to talk to other adult gay men. " Obviously you're trying to retroactively change what you wrote so others seeing it will misconstrue your intent. You could've just responded to me instead of trying to change what you wrote earlier. Complete garbage.
- foldr 4y ago
  Paragraphs and paragraphs about pedophilia when you could just have chosen another analogy to make your point. Apologies for the late edit (which I made without having seen your comment), but I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. There has to be a better way to make your point than this. Again, even if Catholics somehow see homosexuals as being deviant in a way comparable to pedophiles (and I hope that most don't!), homosexuals clearly don't present the same danger to others that pedophiles do. This is why the analogy fails for me, and I'd rather you found another one. I have no interest in 'getting you banned', by the way. Edit: On closer reading, I am surprised to find this sentence in a comment from someone who earlier claimed to be a supporter of gay rights: >When a homosexual man becomes a teacher for an all boys school something is wrong I think perhaps we are now seeing your true point of view.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    > Paragraphs and paragraphs about pedophilia when you could just have chosen another analogy to make your point. Apologies for the late edit (which I made without having seen your comment), but I hope you can see what I'm getting at here. There has to be a better way to make your point than this. Except if you read ANY of the paragraphs you'll see that it's relevant. Many Catholics view homosexuals in the same way they view pedophilia (with disgust) and don't want homosexuals in leadership positions. I'm sorry this analogy is apt and you know it from your other comments. Live with it. >I have no interest in 'getting you banned', by the way. Then don't accuse me of not commenting on good faith. Don't point fingers. Accusations and attacks on someones character as if they're in violation of the rules here can get people banned. >I think perhaps we are now seeing your true point of view. What view? That homosexuals are the same as regular human beings with ulterior motives and incentives? What? you think I should just assume that if someone is gay then he's a paragon of moral goodness? If a man who loves sushi goes to a place that exclusively sell sushi it is reasonable to assume he wants sushi. It is reasonable to question that act. If that man went to a food court that happens to have sushi then it's reasonable to assume otherwise. But such is not the case when a gay man becomes the leader of a boy scout troop. He may have good intentions, but it is highly highly reasonable to assume he does not. >Edit: On closer reading, I am surprised to find this sentence in a comment from someone who earlier claimed to be a supporter of gay rights: I support gay rights in the same way I support human rights. I don't give you or gay people special treatment. If a gay person commits a crime he's a criminal. Your statement here is trying to put me in a box. It's like you're saying that If someone can even just assume that a gay person could have the proclivity of doing something unethical then how could that person be a supporter of gay rights? Impossible!