I'm not staying up nights waiting for the Pope to apologize for his role in covering up - and I'd say offering tacit acceptance of - child rape by Catholic priests. As alcoholics and their loved ones know all too well, you can't offer a sincere apology for something you don't or can't admit is a problem in the first place.
Any apology from the Pope would be putting the cart before the horse. This isn't a tragedy just of human frailty or even of bureaucratic self-preservation and corruption. The original sin here is doctrinal.
The problem isn't celibacy - or only celibacy - it's the Church's cramped and careless view of nature, and specifically sexual nature. The Church trumpets the notion that God has ordained sex only for procreation, and that God's nature is itself being violated by every sexual act with any other intention; and even a correct intention isn't enough if the act isn't within a properly consecrated heterosexual marriage. This is nature writ very small.
In contrast, the demand that priests be lifelong celibates is a decree to those who are merely human to defy nature itself. What was originally crafted as a supreme sacrifice to God has turned into (if it has not always been) the institutional torture of human beings that plays out in these all too predictable everyday tragedies. Yes, some priests don't molest children. Perhaps the Vatican is correct that the vast majority of priests are entirely innocent of the charge.
But if anyone believes any majority of priests is actually celibate, they certainly aren't very vocal about it. A reasoned definition of nature must include human nature. Even without being philosophers, most Catholics have a more coherent view of human nature than their Church does, as they mock the Vatican's mad directive about birth control.
Priests and homosexuals are the only small groups that the Vatican still feels it can impose its disordered view of nature upon. The priests can speak for themselves, as can the remaining homosexuals who continue on as Catholics.
But the Vatican insists on burdening the rest of the world with its error about human nature in its stepped up campaign against gay marriage -- and gay rights more generally -- worldwide. What it cannot enforce upon its own clergy it wishes civil government to order for homosexual citizens - and digs deep into its pockets for the funds. This miserable crusade is the best the Vatican can do to distract from its barely existent threads of credibility on sexual matters.
None of the Church's problems will or can be solved until it is able to acknowledge that it is wrong about sex. Catholics know that, and so do most other religions, even those that agree with the Catholic misunderstanding of the side-issue of homosexuality. Until the Vatican offers up its own confession of error, it will suffer the practical penance of attrition, both among its sexually conflicted priests and its incredulous adherents who will be wise to accept the Pope's between-the-lines advice to take greater care of their children when in the custody of Catholic clergy.
60 Comments for “Unnatural”
posted by BobN on
campaign against gay marriage worldwide
campaign against gay rights worldwide
Their opposition is much broader than marriage. I know you know that, but it’s important, I think, to be clear.
posted by TS on
As for most of the f*ck the Church message, three cheers. Their resistance to the good change sweeping the developed world is pitiable and nothing more.
But as for the point insinuating priestly celibacy leads to child molesting, it’s important to remember that correlation does not prove causation. It has been my personal hypothesis that the preisthood attracts pedophiles in the modern world as it did homosexuals in prior generations, because it is a noble-sounding way to justify not living out your socially-unacceptable sexuality. That the priesthood is one of the few places for a morally conscientious pedophile to turn is the real problem. Secular authorities need to provide legitimate modes of outreach and assistance to all people whose sexual urges are immoral to act out in real life. That way, they can try all possibile solutions or workarounds before crimes are committed… unlike the Catholic model, which is don’t do it don’t do it don’t do it don’t do it OOPS, you did it. Don’t worry, you are forgiven. Now we’ll transfer you.
posted by Bobby on
Celibacy DOES NOT lead to child molesting. There have been child molestation scandals in all denominations, including orthodox Judaism. Any profession that involves children will attract a few pedophiles. Granted, the Catholic Church used to put more faith in the words of their priests that in the allegations of their victims, which is why they had more scandals, more repeat offenders, more problems.
Either way, it’s ridiculous for secular society to tell the Catholic Church whether to allow celibacy, divorce, etc. Religion isn’t a popularity contest or a democracy, I remember the ridiculous arguments after John Paul II died, how it would be a good idea to elect a black or Latino Pope just to please minorities. See? This is why the Catholic Church can’t listen to stupid secular people, because when they do they end up making wrong choices. Don’t believe me? I have three words for you: Barrack Hussein Obama. Why did he get elected? Because he’s black and young. See? At least the Catholic Church is able to elect a Pope based on experience and piety instead of race and youth.
Having said that, I’m not a Catholic and I refuse to participate in a religion that hates sex before marriage, hates abortion, hates birth control, hates euthanasia, hates fertility treatments and hate all the things I support. However, that does not mean I’m gonna impose my values on them.
posted by BobN on
Celibacy DOES NOT lead to child molesting.
For some individuals, it’s certainly a factor. If you deprive a population of men of any licit outlet for their sexual desires, a small number will pursue avenues they would not have otherwise imagined.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am perpetually amused that a community that supported and endorsed NAMBLA for ten years until it became politically inconvenient and still has members insisting that taking children to sex fairs is an educational experience is trying to lecture the Vatican on child rape.
But then again, this is less about child sexual molestation or sexual irresponsibility than it is about finding ways to attack the Catholic Church.
posted by Jorge on
This is BS. There is sex abuse in the priesthood of every Christian religion. It just goes to show that even among gay people, who have a history of blowhard ignoramouses saying baldly slanderous things about the our propensity for sex abuse, anti-Catholic bigotry is one of the last socially acceptable bigotries.
Oh, I see ND30 beat me to it. Bah.
posted by Bobby on
“For some individuals, it’s certainly a factor. If you deprive a population of men of any licit outlet for their sexual desires, a small number will pursue avenues they would not have otherwise imagined.”
—What about priests who sleep with women, men, who hire prostitutes, who are into s/m? Celibacy didn’t lead them to molest children.
NAMBLA is an embarrassment that should have never been allowed to march on the gay pride parades. Seriously, would our community let gay nazis march?
posted by Jimmy on
I do not see why it is necessary to besmirch the good name of the North American Marlon Brando Look Alike club within a conversation about Catholic child fu*kers!
posted by Craig2 on
ND30, that’s somewhat unfair. I’m sure that there were early gay male activists who regarded NAMBLA’s agenda as unvarnished child sexual abuse. Moreover, apart from Australia, you’d be hard pressed to find any other national LGBT community that condoned pedophilia, for that matter.
Dare I say it, there are generational differences here? Older gay men sometimes tended to be misogynist gender seperatists and refused to listen to feminist concerns about child sexual abuse. Fortunately, that petered out as the second LGBT generation arose and worked alongside feminists, listening to them about the ravages and seriousness of CSA. Later still, gay male incest and child sexual abuse survivors started coming out and talking about the difficulties that opportunistic child rape had had on their stable development of a gay sexual orientation, joining lesbians who already had.
On the other hand, Roman Catholic priests were engaged in child rape decades before the rise of feminism and LGBT rights aneww in the sixties.
Incidentally, if you’re going to criticise the Vatican (quite justifiably) about its culture of arrogance, denial and unaccountability in the context of clergy pedophilia, it escapes me why IGF is so determined to pander to these same homophobes and misogynists when it comes to womens reproductive choice…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Dave Wimberly on
For those that keep saying this is simply an attack on the church, it is anti catholic bigotry, a few facts are in order:
1. The child rape “rates” are far higher than in society at large or other denominations. Nice try but wrong to say this is normal.
2. The church is under attack for being, for centuries, an organized crime ring wiht one of its goals to create an insular safe society for pedophiles. Raping boys has been part of the church since the 2nd century and it is no surprise it has attracted child rapists in alarmingly high numbers ever since.
3. It is not and never is nor can be “anti catholic bigotry”, because the church is an evil prescence in our society, and must be killed due to its actions and stated (you have to read between the lines) goals. Railing against the KKK is bigotry? If so than you can say the same for speaking out against this criminal gang.
They have no place in civilized society, no place having diplomats represent them. Interpol needs to raid the vatican (with military support from UN if needed) and arrest the criminals responsible for all the crimes and human suffering they have caused.
For individual catholics? Sorry, no pass. Quit the cult, stop giving money and you are no longer labelled a bigot. It is a choice (a delusional one at that). Can’t take the heat? Change your choice….do not put one dime in the offering plate unless you are comfortable being and funding bigotry!
posted by David Link on
BobN, great point — I edited it in because you’re 100% right.
And Jimmy, thanks for providing the wholly appropriate and much needed South Park mockery of the NAMBLA-obsession. Has anyone ever so much as met an actual NAMBLA member — Marlon Brando or Man-Boy variety? I’m always happy to entertain real arguments, and find no shortage of them in our comments section. But it’s really hard to argue with a cartoon. I’d urge the NAMBLA-fiers to see if they can make the argument they have in mind without reference to this bogeyman. Unless and until NAMBLA enters a float into some upcoming US gay pride parade, I think we should let whoever of them actually exist rest in the obscurity they clearly desire, or the prison cell they might have earned.
posted by JP on
I personally have never met a NAMBLA member and frankly do not know any gay person who would support it. NDT needs to find more gay people to talk to, obviously the ones he associates with are NAMBLA members. Oh wait, is he fear mongering? Can’t tell.
The Catholic Church has some huge problems. Mainly that it pretends to be a christian organization which uses it’s members to control large numbers of the population. It is an institution that abuses the religion it claims to support. However, I do not believe religion in and of itself should be targeted. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I smell a mischievous Catholic troll whose devotion to the Holy Mother Church is exceeded only by his plodding incompetence at the trolling-game.
posted by Craig2 on
Ironically, it is the Catholic Left- organisations like Catholics for a Free Choice, for instance- who have primarily supported Vatican and US Catholic Bishop accountability and transparency over the issue of clergy pedophilia.
posted by Jorge on
Dave Limberly, you’re entitled to your own bigotries and ignorances, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Put up your evidence for your accusations or hold your tongue.
JP, you cannot logically claim to support religion in general and at the same time ignoring the Catholic Church’s national and world history of standing up for human rights and modeling just and moral behavior.
Ditto for the record of corruption, grandstanding, and ostracism practiced by other Christian faiths. Oh, and Jewish and Muslim faiths, too. The distinctions between the different religions are evaporating in this country and being replaced by the level of religious practice.
posted by Mark on
“I am perpetually amused that a community that supported and endorsed NAMBLA for ten years until it became politically inconvenient and still has members insisting that taking children to sex fairs is an educational experience is trying to lecture the Vatican on child rape.
But then again, this is less about child sexual molestation or sexual irresponsibility than it is about finding ways to attack the Catholic Church.”
ND 30, Mr. Link is speaking only for himself.
Do you have evidence that a majority of the “gay community” ever supported NAMBLA?
Yes, I know NAMBLA marched in some gay parades and was supported by a few gay people, but they have now been run out of the gay movement. Aren’t you pleased about that?
And boy, you won’t give up talking about a few idiots who took their young kids to the Folsom Street Fair. Why not talk about the 99.9998% who did not? And come on, taking a kid to a sex fair is nowhere near the same thing as child rape.
Also, there is no organized gay community, while the Catholic Church is a 2,000 year old institution.
I don’t favor attacking the Catholic Church for no good reason, but there are plently of good reasons to attack it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Wow… someone seems to have missed the news on Harry Hay, an early gay male activist who in his senior years became a rather notorious apologist for NAMBLA. (Although to my knowledge, there’s no evidence that Hay himself had pedophilic interests; rather, he carried public-relations water for NAMBLA because he was (a) a nostalgic former catamite; and (b) a totally batshit American Communist whose motto seemed to be “if the bourgeoisie is against it, I’m for it.”
posted by Craig2 on
For the record, this debate overlooks what is occuring outside the United States. There was an attempt to create a satellite “Australasian Manboy Love Association” but they ran into contempt and disgust from most sections of the New Zealand gay male community over their advocacy of child sexual abuse and rapidly disbanded. I should know, I was one of the principal activists who opposed the criminal activities of child sexual abuse that they endorsed.
Sadly, one of your correspondents is certainly right about Harry Hay in his later years. Sad thing, senility.
posted by Jimbo on
Having attended several pride parades over the years, I’d say NAMBLA’s participation stopped cold after 1995 or so. The organization is only a shell of its former self.
posted by Debrah on
Should There Be An Inquisition for the Pope?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you have evidence that a majority of the “gay community” ever supported NAMBLA?
Quite a bit, actually.
Yes, I know NAMBLA marched in some gay parades and was supported by a few gay people, but they have now been run out of the gay movement. Aren’t you pleased about that?
The interesting thing about that is the fact that, for ten years of the ILGA’s existence, not only was NAMBLA a valued member, but ILGA was pushing resolutions in favor of NAMBLA’s agenda and wishes — only to repudiate NAMBLA as evil incarnate when it became politically inconvenient.
If the gay community is against child rape, how did NAMBLA even make it in the door in the first place?
And boy, you won’t give up talking about a few idiots who took their young kids to the Folsom Street Fair. Why not talk about the 99.9998% who did not?
Because, even though Link admits that, “Perhaps the Vatican is correct that the vast majority of priests are entirely innocent of the charge”, he is still cluster-bombing Catholicism as a whole.
Meanwhile, I haven’t seen the universal condemnation of taking children to sex fairs from the gay community that Link has been raining down on Catholics. Indeed, the two men who dressed their toddlers as such are members of and supported by “Equality” California and the Obama Party organization here in San Francisco. One is a psychologist, licensed by the state, and supported and endorsed by the psychology community here in California. Does that sound like social ostracism to you?
posted by BobN on
but ILGA was pushing resolutions in favor of NAMBLA’s agenda and wishes
What, no links? No proof of outrageous pedophile demands advocated by IGLA?
I guess your filing system isn’t as impressive as I thought. Or could it be that the agenda items you’re talking about are things you yourself would agree with?
Such hypocrisy and mendacity.
posted by Debrah on
“If the gay community is against child rape, how did NAMBLA even make it in the door in the first place?”
*************************************
This is the exact same question that any normal person walking around with the body temperature of 98.6 degrees…….or something close…….would like the answer to.
There are so many bullsh!t artists out there, many “professionals” who excel in their fields and who value and benefit from the respect that society bestows on them…..but if they are gay, they fully expect everyone to look over the gay male culture and what exists within.
Let me say this clearly: Those of us who are anything but “conservative” and “religious” and “sheltered” have begun to speak up about this disconnect.
“Intellectuals” and “professionals” subscribing openly to video websites where raw gay porn among boys and older men are lauded and web cam genitalia-fests are a way of life should be exposed for all to scrutinize when this “marriage” issue is on the table.
Is this the life of “gay parents” that no one is allowed to criticize?
If children of some gay parents feel uncomfortable in society, don’t blame society.
Blame this “culture” which comprises a mere fraction of the population pushing this as “normal”.
It isn’t…..and it never will be.
I used to wonder why someone I know despised Bill O’Reilly–whom I rarely make the time to watch—so much until I found out that he is gay and O’Reilly used to expose NAMBLA with frequency on his show.
That cuts into the self-righteous, weepy cry for walking another man down the aisle, I suppose.
Most gay men want to cover for the elements that are the most odious. I suppose because privately they enjoy the perversions, themselves.
posted by BobN on
Most gay men want to cover for the elements that are the most odious. I suppose because privately they enjoy the perversions, themselves.
Ya know, Debbie, it’s conclusions and accusations like this that are precisely why people come to despise folks like O’Reilly. I often feels sort of sorry for most bigots because I think a lot of them just don’t have the mental capacity to grasp how odious their comments are. You, of course, warrant no such defense. You’re smart. You understand what you’re saying. Your bile is sincere, your prejudice real.
It is at this point, were we actually face to face, that I would
posted by Lori Heine on
“Most gay men want to cover for the elements that are the most odious…”
Spoken by someone who has, of course, conducted a scientific survey on the subject.
Of course that scientific survey involves trading quips about boners and orgasms.
BobN, just consider the source…
posted by Debrah on
“It is at this point, were we actually face to face, that I would…..”
******************************************
I know, BobN.
It’s bigger than the both of us.
Less imperturbable men wouldn’t have the strength to hold back, finding themselves swept away by the talismanic Diva essence.
But you, BobN, remain resolutely calm…..unshakable in the face of naked truths.
A becket securing life’s flimsy threads which easily unravel for lesser men.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What, no links? No proof of outrageous pedophile demands advocated by IGLA?
Again, BobN, you make the mistake of not reading the link you’re provided.
ILGA’s current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
explicit:
— In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on “Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children’s Rights” that urged member organizations to “lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law” so long as there is “adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law.”
— In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group “supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.”
— In 1988, ILGA declared “this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end.”
— In 1990, ILGA “calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”
In short, why would ILGA be lobbying anyone to abolish and eliminate age-of-consent laws and saying that it supports the right of every individual “regardless of age” to have sex, just to call out a few examples, unless it agreed with NAMBLA on all of those points?
posted by Jimmy on
I think the cougars of the world are coming (no pun intended) to know what gay men have known for ever, there is nothing like the supple goose flesh of the nubile, barely legal man/boy. mm hmmm!
Woof.
posted by BobN on
ND30,
The document you link to proves that IGLA was already distancing itself from NAMBLA well before the end of the period of support you were claiming.
In short, why would ILGA be lobbying anyone to abolish and eliminate age-of-consent laws and saying that it supports the right of every individual “regardless of age” to have sex, just to call out a few examples, unless it agreed with NAMBLA on all of those points?
One can agree with the points because they don’t all mean what you would like to pretend that they mean. For example, the quote “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality” obviously means “have sex” to YOU because you changed the words. What if what it really means is an end to child marriage? Or an end to the genital mutilation of prepubescent girls by female circumcision?
A ban on age of consent and replacement with laws about exploitation, for another example, would eliminate the injustice of children being labelled as sex offenders for life just because they engage in a bit of playing doctor.
You and your soulmate, Debrah, want to paint most gay men as child molesters or would-be child molesters. Why a diva who claims to have gay friends would do so is a mystery. That a gay man would do so is a tragedy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The document you link to proves that IGLA was already distancing itself from NAMBLA well before the end of the period of support you were claiming.
By pushing all these things they supported? That’s an interesting definition of “distancing”.
What if what it really means is an end to child marriage? Or an end to the genital mutilation of prepubescent girls by female circumcision?
Somehow it seems rather obvious that “have sex” is quite a bit closer to reality when it comes to the interpretations of that statement.
A ban on age of consent and replacement with laws about exploitation, for another example, would eliminate the injustice of children being labelled as sex offenders for life just because they engage in a bit of playing doctor.
Or, phrased differently, children of any age can consent to sex as long as it’s not “exploitative”. So now, instead of it always being wrong to have sex with an 6-year-old, it’s only wrong under certain circumstances — and it’s more important to prevent 6-year-olds from being labelled sex offenders than it is to stop adults from having sex with 6-year-olds, period.
Yes, that should be a winner for you, BobN. Go ahead and try it.
You and your soulmate, Debrah, want to paint most gay men as child molesters or would-be child molesters. Why a diva who claims to have gay friends would do so is a mystery. That a gay man would do so is a tragedy.
Here’s the thing that interests me, BobN; you’ve obviously put a lot of effort into rationalizing why ILGA not only accepted NAMBLA as a member, but for ten years openly supported their agenda.
What, exactly, is wrong with stating that it was a completely idiotic action on their part, that they should never have accepted NAMBLA as a member in the first place, and that opposing age-of-consent laws is patently stupid?
You act as though, being a gay man, it’s somehow incumbent on me to defend and not criticize what I see as a complete and total travesty. You act as though Debrah should keep her mouth shut so as not to offend her gay friends.
posted by Debrah on
“Why a diva who claims to have gay friends would do so is a mystery. That a gay man would do so is a tragedy.”
************************************
BobN, you have a habit of asking rather significant questions.
Questions whose answers might be too hot to handle!
A few months ago, perhaps longer, you posed a very simple question to me about another topic and I chose simply to answer you in general terms. No imposturing by me, however. Merely avoidance of the particulars.
But all of life’s true mysteries are of a personal nature, no?
Could it be that I (and I dare say, ND30) might be a bit exasperated by all the contrasts and contradictions?
By the pusillanimity of so many of calling their own to account?
posted by BobN on
You act as though, being a gay man, it’s somehow incumbent on me to defend and not criticize what I see as a complete and total travesty.
That’s your problem. Everything gay-related is a complete and total travesty to you. You’re so blinded by your need to criticize gay men and Democrats and who ever else you don’t like that you can’t stop yourself from acting just like the hateful bigots who would like to see you in jail just for begin gay.
You remind me of another anti-gay, anti-liberal gay man I had dealings with a few years back. He would rant and rave about how awful gay men were, how liberals were destroying the country, how George Dubya Bush was the nation’s salvation, and how damned socialists sucking at the public teat were responsible for every evil in the world.
Turned out the guy was living a few blocks away from me in subsidized public housing.
You act as though Debrah should keep her mouth shut so as not to offend her gay friends.
Oh, I suspect she does keep her mouth shut to her gay friends about the vile things she says here.
posted by BobN on
Or, phrased differently
That’s your parlor trick. It’s gotten waaaay old.
posted by BobN on
By the pusillanimity of so many of calling their own to account?
My own? I’m not a child molester. I don’t know any.
You apparently do. Either that or you’re just insulting people on purpose.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
“Oh, I suspect she does keep her mouth shut……”
**************************************
You must know me better than that.
Did it ever occur to you that I might be here precisely because I know that someone might be reading this forum and I want to get my message across?
Do you think that someone like me would actually avoid making my opinions known to those concerned?
Do you really?
posted by BobN on
Did it ever occur to you that I might be here precisely because I know that someone might be reading this forum and I want to get my message across?
I’ve assumed for a long time that your odd and hateful attitude towards professional gay men who stay in the closet and/or your odd and hateful attitude towards shallow gay men must be personal. I’m sure there’s a “someone” out there who brought this all out in you. I don’t imagine you want anything more than for him to know what you think of him. I figured it was a boss, current or former, or someone else who had some power over you — perhaps an editor or professor — maybe even your daddy.
Do you think that someone like me would actually avoid making my opinions known to those concerned?
I think someone like you enjoys being provocative, especially among your intellectual gay friends. I bet you do share your odious opinion of gay men with them, sprinkled liberally with “Oh, but of course I don’t mean you, dahling”. They probably go along with it because they either see themselves as so ever much better than other gay men or, more likely, because there are other favorable attributes to your character that compensate for this flaw.
posted by Jimmy on
“Did it ever occur to you that I might be here precisely because I know that someone might be reading this forum and I want to get my message across?
Do you think that someone like me would actually avoid making my opinions known to those concerned?”
The second part I have no doubt about, Debrah, and I think it’s the best way to go, but the first part seems a bit passive-aggressive (if “someone” is a specific someone) and sort of a contraction.
But, contradictions need not be earth shattering, as Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”
posted by Bobby on
“I think the cougars of the world are coming (no pun intended) to know what gay men have known for ever, there is nothing like the supple goose flesh of the nubile, barely legal man/boy. mm hmmm!”
—Unless the cougars are screwing 15, 16, or 17 year olds, there’s nothing illegal about what they’re doing. You’re a boy until you turn 18, at 18 you’re a man with the legal responsibilities and consequences of a man. Frankly, I hate it when people refer to our soldiers as “our boys” or “our kids.” If you’re old enough to die for your country, you should not be called a boy or a kid.
Besides, cougars are popular for the following simple reasons. 1. Older women want sex more than younger women. 2. Older women are willing to give up sex without the men begging too much for it. 3. Older women are more experienced in the bedroom and more willing to experiment. 4. Older women really want the sex.
In the gay male community we don’t have that phenomenon because we don’t have to deal with women! 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s your problem. Everything gay-related is a complete and total travesty to you. You’re so blinded by your need to criticize gay men and Democrats and who ever else you don’t like that you can’t stop yourself from acting just like the hateful bigots who would like to see you in jail just for begin gay.
And now I think we see why NAMBLA was an honored member of the ILGA and a key driver of its agenda for a decade.
Again, point blank: how in any way, shape, or form, was it “gay-related” to have a group like NAMBLA not only in the ILGA, but making major contributions to its agenda? Why were gay people like the leftist and gay hero Harry Hay not publicly excoriated for openly endorsing and supporting child rape as being something even remotely related to gay and lesbian people?
The answer, bluntly put: people like BobN were more concerned about being “just like the hateful bigots who would like to see you in jail just for begin (sic) gay” than they were the fact that they were sheltering and supporting child molesters.
I have no time or patience for that. None.
posted by Debrah on
“I’ve assumed for a long time that your odd and hateful attitude towards professional gay men who stay in the closet and/or your odd and hateful attitude towards shallow gay men must be personal. I’m sure there’s a ‘someone’ out there who brought this all out in you.”
****************************************
You’re right, BobN.
I’ve been a total victim of this particular culture war!
Although reading some of the comments from you guys and going through the many bloodletting sessions have not only been interesting and informative, but the uniqueness among individuals here is a very positive thing.
On the other blogs it’s more “one view fits all”.
Let me say, without going into the personal details, that I don’t have an “enemy”, nor do I hold “animosity” toward anyone. I simply had a strong difference of opinion with someone that I adored. Really adored.
If the man were hetero, I would want nothing more than to make mad love to him endlessly.
He’s not exactly handsome, but a cute sexy type and shy. His mind is like a steel trap which is the most exciting aphrodisiac of all.
He had the ability to make me “want” to see things his way and his intellect is so superior that I trusted him as the “final word” on anything.
And that just isn’t my style….which fascinated me that I could be so dedicated to anyone other than myself! LOL!
It was as if his mind was fused with my own. Even though we’re very different personalities—he’s low key and modest, and I’m flamboyant and expressive—there was a very special “synergy”, as an observer characterized it.
But…….there was a difference of opinion on a certain important matter that shattered everything and created a huge chasm among a lot of people.
I was angry that such issues were brought into a totally different arena…….and I dare say that he might now have some regrets as well.
Although, I don’t think he views this matter as being as significant as do I.
Again, I have never loved anyone and respected anyone more than I did this person. When I think about it, my personal relationships would be much more thrilling if I held those kinds of feelings for the men in my life.
That’s why I say…..if this guy were hetero, lovemaking would be magical.
Do you see how kind and ultra-sensitive I am? GIS!
That said, he ultimately showed that his “integrity” on certain matters wasn’t what it should have been and he didn’t care that he basically shattered an entire atmosphere.
And I was there as his most avid supporter.
I’m endlessly disappointed and taken aback by certain things.
By the way BobN, you have a wonderful and steady way of expressing yourself, even though I don’t agree with many of the things you say.
posted by Debrah on
…..”but the first part seems a bit passive-aggressive…..”
****************************************
I’ve already gone through the “aggressive” stage.
And I don’t view the present stage as “passive”, really.
Just more objective after the initial shock has diminished.
posted by Debrah on
“I have no time or patience for that. None.”
*****************************************
I totally concur with ND30 on these points.
“Respectable” and “professional” gay men cannot openly wallow inside the internet gay men-gay boys-cock bulges-jacking-off networks and expect observers not to think that on some level they are a bit insane.
And that this quest for “marriage equality” (a really insipid little phrase, IMO) is not ridiculous on its face……while approving of, or participating in, such infantile sexual grotesquerie.
It’s simply not ever going to go over in society as a whole.
posted by JP on
Debrah,
Of course you agree with ND30! DUH!
You know, I don’t know a whole lot about the NAMBLA thing. Seems to me it was long ago and now out of sight out of mind. I am 34 years old and didn’t even have a clue what it was about until the anti-gay heteros used it against all gays. I will say this, shame on any gay man who ever supported such a thing. That being said, we live in a different era, people who are gay now have very different attitudes toward things than they used to and like I said, I have never met another gay man who would ever support NAMBLA. It amazes me still, wait no it doesn’t, that individuals such as Debrah and NDT find it so easy to place a blanket over a whole community. I mean, many straight men beat their wives, they must all be wife beaters. The church killed thousands of people in history, every religious person is bad. I could go on and on. Just so you two know, Hitler used the same tactic to make all the Jews evil, ending in the holocaust.
posted by Jorge on
Wow. As usual.
I will go against the grain here and say that Debrah’s NYT link was interesting. It’s a good demonstration of why “blood is thicker than water.” There is something irritating about busybodies commenting on family matters.
Personally I thought the article would have been great had Dowd just cut it in half, but I suppose a journalist can’t ignore that idiot Donahue from the Catholic League completly.
posted by Jimmy on
“There is something irritating about busybodies commenting on family matters.”
Crimes against children (including deaf ones), such as rape, are way beyond some intra-family kerfuffle. It’s pretty gross to see it as such.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I mean, many straight men beat their wives, they must all be wife beaters. The church killed thousands of people in history, every religious person is bad. I could go on and on.
You certainly could.
But the problem you’d run into is that there are an enormous amount of straight men who prosecute and punish those who beat their wives, and there are millions of churchgoing folks who not only haven’t killed others, but who are repulsed and have done their best to save millions of lives.
In contrast, call out the gay community for supporting child rape for years and you get called “just like the hateful bigots who would like to see you in jail just for begin (sic) gay”.
It’s interesting that you would mention Hitler, because he made it clear that anyone who would criticize him or the Nazi Party was “just like those evil Jews who would stab you in the back and take your money”. He equated dissent with being traitorous, just as the gay community does.
posted by JP on
“Marriage Equality”; “It’s simply not ever going to go over in society as a whole.”-Debrah
Stay tuned Debrah!!
posted by Debrah on
TO JP–
I want to ask that you read my words once again very carefully.
Read them again and this time please allow the anxious zealotry—(no doubt honed from sitting among the sweaty brows of the revved-up pulpits)—to cool so that you won’t be moved to concoct a false scenario.
*************************************
” ‘Respectable’ and ‘professional’ gay men cannot openly wallow inside the internet gay men-gay boys-cock bulges-jacking-off networks and expect observers not to think that on some level they are a bit insane. And that this quest for ‘marriage equality’ (a really insipid little phrase, IMO) is not ridiculous on its face……while approving of, or participating in, such infantile sexual grotesquerie. It’s simply not ever going to go over in society as a whole.”
*************************************
You took one sentence and conveniently left out the general point being made.
The main point.
And that point is precisely why SSM continues to be defeated at the ballot box.
Many might be “for” SSM, but they also see an odd “community” with very strange contradictions and what they find “acceptable”.
SSM might, indeed, become the law of the land; however, not before the gay community comes to terms with their own “culture” and the dramatic effect some of those elements have on an observing society.
JP, you really need to learn to read and synthesize what’s being said before responding.
We’re not speaking in tongues here.
posted by Jorge on
Crimes against children (including deaf ones), such as rape, are way beyond some intra-family kerfuffle. It’s pretty gross to see it as such.
You would be wise to understand that in a diverse society with a history of factionalism and prejudice, it is inevitable that a community would want outsiders to mind their own business and let them handle it on their own. A non-Catholic American cannot speak for a Catholic as a Catholic, only as an American.
There is a large part of this that is only the business of Catholics, and that’s what should they say to the Vatican and what should they think and do about their religion and faith.
When a faith community is already confronting the Vatican hierachry over child sex abuse by priests and its policies on it, and holding the Vatican’s feet to the fire, it is onerous and unproductive for other people, especially those with a history of being against the Catholic religion, to comment disparagingly about the veracity of the Catholic faith and its authorities, to suggest that Catholics are not doing the right thing and should leave the religion, etc. This is not joining the outrage, it’s creating a distraction from the community’s own expression of outrage.
Like it or not, that is the cost of doing business in America. If you don’t preface your words with support for the Catholic community and faith, you’re not going to be taken as seriously.
posted by Jimmy on
“A non-Catholic American cannot speak for a Catholic as a Catholic, only as an American.”
Damn straight. There is no special dispensation granted by civil law for Catholics, or anyone else, who rape children. To hermetically seal itself from criminal justice the way it has, the Catholic Church has perpetrated a grave injury to the larger society, which upholds the principle that none are above the law.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby—
This one from Stuart Taylor at National Journal is stunningly comprehensive and covers many current issues that you have mentioned.
It’s astonishing that a well-educated man like Goodwin Liu could hold such raw and to the Far Left views in the 21st century.
Such retro madness!
But read the paragraph on gay marriage. Many, including perhaps most everyone on this forum, would support such a person simply because of that one issue.
That’s how we find such bizarre people as Liu in important positions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Not moi.
posted by Debrah on
LOL!
Throbert, you sweet little baby doll!
You get a soft, cuddly Easter bunny for that one.
posted by Bobby on
“But read the paragraph on gay marriage. Many, including perhaps most everyone on this forum, would support such a person simply because of that one issue.”
—Not me, I’m not going to sacrifice freedom for gay marriage. I’d rather not get married and enjoy living in a country where minorities are equal to me instead of becoming the new master race. Goodwin Liu is a dangerous man, he could be the vote that prevents the future repeal of affirmative action. You also read what he said about busing, slavery reparations, giving minorities the seat at Harvard. He is a racist, racism is racism whether you are for helping white people or for helping black people.
We already have to put up with Sotomayor, God help us if we have to deal with Goodwin Liu. Seriously, of all the minorities in the world Obama has to look for the most radical he can find. A good judge should be fair, balanced, and have opinions that reflect the mainstream.
posted by BobN on
You get a soft, cuddly Easter bunny for that one.
Shouldn’t he, and all other gay people, get an Easter ferret? Bunnies are for straight folks.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_OrAfXDu_pXk/RhTP3sA04EI/AAAAAAAAAPs/pV6wJAB-Dc4/s1600-h/easter1.jpg
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
Ferrets?
Is this obscure humor or is there really some significance to the ferret being more “gay” than bunnies?
I really despise this cordoned off idea of what is or is not preferred.
I’ve never heard of that.
However, I prefer bunnies regardless of their sexual orientation.
Throbert gets a bunny!
(By the way, I didn’t get a live one from your link.)
posted by Jorge on
It’s astonishing that a well-educated man like Goodwin Liu could hold such raw and to the Far Left views in the 21st century.
Have you ever been to America’s colleges?
What I find astonishing is that this guy’s views on reparations are considered mainstream!
posted by Debrah on
“Have you ever been to America’s colleges?”
*****************************************
Uh……yeah.
“What I find astonishing is that this guy’s views on reparations are considered mainstream!”
******************************************
By whom?
“Mainstream” professors?
posted by John on
A few things:
1. Priestly celibacy is not responsible for the child molestation scandals rocking the Catholic Church. The accusation is one based on ignorance and an empty assertion whose motive I won’t bother to guess. Poor vetting of candidates, oversight of priestly conduct and extremely bad decisions by bishops caring more about PR than the welfare of their flock. In politics its usually said that the cover-up is worse than the crime but in this case I’d say they about even out. As for priestly celibacy, I believe that the Church errs in not ordaining married men as well as celibate ones, a la the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Holy See as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches which are not. Yet again, the lack of such change does not lead to child rape as the rates of such crimes are about the same across denominational lines, contrary to the contrary statement above. Oh and David Link, the back-handed slap you gave in implying that a majority of Catholic priests is despicable. It falls in the same category as the lies told about how the majority of gays are out to diddle boys, which makes you no better than the anti-gay crowd.
2. ILGA no more speaks for everyone in the gay community than the Holy See does likewise for all Christians. Both would like to think otherwise but they would be wrong. I’m willing to bet that most gays have never heard of NAMBLA, never knew about Hays’ ties to the group, never would approve of ties between the gay community and NAMBLA, etc. Likewise, most Catholics never knew about the child molestation scandals, never would approve of covering them up, etc. The failings of some, even in leadership positions, do not fall on everyone of a particular group.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I’m glad I’m not the only person here who thinks that.