Most pedophiles are straight.

I don't know about ratio's and that type of thing, actually I know nothing about the subject except how detestable pedophiles are but I have seen this statement like most of them are straight etc, but that doesnt explain all the young boys that are interferred with (albiet they may be the sex that is least interferred with).

Are you suggesting that most of these crimes are against female victims or in fact straight men abuse boys?

Too veer around more on subject, I just can't believe how out of touch the church is and who feeds this information to the pope? Slimely characters no doubt. Sorry this whole business is just disgusting.

The #2 man at the Vatican said, "there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Yet a greater expert on the subject, Ann Landers, said that 90% of all pedophiles are straight fiddlers. Men like your macho heroes, fathers, sons and yourselves. Imagine the disbelief if we claim that every last one of you are fugging little girls every day; you are all doing it.

The #2 man at the Vatican said, "there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Yet a greater expert on the subject, Ann Landers, said that 90% of all pedophiles are straight fiddlers. Men like your macho heroes, fathers, sons and yourselves. Imagine the disbelief if we claim that every last one of you are fugging little girls every day; you are all doing it.

PB:

Did you know that 53.29% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Ann Landers?

a greater expert on the subject, Ann Landers

Obviously when you try to cover up something you know it is something that is not very well appreciated by most people and possibly against the law.

What is the reason that even the holy pope tried to hide it from the public knowing, is he himself perhaps one?

If he is or at least complicit in it, does he think just because of his religious believe he or all would be forgiven for it when reporting to his ultimate (imaginary) master?

That would be my question to such people, If you knew it was wrong, what is your reason that you did this and/or try to cover it up or allow excuses for such behavior to be made?

Obviously when you try to cover up something you know it is something that is not very well appreciated by most people and possibly against the law.

What is the reason that even the holy pope tried to hide it from the public knowing, is he himself perhaps one?

If he is or at least complicit in it, does he think just because of his religious believe he or all would be forgiven for it when reporting to his ultimate (imaginary) master?

That would be my question to such people, If you knew it was wrong, what is your reason that you did this and/or try to cover it up or allow excuses for such behavior to be made?

Pedophiles almost always rationalize their behavior. There is no acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

I don't think sexual orientation comes into play with pedophilia. Going after young children is a sickness. Like someone said, straight men have gone after little boys (sick, & evil step fathers, uncles, boyfriends).

Kohee I think you miss the point.

The church says sexual abuse of choir male kids is to be blamed on gay people , therefore sexual abuse of male priest to female children is therefore OK?

Kohee I think you miss the point.

The church says sexual abuse of choir male kids is to be blamed on gay people , therefore sexual abuse of male priest to female children is therefore OK?

Interesting way to twist it.

You'll have to ask the Church to clarify their own postion. I can only speak for myself and I've stated mine here already.

And yet still we focus on the definition rather than the real issue at hand here. The Church and its coverup of this activity. I wonder why that is?

I thought it had already been established the Catholic Church covered their mess up.

What else is there to discuss?

Mr. Harcourt:

I don't feel a need to clarify my post. The OPINION is fairly straight forward and hardly requires dissection.

I wanted you to clarify because your opinion is so amazingly contrary to popular opinion (by popular opinion in this context I mean popular opinion outside the Catholic Church). You think that these paedophile priests must be gay. You share the opinion of the high Catholic authorities.

Amazing.

Obviously when you try to cover up something you know it is something that is not very well appreciated by most people and possibly against the law.

What is the reason that even the holy pope tried to hide it from the public knowing, is he himself perhaps one?

The reason that he tried to hide it was because he thought that the good reputation of the Catholic Church was more important than the vile things that some of its employees were doing to young children. His actions were no different in principle than those of a PR jockey working for a tobacco company.

True. Although in the church situation, it is covering for criminals, while in the tobacco PR scenario it is covering for the product. (I acknowledge that the product kills people)

You think that these paedophile priests must be gay. You share the opinion of the high Catholic authorities.

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

You think that these paedophile priests must be gay. You share the opinion of the high Catholic authorities.

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

The #2 man at the Vatican said, "there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Yet a greater expert on the subject, Ann Landers, said that 90% of all pedophiles are straight fiddlers. Men like your macho heroes, fathers, sons and yourselves. Imagine the disbelief if we claim that every last one of you are fugging little girls every day; you are all doing it.

Personally, I would of always suggested that more straight men were pedophiles than gay men, mainly due to the fact that the ratio of hetrosexuals -v- homosexuals is highly weighted on the hetro side.

Im not sure how many children that are interferred with are actually male children but I find it odd if statistics like this are worked out by asking offenders what their sexuality is, for example a male who abuses a male child then states hes not homosexual, for me is like <deleted>?

Anyway, I understand that it takes a very narrow mind to think that all gay men or even a good percentage of them are pedophiles, my guess would be around the same percentage would exist as per straight males and pedophilia.(if that makes sense). I see no direct link between the two and this type of claim by man #2 is just typical of the sort of trash that organisation spews out.

J have not studied the subject but could it be that there are different type of them, like straight pedo's, gay pedo's that just do this because of certain believes, others that do this because of abuse of power, a sexual lust. Could they be psychopaths just like serial killers that cannot feel guilt/remorse when they do such things.

If I remember well there was in the sixties or seventies a US boyschool or something where allegedly a whole trafficking network was discovered that was transporting young children around the country to have them abused by the rich and powerfull?

The Vatican has a better source than Ann Landers?

You think that these paedophile priests must be gay. You share the opinion of the high Catholic authorities.

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Your post #26, in which you say it is your opinion that it is logical that men abusing boys must be gay.....that is also the Church's stance. Why are you scared to admit that is your opinion?

Well, for one thing, if he backs up the Catholic Church on this I'm going to have to warn him. That side of the argument is right out, here or anywhere on the forum (see slurs against minorities in the forum rules). Sorry to spoil the fun, but I think for this type of thread it helps to draw clear lines.

You think that these paedophile priests must be gay. You share the opinion of the high Catholic authorities.

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Your post #26, in which you say it is your opinion that it is logical that men abusing boys must be gay.....that is also the Church's stance. Why are you scared to admit that is your opinion?

The church says that the abusers are mostly gay - that is their stance - and Chuck has not said that at all. Why consistently make up untrue things about other people's posts that are very easy to go back and verify?

I do not agree with the Catholic Church at all and I have said so several times on this thread.

However, if the church's point of view is not allowed on TV, would it not be better to just get rid of all this - why tempt some posters to break the rules by stating their opinion? Wouldn't it be better if this thread was shut down all together?

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Your post #26, in which you say it is your opinion that it is logical that men abusing boys must be gay.....that is also the Church's stance. Why are you scared to admit that is your opinion?

Sigh....

I will try this one more time. Try to comprehend exactly what I am saying, Mr. Harcourt. If some of the words confuse you, there is always Google. Taking one sentence out of context is a trick you try and use all the time. Rather childish but you keep trying.

______________________________________________________

"It would seem logical to me that if a man abuses young boys, he is gay. If he abuses young girls he would be considered straight.

If a woman abuses young girls, she would be gay and if she abuses young boys, she would be considered straight.

However, having no experience being either gay or a paedophile, it is simply my opinion."

_______________________________________________________

If what I just said is the position of the Catholic Church, then we must be in agreement. If it is not, THEN I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S POSITION.

Nowhere have I said I agree with the position of the Church. Is this clear enough for you and ijustwannteach? My line was clearly drawn in the earlier post I made.

If this thread is now drawing threats of warnings for giving opinions, then why not just close it?

Actually, personally I think a man who likes other man is homosexual. A man who likes women is heterosexual and a man who likes children, regardless of the sex of the child (and you will find that many pedos abuse both boys and girls because its not about sex, its about power) are pedophiles. Three distinct categories.

Pedophile: In the past, this meant an adult who is sexually attracted to children - whether he/she acted on this desire or not. However, the term is now generally used to describe an adult who sexually abuses children; a child molester. Some pedophiles are attracted to both boys and girls; some are attracted to children of only one gender.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

This is from a Christian website, but it seems pretty fair from a quick glance and goes into the subject quite a bit.

Where do you come up with that? Putting words - that they did not say - in other people's mouths seems to be one of your specialties.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Your post #26, in which you say it is your opinion that it is logical that men abusing boys must be gay.....that is also the Church's stance. Why are you scared to admit that is your opinion?

Sigh....

I will try this one more time. Try to comprehend exactly what I am saying, Mr. Harcourt. If some of the words confuse you, there is always Google. Taking one sentence out of context is a trick you try and use all the time. Rather childish but you keep trying.

______________________________________________________

"It would seem logical to me that if a man abuses young boys, he is gay. If he abuses young girls he would be considered straight.

If a woman abuses young girls, she would be gay and if she abuses young boys, she would be considered straight.

However, having no experience being either gay or a paedophile, it is simply my opinion."

_______________________________________________________

If what I just said is the position of the Catholic Church, then we must be in agreement. If it is not, THEN I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S POSITION.

Nowhere have I said I agree with the position of the Church. Is this clear enough for you and ijustwannteach? My line was clearly drawn in the earlier post I made.

If this thread is now drawing threats of warnings for giving opinions, then why not just close it?

Yes, what you said (that it is logical, in your opinion, that the priests that abused boys are gay) is, in other words, the position of the church, ie that the paedophiles that abused the boys are gay.

To say that "Nowhere have I said I agree with the position of the Church" may be true.....you didn't say you agree (pedantic and pointless technicality)....you just effectively said the same thing as them....thus you agree with the church.

There's no other way to interpret what you said.

Shame on you....I thought you were more worldly than that.

Yes, what you said (that it is logical, in your opinion, that the priests that abused boys are gay) is, in other words, the position of the church, ie that the paedophiles that abused the boys are gay.

There's no other way to interpret what you said.

Yes there is. All he said is, that he suspects that gay priests abuse boys and straight priests abuse girls, not that most abusive priests are gay - which is what the church claims - and he does not state it as a fact, but as an opinion. You are - once again - purposely misinterpreting his words.

UG:

I have come to expect nothing better from this guy. He is simply trolling for an argument and that is something I do not wish to engage in today.

I'm not trolling for an argument. Your post #26, in which you say it is your opinion that it is logical that men abusing boys must be gay.....that is also the Church's stance. Why are you scared to admit that is your opinion?

Sigh....

I will try this one more time. Try to comprehend exactly what I am saying, Mr. Harcourt. If some of the words confuse you, there is always Google. Taking one sentence out of context is a trick you try and use all the time. Rather childish but you keep trying.

______________________________________________________

"It would seem logical to me that if a man abuses young boys, he is gay. If he abuses young girls he would be considered straight.

If a woman abuses young girls, she would be gay and if she abuses young boys, she would be considered straight.

However, having no experience being either gay or a paedophile, it is simply my opinion."

_______________________________________________________

If what I just said is the position of the Catholic Church, then we must be in agreement. If it is not, THEN I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S POSITION.

Nowhere have I said I agree with the position of the Church. Is this clear enough for you and ijustwannteach? My line was clearly drawn in the earlier post I made.

If this thread is now drawing threats of warnings for giving opinions, then why not just close it?

Yes, what you said (that it is logical, in your opinion, that the priests that abused boys are gay) is, in other words, the position of the church, ie that the paedophiles that abused the boys are gay.

To say that "Nowhere have I said I agree with the position of the Church" may be true.....you didn't say you agree (pedantic and pointless technicality)....you just effectively said the same thing as them....thus you agree with the church.

There's no other way to interpret what you said.

Shame on you....I thought you were more worldly than that.

UG:

He is still trolling. Perhaps he is trying to get somebody to give me a warning, as has been indicated earlier?

My position is clear and unequivocal.

I think Chuckd's recommendation to close the thread is a good one, as the only thing apparently going on now is flaming.