Carl Nassib

[KanePoster]

Check out those crazy giraffes! Somehow they are still a species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Very interesting. I've always heard that there is some level of homosexuality in animals.

I found this point to be a little in contrast to the homosexual orientation of humans:

Simon LeVay stated that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[6] The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood.[citation needed] Bagemihl notes that any hypothesis is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7]

He appears to be saying that there's homosexual-like activity in animals, but rarely are they seen engaging solely in homosexual behavior, and how much of it is really subject to the investigator's interpretation.....

 

[Tony '83]

Well, right off the bat, they say, "The time has come for a careful and forthright reassessment of group selection in evolutionary thinking. The most naive form of group selection—which axiomatically assumes that behaviors evolve for the good of the group—is clearly untenable."

Reading on, I get exactly what they're saying, and I agree that it is theoretically possible that groups of selfish individuals could destroy themselves (as a group), where groups of cooperative individuals could thrive when otherwise they would not.

But it seems pretty much theoretical, and in practice (they say as much, from what I've read), it really doesn't happen very much, and honestly, the hen example is really forced (but it is interesting and I agree that it seems valid).

From a practical standpoint, I think we can safely say that the vast, vast majority of evolution occurs because of individual procreation selection.

What do you think their "right off the bat" statement means? Any reasonable reader would think - axiomatic assumption of the entire idea of group selection is untenable, but, here's our argument as to why group selection works under many common circumstances. Which you would know if you read further.

But, you say you read further, and describe it as "pretty much theoretical". My friend, almost every single aspect of evolutionary thought, from Darwin to present, is theoretical. We call it a theory to this day. And as I said, the review (i.e. not describing research findings directly) article I presented is from 2008, and there are studies before and since that bring experimental evidence to apply to the theory, so you have things you can use to challenge your opinion if you choose.

So, again, as I did before, I would say that your last paragraph is not supported. Unless you can do so using sources that, to this point, we haven't seen.

And, at this point, I'm getting the suggestion that was posed earlier that there are diminishing returns to these discussions. So I'll just say again, that one cannot say an apparently maladaptive trait is not at some level beneficial to a larger group, and that that may play a role in the persistence of lots of things we see in human behavior.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Marching bands, parades, government buildings bathed in colors, rainbow flags on embassy buildings, adulation of athletes and celebrities who advertise their sexual orientation, an entire month of fawning...this is not an "acknowledgement of gay people's existence" but rather a bizarre glorification of their sexual orientation.

Right, nobody is forcing me to do anything. I'm retired and don't have much to lose by expressing an unfashionable opinion. However, in other settings -- corporations, the government, the military, academia, the media -- people are being pressured, in ways subtle or overt, to conform to the new order on this and related issues...under threat of censorship or cancellation.

Let me turn your question around: Why is my statement of an unfashionable opinion so threatening? Why does it provoke such irrational anger? Who is being forced to read my posts on the subject?

With regard to traditionalist Christians, I haven't used the word "persecution," though it could apply in the broad sense. Rather, the point I've made is that the term "marginalized" much more aptly describes this religious group than the LGBTQ community in today's America.

Meanwhile, your notion that Christians are seeking to "openly discriminate" or "spout bigotry" is what's laughable...a caricature having no relationship to reality...just like the claims of hatred and homophobia which are now standard on the list of wild accusations and imaginary thought crimes.

Again: I absolutely support equal rights, dignity, and protection for gay people under the law. But I object to being force-fed the ideological trappings of the LGBTQ movement under the umbrella of the new religion of Wokeism that rules our culture. The only flag flying on our embassy buildings around the world should be colored red, white, and blue.

Are Polish/Italian/German festivals or the Puerto Rico day parade "bizarre glorification" of those identities? You cannot see beyond sex to understand that being LGBTQ is a lot more than what that person does in the bedroom. In regards to your idea that Christians are openly trying to discriminate being laughable look at all of the businesses that do not want to serve gay customers (bakers, photographers etc.).

By the way getting a moral lecture based on the teachings of the Catholic Church is particularly rich. As far as I am concerned they have forfeited any moral credibility.

 

[psuguy43]

I hate those dang PR festivals, trying to make me come out as Puerto Rican

 

[Roar More]

I hate those dang PR festivals, trying to make me come out as Puerto Rican

St. Patrick's Day, however...

 

[psuguy43]

St. Patrick's Day, however...

You mean, where we wear obnoxious, green clothing and parade around from morning to night, showing how proud we are of being born Irish (even though we were once discriminated against), or support of those who are Irish (even if you are not)??

 

[KanePoster]

What do you think their "right off the bat" statement means? Any reasonable reader would think - axiomatic assumption of the entire idea of group selection is untenable, but, here's our argument as to why group selection works under many common circumstances. Which you would know if you read further.

But, you say you read further, and describe it as "pretty much theoretical". My friend, almost every single aspect of evolutionary thought, from Darwin to present, is theoretical. We call it a theory to this day. And as I said, the review (i.e. not describing research findings directly) article I presented is from 2008, and there are studies before and since that bring experimental evidence to apply to the theory, so you have things you can use to challenge your opinion if you choose.

So, again, as I did before, I would say that your last paragraph is not supported. Unless you can do so using sources that, to this point, we haven't seen.

And, at this point, I'm getting the suggestion that was posed earlier that there are diminishing returns to these discussions. So I'll just say again, that one cannot say an apparently maladaptive trait is not at some level beneficial to a larger group, and that that may play a role in the persistence of lots of things we see in human behavior.

The way to defeat my last paragraph, is simply to give a real life result where group selection works. When I say theoretical, I mean, the results aren't really observed in nature, but rather are forced by experiments. There's nothing wrong with that, but take a read through the hen experiment they cite - if that's their best "proof", then it really strongly supports my statement.

 

[Jerry]

Many, both past and present, would certainly agree with this- of course, like you, they would want to be the ones to define "truth" for the rest of us.

Recent examples would include the Taliban and ISIS, but we can go back to the Pharaohs, the Crusaders, Saladin, various Popes or the even Chin Dynasty for a few other examples.

You can keep your "truth", but expect others to keep theirs.

OK, but the thing is, you want to "define" truth too. For example, if my "truth" is what I've expressed in this thread, then why did so many people have such a problem with it? I mean, why can't they let me have my truth while they have theirs? The other side starts from a position of moral relativism but immediately wants to turn around and hurl lightning bolts of judgment. Not terribly consistent.

Or to extend the logic, Hitler's "truth" was that Jews were evil and should be exterminated. But, you say, that "truth" can't be "true" because it involved murdering people. But in Hitler's "truth," murder wasn't wrong. The point is, the idea that everyone can have and live by their own "truth" is a formula for breakdown and chaos. If nothing else, the law itself imposes a truth on all of us.

There is a rational alternative conclusion: Truth (without the quotation marks) is real and exists on a moral plane beyond our ability to change it. The great minds of the human race have devoted millenia to comprehending it. Our place is not to invent but rather to discern it...then attempt to live our lives and govern our societies by it.

 

[AWS1022]

I drove behind a car today with the following window sticker:

“Jesus is my airbag”

This is offensive, not offensive?

Maybe just dumb. One would think Jesus would have more important things to do.

There was a restaurant in my home town when I was a kid. There was a big sign behind the counter that said, “God is the owner. Jesus is the manager. We are the workers.” So I said, “I’d like to speak to the manager.” That sh!t was funny to a group of teenage boys.

 

[Cowbell Man]

Maybe just dumb. One would think Jesus would have more important things to do.

There was a restaurant in my home town when I was a kid. There was a big sign behind the counter that said, “God is the owner. Jesus is the manager. We are the workers.” So I said, “I’d like to speak to the manager.” That sh!t was funny to a group of teenage boys.

Classic teens with low targets. An adult would have asked to speak with the owner.

 

[Nitt1300]

OK, but the thing is, you want to "define" truth too. For example, if my "truth" is what I've expressed in this thread, then why did so many people have such a problem with it? I mean, why can't they let me have my truth while they have theirs? The other side starts from a position of moral relativism but immediately wants to turn around and hurl lightning bolts of judgment. Not terribly consistent.

Or to extend the logic, Hitler's "truth" was that Jews were evil and should be exterminated. But, you say, that "truth" can't be "true" because it involved murdering people. But in Hitler's "truth," murder wasn't wrong. The point is, the idea that everyone can have and live by their own "truth" is a formula for breakdown and chaos. If nothing else, the law itself imposes a truth on all of us.

There is a rational alternative conclusion: Truth (without the quotation marks) is real and exists on a moral plane beyond our ability to change it. The great minds of the human race have devoted millenia to comprehending it. Our place is not to invent but rather to discern it...then attempt to live our lives and govern our societies by it.

I think people have a problem because you don't express it as "my truth" but as "THE truth" . You are certainly entitled (as are we all) to your personal beliefs. What you are not entitled to is expecting everyone (or anyone) else to be bound by them.

 

[AWS1022]

I think people have a problem because you don't express it as "my truth" but as "THE truth" . You are certainly entitled (as are we all) to your personal beliefs. What you are not entitled to is expecting everyone (or anyone) else to be bound by them.

There’s no such thing as “my truth” or “his/her truth”. There’s only the truth.

 

[BobPSU92]

There’s no such thing as “my truth” or “his/her truth”. There’s only the truth.

Please don’t force your facts on me. I have my own facts, thank you very much.

 

[fastlax16]

OK, but the thing is, you want to "define" truth too. For example, if my "truth" is what I've expressed in this thread, then why did so many people have such a problem with it? I mean, why can't they let me have my truth while they have theirs? The other side starts from a position of moral relativism but immediately wants to turn around and hurl lightning bolts of judgment. Not terribly consistent.

You are not terribly consistent although you followed a predictable path.

I realize this is now a minority view here and everywhere, but I don't understand the popular compulsion these days for a person -- gay, straight, or some variety in-between -- to advertise their sexual orientation. Are we supposed to care? Applaud? Fall all over ourselves telling him or her how wonderful and brave they are?

Count me out. I really don't want to know. Just play friggin' football and keep your sex life to yourself.

The LGBTQ community is far from marginalized in this culture. On the contrary, it is mainstream. In fact, traditionalist Christians are far more "marginalized."

Again, the issue to me is not Carl's sexual orientation but rather the public advertisement of it...followed by the predictable chorus of praise and congratulations which the rest of us are supposed to join. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that.

Questions of morality aside, because that's a different conversation which you and I have already had on the other board, I'm not advocating for Carl or anyone else to "go back in the closet." I'm saying let Carl live his life...without publicly inviting anyone else's approval or disapproval of it. Somewhere between hiding in the closet and public celebration there is a reasonable and sane middle ground.

Regarding the two others, which fit to varying degrees in the category of PDA, no, I'm not OK with it nor would I want my grandchildren to witness it...but neither...listen closely here...would I propose that such behavior be regulated by law. For better or worse, we're now far beyond that point.

Quite a lot of distance between some of these statements.

If this was an AA style meeting your truth would be something along the lines of "Hi my name is Jerry and I'm a Christian and a homophobe."

After all the posturing about the invitation and the celebration bothering you. The bs about not wanting anyone to go back into the closet you admit you're not ok with gay couples holding hands in public. Holding f*ing hands! That's the definition of wanting them back in the closet.

Your (user)name is Jerry, and you are a homophobe. Should have just owned it from the start.

 

[BobPSU92]

Your (user)name is Jerry, and you are a homophobe.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

[AWS1022]

Too many lattes destroy your brain….fact.

 

[Nitt1300]

There’s no such thing as “my truth” or “his/her truth”. There’s only the truth.

Well, Jerry doesn't decide it- nor you, nor I.

 

[Jerry]

Are Polish/Italian/German festivals or the Puerto Rico day parade "bizarre glorification" of those identities? You cannot see beyond sex to understand that being LGBTQ is a lot more than what that person does in the bedroom. In regards to your idea that Christians are openly trying to discriminate being laughable look at all of the businesses that do not want to serve gay customers (bakers, photographers etc.).

By the way getting a moral lecture based on the teachings of the Catholic Church is particularly rich. As far as I am concerned they have forfeited any moral credibility.

Could you please enlighten me as to this notion of LGBTQ people being "more" than their sexual orientation. Because I've been talking here strictly about their sexual orientation...and the bizarre glorification of same.

Re the teaching of the Catholic Church -- (thanks, Lafayette Bear, for outing me as a...<gasp>...Catholic!) -- the sexual scandals that have devastated my church have not been the product of Her teaching but rather the betrayal of that teaching by a collection of Judas scum who either never believed it in the first place or sank into a state of corruption at some point along the line.

Also, minor and inconvenient (for you) point: the scandals have been rooted in an epidemic of active homosexuality within the priesthood. That word "active" is crucial because the issue was never the orientation itself but rather the acting it out, which marked the culprits as faithless betrayers of their vows.

 

[Jerry]

I think people have a problem because you don't express it as "my truth" but as "THE truth" . You are certainly entitled (as are we all) to your personal beliefs. What you are not entitled to is expecting everyone (or anyone) else to be bound by them.

Nitt, "my truth" isn't mine at all but rather the truth that formed the moral foundation of Western civilization for thousands of years.

As reflected in this thread, in the minds of the people now calling the shots in our society and culture, nobody is "entitled" to this brand of truth because it opposes the prevailing new "truth" discovered yesterday (figuratively speaking) and now considered mandatory for all right-thinking people.

In the minds of the right-thinkers, people like me holding to the ancient truth must be shouted down, marginalized, cancelled, penalized...because they're bigots, racists, homophobes, fill in the blank...and that's what they deserve. Demlion's spew is a handy example of the mindset.

I don't expect anyone to be "bound" by my truth and never said such a thing. However, individuals and nations are all bound by some concept of truth. And if it that "truth" is false, then things generally don't end well.

 

[BobPSU92]

Too many lattes destroy your brain….fact.

True.

 

[KanePoster]

And in fact, I checked it. It seems that my instinct on this could be wrong, or at least it isn't as clear as I thought.

There's a study for everything!

In furtherance of my error - it seems that adopted children are treated at least as well as natural born.....

To me, this is amazing and hard to believe. Nonetheless, when you find a result contrary to your theory, you put it out there and don't hide it.

Adoption or Biological

 

[Jerry]

You are not terribly consistent although you followed a predictable path.









Quite a lot of distance between some of these statements.

If this was an AA style meeting your truth would be something along the lines of "Hi my name is Jerry and I'm a Christian and a homophobe."

After all the posturing about the invitation and the celebration bothering you. The bs about not wanting anyone to go back into the closet you admit you're not ok with gay couples holding hands in public. Holding f*ing hands! That's the definition of wanting them back in the closet.

Your (user)name is Jerry, and you are a homophobe. Should have just owned it from the start.

Lax, I'm flattered that you've taken the time to study all my posts in such detail. There will be a quiz on the subject tomorrow.

Re gays holding hands or smooching in public, you asked me (repeatedly) if I were, quote, "OK" and "fine" with that. I answered in the negative for the very same reason that I objected to the celebration of Carl's public announcement and the glorification of homosexuality demonstrated by such ridiculous gestures as plastering a rainbow flag on U.S. embassy buildings. There is no inconsistency in my position.

Personally, I think you spend a little too much time visualizing guys in various states of gay behavior.

That aside, it's clear there is no inconsistency in your position either: anyone who disagrees with you on any aspect of this topic is a nasty old homophobe.

 

[LionJim]

In furtherance of my error - it seems that adopted children are treated at least as well as natural born.....

To me, this is amazing and hard to believe. Nonetheless, when you find a result contrary to your theory, you put it out there and don't hide it.

Adoption or Biological

Pro tip: Do the research before posting on it. How hard can that be?

 

[nittlion]

Could you please enlighten me as to this notion of LGBTQ people being "more" than their sexual orientation. Because I've been talking here strictly about their sexual orientation...and the bizarre glorification of same.

Re the teaching of the Catholic Church -- (thanks, Lafayette Bear, for outing me as a...<gasp>...Catholic!) -- the sexual scandals that have devastated my church have not been the product of Her teaching but rather the betrayal of that teaching by a collection of Judas scum who either never believed it in the first place or sank into a state of corruption at some point along the line.

Also, minor and inconvenient (for you) point: the scandals have been rooted in an epidemic of active homosexuality within the priesthood. That word "active" is crucial because the issue was never the orientation itself but rather the acting it out, which marked the culprits as faithless betrayers of their vows.

Wait, are you equating homosexuality with pedophelia?

 

[psuguy43]

Pro tip: Do the research before posting on it. How hard can that be?

Nah, it's much easier to post solely personal opinions in defense of bigotry and only do the research once you are called out for TRIPLING down on your faulty views

 

[psuguy43]

So, Jim, is the experience of "being black" in America simply the color of ones skin, or is there more to the Black experience than that? (I am NOT saying that being black and being gay are equal or the same, but both are sources of widespread, and formerly legal, discrimination)

 

[LionJim]

So, Jim, is the experience of "being black" in America simply the color of ones skin, or is there more to the Black experience than that? (I am NOT saying that being black and being gay are equal or the same, but both are sources of widespread, and formerly legal, discrimination)

Are you asking me? If you are, I don’t know why you are. If I ever gave anyone reason to think that I’m someone capable of answering that question, then shame on me. I’m deaf and being deaf is not simply about being unable to hear, I know that much. But, beyond that, I am the last person you should ask to explain the Deaf experience. (This realization came to me belatedly, and not before I caused some damage, hurt some people. Long story; one of these days I’m going to have to figure how to tell it.) The best I can offer towards answering your question is the truism that, stealing a line from Tom Robbins, everything is part of it.

 

[KanePoster]

Pro tip: Do the research before posting on it. How hard can that be?

Actually, to do as you suggest 100% of the time is pretty hard.

With responses like this, a lot of people are going to conclude that the best course of action is to simply lie and double down, OR when they're wrong, just pretend that it doesn't exist (their error).

 

[LionJim]

Actually, to do as you suggest 100% of the time is pretty hard.

With responses like this, a lot of people are going to conclude that the best course of action is to simply lie and double down, OR when they're wrong, just pretend that it doesn't exist (their error).

Simple solution: if you’re not sure about something, either leave it alone or start by saying, “I could be wrong, but...”

 

[KanePoster]

Simple solution: if you’re not sure about something, either leave it alone or start by saying, “I could be wrong, but...”

No thanks. Name one other poster on this board who openly corrects his errors on your side of the aisle.

Name one.

Then, think about your reactions and criticism (non-existent) on that.

Hell, I had to drag you kicking and screaming to more or less say that math is objective.

 

[BobPSU92]

Simple solution: if you’re not sure about something, either leave it alone or start by saying, “I could be wrong, but...”

On the interwebs? I thought we were all right about everything. 🤔

 

[LionJim]

No thanks. Name one other poster on this board who openly corrects his errors on your side of the aisle.

Name one.

Then, think about your reactions and criticism (non-existent) on that.

Hell, I had to drag you kicking and screaming to more or less say that math is objective.

Dude, this is a football message board. My lack of engagement on this board is completely intentional. I post here for kicks, to read the jokes, for motivation, to share favorite poems, to clear my mind, maybe. I used to get into these long fights with people here and I just quit because I realized it really doesn’t matter and it’s not worth the time and the aggravation. It was just an accident that I happened upon your adoption post, just an accident that I’m still here talking about it. If I took this board any more seriously than I already do, how would that be good for me?

 

[PSUHarry33]

So those folks in Loudon County are misinformed?

Yes many of them are. I live here. Our neighbors got KKK literature distributed to them. I would say that’s misinformed.

 

[Jerry]

Lax, I'm flattered that you've taken the time to study all my posts in such detail. There will be a quiz on the subject tomorrow.

Re gays holding hands or smooching in public, you asked me (repeatedly) if I were, quote, "OK" and "fine" with that. I answered in the negative for the very same reason that I objected to the celebration of Carl's public announcement and the glorification of homosexuality demonstrated by such ridiculous gestures as plastering a rainbow flag on U.S. embassy buildings. There is no inconsistency in my position.

Personally, I think you spend a little too much time visualizing guys in various states of gay behavior.

That aside, it's clear there is no inconsistency in your position either: anyone who disagrees with you on any aspect of this topic is a nasty old homophobe.

One note to add to the above response: there's a difference in my view between not being "OK" and "fine" with gay PDA on the one hand...and on the other hand seeking to send gays "back to the closet" or deprive them of their rights under the law.

How can I be "OK" or "fine" with behavior I hold to be morally objectionable? Similarly, I'm not OK or fine with people viewing porn on their laptops in a public place. Or teenagers making out on the beach. And so on.

There is no inconsistency between that position and the opinion that it is twisted and ludicrous to loudly applaud a celebrity's "coming out" or to devote an entire month to the glorification of a sexual orientation.

 

[Jerry]

Wait, are you equating homosexuality with pedophelia?

No, I'm most definitely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Rather, I'm noting that the sexual scandals that have devastated the Catholic Church in our day have not primarily been pedophilic in nature...despite the strenuous efforts of the propaganda organs (aka: mainstream media) and even some within the Church to portray them that way.

Pedophilia is defined as an exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children of either gender. However, most of the victims in the Church scandals were males at or past the age of puberty...largely teenagers...targeted by gay men during a period of moral breakdown at seminaries all over the country and within the ranks of the priesthood in general.

That said, it's also important to note that the vast majority of priests, regardless of their sexual orientation, were not abusers. I served on the altar for five different priests from 1964-1972 and never knew of a single instance of improper conduct on the part of any of those men.

In any case, I would recommend former seminarian Michael Rose's book Goodbye, Good Men for an insider's view of the corruption, mostly homosexual in nature, that flooded the institutional Church, especially the centers of priestly formation, during the period of roughly 1970-2000. You would have to be blind not to see the link between that corruption and the scandals that detonated later.

 

[psuguy43]

Are you asking me? If you are, I don’t know why you are. If I ever gave anyone reason to think that I’m someone capable of answering that question, then shame on me. I’m deaf and being deaf is not simply about being unable to hear, I know that much. But, beyond that, I am the last person you should ask to explain the Deaf experience. (This realization came to me belatedly, and not before I caused some damage, hurt some people. Long story; one of these days I’m going to have to figure how to tell it.) The best I can offer towards answering your question is the truism that, stealing a line from Tom Robbins, everything is part of it.

Woops! I meant "Jerry"

 

[nittlion]

No, I'm most definitely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Rather, I'm noting that the sexual scandals that have devastated the Catholic Church in our day have not primarily been pedophilic in nature...despite the strenuous efforts of the propaganda organs (aka: mainstream media) and even some within the Church to portray them that way.

Pedophilia is defined as an exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children of either gender. However, most of the victims in the Church scandals were males at or past the age of puberty...largely teenagers...targeted by gay men during a period of moral breakdown at seminaries all over the country and within the ranks of the priesthood in general.

That said, it's also important to note that the vast majority of priests, regardless of their sexual orientation, were not abusers. I served on the altar for five different priests from 1964-1972 and never knew of a single instance of improper conduct on the part of any of those men.

In any case, I would recommend former seminarian Michael Rose's book Goodbye, Good Men for an insider's view of the corruption, mostly homosexual in nature, that flooded the institutional Church, especially the centers of priestly formation, during the period of roughly 1970-2000. You would have to be blind not to see the link between that corruption and the scandals that detonated later.

Ok, not technically peodphilia but the sexual abuse of children then. Got it. The problem with the church is how they would move the abusive priests around and let them continue to abuse kids. You can blame the individual priests, I blame the system for allowing them to flourish. The church was more concerned with themselves than the kids. Some religion. I believe in God but the problem with religion is, anytime you trust men to be the intermediaries, it doesn’t work. You can’t blindly put your faith in people. It’s an easy way for most people be it religion, politicians, etc. Objective, free thinking is too much hard work for most people. That is why the cable news channels are so popular. They tell people what to think, people can just take it as fact and regurgitate it to their family, friends, etc. citing illegitimate sources.

 

[nittlion]

No, I'm most definitely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Rather, I'm noting that the sexual scandals that have devastated the Catholic Church in our day have not primarily been pedophilic in nature...despite the strenuous efforts of the propaganda organs (aka: mainstream media) and even some within the Church to portray them that way.

Pedophilia is defined as an exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children of either gender. However, most of the victims in the Church scandals were males at or past the age of puberty...largely teenagers...targeted by gay men during a period of moral breakdown at seminaries all over the country and within the ranks of the priesthood in general.

That said, it's also important to note that the vast majority of priests, regardless of their sexual orientation, were not abusers. I served on the altar for five different priests from 1964-1972 and never knew of a single instance of improper conduct on the part of any of those men.

In any case, I would recommend former seminarian Michael Rose's book Goodbye, Good Men for an insider's view of the corruption, mostly homosexual in nature, that flooded the institutional Church, especially the centers of priestly formation, during the period of roughly 1970-2000. You would have to be blind not to see the link between that corruption and the scandals that detonated later.

I’ll also add that my mother-in-law left many of my kids’ and other family birthday parties, etc. over the years because she had to attend church EVERY Saturday. Turns out the priest she had been running to listen to for over 30 years was abusing children every chance he got. She chose to blindly go listen to him every week instead of being with her family, grandchildren, etc.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Dude, this is a football message board. My lack of engagement on this board is completely intentional. I post here for kicks, to read the jokes, for motivation, to share favorite poems, to clear my mind, maybe. I used to get into these long fights with people here and I just quit because I realized it really doesn’t matter and it’s not worth the time and the aggravation. It was just an accident that I happened upon your adoption post, just an accident that I’m still here talking about it. If I took this board any more seriously than I already do, how would that be good for me?

LionJim is about the least political guy on this board. I could not even guess what his political leanings are with any confidence. Because he disagrees with you on one subject does not mean he should be lumped in with guys like dimlion and PennsyOracle. His class also distinguishes him from them as well.

 

[mfb5053]

14 pages worth of posts, and I’m still unsure if Carl knows what UMBC stands for.