patrick.net

No exceptions. All fags.
0 tolerance policy, kind of how Muslims do it.


curious2 says

FortWayne says

Nono just the fags.

That would leave the "celibate" priests and heterosexually married abusers listed in this thread. Maybe just jail all Catholics and "church militants?"

FortWayne says

No exceptions. All

...Catholics. Got it. Glad you've made your views clear. When will you turn yourself in and report to prison?

Aphroman says

this will surely trigger those with a guilty conscience

It has already, but I avoid Reseda on general principle.

Yeah you can tell a preacher's sins by the sermons he gives.
If they preach about adultery don't let him near your women.
If they preach about pedo's don't leave your kids alone with him.
If they preach a lot about stealing and thieves, they are robbing the church blind.

That is how they repent through prayer.

Aphroman says

Why won’t they self regulate all their friends in the party?

Many Republican candidates depend on closet cases' atonement and self-flagellation in the form of donations, votes, and volunteering. After a long day blowing Teamsters at the Reseda truck stop, a "straight" guy has to atone somehow, at least with some comments on PatNet.

curious2 says

FortWayne says

Child sex and child prostitution are all good reasons we should jail

...pastors and Republicans, since they seem to commit the vast majority of these offenses.

Yes, due to celibacy there may be a higher propensity for such incidents, but I highly doubt that overall the majority of cases are committed by either Republicans or the church. Maybe for the church, if you group by specific affiliations and then count incidents per capita for a specific affiliation, then you may come up with a larger number. When a Republican or church member commits crimes like these then it is more widely published and commented on because of the "family values" hypocrisy that it brings with it. If you have an ultra leftoid or Dem commit these crimes you don't expect them to tout family values in the first place, so it's a lesser headline. I don't think though I have ever seen a statistic that would group any group under majority offenders (unless it's part of their culture/religion).

Lol you are the one who reads queer times.

curious2 says

Aphroman says

Why won’t they self regulate all their friends in the party?

Many Republican candidates depend on closet cases' atonement and self-flagellation in the form of donations, votes, and volunteering. After a long day blowing Teamsters at the Reseda truck stop, a "straight" guy has to atone somehow, at least with some comments on PatNet.

mell says

I don't think though I have ever seen a statistic that would group any group under majority offenders (unless it's part of their culture/religion).

Iwog posted a whole thread on politicians (whose illegal scandals tend to make news) and the men chasing underage boys were disproportionately Republican. In Islamic countries, Muslim molestation of underage boys is even more common than in the Vatican. There are very strong correlations and causal connections.

The OP is about anti-gay pastors soliciting underage boys, but one commenter seems to keep trying to change the subject to adult homosexuality. There is actually a lot of statistical evidence linking homophobia with repressed homosexuality, e.g. here. You might want to look at Howard Becker's Outsiders, which he researched at truck stops (maybe even Reseda). An obsessive tendency to comment about homosexuality in almost every thread, regardless of topic, comes from somewhere.

That is paedophilia-like that mr Gunn who seemed to appreciate pre pubescent girls.

Orthodox Judaism prohibits an unmarried woman and man from ever being alone together.

Maybe we should have a similar secular law, but including a prohibition on men and boys from being alone together, excepting only the boy's father and grandfathers.

If everyone knows that they are not even supposed to be alone, and especially the boys know this from an early age, it could well reduce the number of these incidents.

Religions do still have some valuable rules, even for unbelievers.

Patrick says

reduce the number

The Vatican has already begun implementing rules along the lines you describe, limiting the ability of priests to be alone with boys. There are still some circumstances, e.g. confession, where having other people around would cause problems.

Molesters are a tiny percentage of the population, and can be reduced further by reporting and enforcement of existing rules. Past abuses were mostly by repeat offenders. If those offenders had been stopped sooner, their subsequent abuses would not have happened.

Many other contexts would also suffer from such a broad rule, e.g. medical and psych visits. Even if you arrange for a third person, but then that person needs to leave for some other reason, everything would get disrupted and more expensive. In contrast, we don't hear about such problems in other contexts, e.g. tutoring, music lessons, or a garage where a mechanic is showing an apprentice how to fix cars. A new rule requiring three people at all times would be an overbroad response to a rare problem that is highly concentrated in certain contexts.

Aphroman says

If you’re a church and this happens on your watch....

Interesting: apply civil asset forfeiture instead of the current method of trying to sue for individual judgments. The Vatican uses strategic bankruptcy anyway, as in the MN example cited above, but perhaps the asset forfeiture net could apply to more of the enterprise.

@Aphroman that would be hard to implement, and liable to abuse for political or personal reasons. I'd rather cut off the temptation to begin with (so to speak, lol).

I do agree that the war on marijuana users is ridiculous and unjust. The biggest impediment to overcome is that many people fear loss of control, in both themselves and others, and they think that marijuana will result in their own downfall, or in hordes of strangers who are out of control. Or who are no longer obedient workers.

One more aspect of that rule:

Unmarried men and women should not be prohibited from being alone together, but a woman voluntarily alone with a man should be assumed by the court to have consented to sex, in the case of rape or similar accusations.

Aphroman says

Do you have any evidence of this from the left/Dems? If so, feel free to provide links

Sure, what about Anthony Wiener?

And you can find lots more with just a little bit of searching, for example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980959/posts

www.youtube.com/embed/e3h6es6zh1c

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

This is the natural state of a Republican:

What are you a Realtor or something?

This is my idea of "church"

www.youtube.com/embed/a-C9q-Na6_w

I think that this homosexual thing is a slippery slope.

Once legalized, they’ve been pushing to spread it. In history this has happened before, and that society fell apart.

Now they are legalizing pedos. Just like history.

Patrick says

Aphroman says

Do you have any evidence of this from the left/Dems? If so, feel free to provide links

Sure, what about Anthony Wiener?

And you can find lots more with just a little bit of searching, for example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980959/posts

Meanwhile, there's a wave of Domestic Violence among Democrats and their Supporters. Not to steal from the thrust of the thread, but just a reminder to the left there are plenty of "Undercover Misogynists Pretending Not to Hate Women" around.

Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Keith Ellison, etc. all accused of raping, assaulting women.

Aphroman says

I think you’re in the wrong thread

Or is this just a sad attempt to deflect the heat from home team, by misdirection?

Not at all, whereas there are some self-hating gays and pedos among Republicans, there are plenty of "Female Allies" who are women abusers also.

The idea that both sides contain "undercover assholes" is interesting.

FortWayne says

Just like history.

Your unsourced comments about "history" are consistently opposite to actual history, e.g. Rome. Where do you get these? Seriously, I would like to know the source of the misinformation, even if you are only making up stuff as you go along.

FortWayne says

I think that this homosexual thing is a slippery slope.

If you think it's too slippery, have you tried using less lube?

FortWayne says

Once legalized....

"Vatican’s Response to 1,000 Children Abused by Priests? ‘No Comment.’
A Pennsylvania grand jury says 300 priests preyed on children over 70 years."

Note the timing: 70 years of abuse. During most of those years, homosexual sex was illegal. Gay Catholics had nowhere to go but the "celibate" priesthood. Laws changed and life got better: gay couples can get married legally, and the Vatican has a shortage of priests.

BTW, the Vatican comments on all sorts of things that are none of its business, e.g. presuming to speak for "humanity" while condemning marriage equality in Ireland, but the Vatican has "no comment" about hundreds of priests abusing 1,000 children over 70 years. And those 1,000 were only in Pennsylvania; the Vatican abused many more children outside Pennsylvania, e.g. in Ireland.

"“Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades.”"

Aphroman says

A man grabbing grown bitches asses is barely a crime

You mean forcing oneself on a woman, or in Ellison's case, slapping her and dragging her out of her bed.

Just because there are Religious Pedos, doesn't mean that Beating up Chicks is alright.

When you have a huge religious organization that selects for its officiants only men who aren’t interested in marriage or women, what’s the chances you wind up with a bunch of mostly homosexual pedophiles?
Seems high to me, right now.

Quigley says

selects for its officiants only men who aren’t interested in marriage or women,

I think that's why the Vatican condemns marriage equality: their own unsatisfied obsession and the shortage of priests. The Vatican blames Leviticus and Paul, but ignores countless other examples of Catholics doing the opposite of what Leviticus and the writings attributed to Paul say. Examples include wearing clothing of mixed fiber, handling pork, women cutting their hair short, etc. Those things neither tempt the existing priests nor affect the supply of qualified candidates for the priesthood.

I've heard horror stories about Seminaries going back to high school.

Basically, they recruit very damaged individuals abused themselves, and there's kind of a mafia that protects them, moves them to different dioceses, etc.