Defending the Truth

http://tinyurl.com/j7wqt

That idiot on the right, doesn't he kinda look like Pete Townsend?

Why is it that you don't hear "heterosexual father was convicted of abusing boys"?

But when the assailant is gay, somehow it becomes relevant...

I hear of heteros abusing children all the time. Don't you think the one on the right resembles Pete Townsend?

Hey, they made a huge fuss over the Catholic priests who did it.

Why not homosexual men who do it?

The problem is not if they are gay or straight, it is that they are child molesters.

And a bit of trivia, there have been more protestant clergy members accused of child molestation than Catholic clergy members.

Duhhh...

Most people I talk to tend to think it is a catholic problem. I think it is because the media covers the catholic cases more. But to be fair there appears to be more evidence of intentional protection of known abusers by the catholic church.

The point is when did you last see them SPECIFY that they were heterosexual in the news when they discussed it...


HUGE difference.
The catholics used their PLACE OF WORK to not only help them in acquiring victims, but also to COVER UP their crime.

If a psychiatrist used the pretense of "therapy" to abuse children, and then the APA actually paid off the victims and moved him to a new area with new victims, you can bet that pointing out the circumstances of the crime would be relevant.

The fact that these two were gay was not a circumstance of the crime...

I think it's the latter that makes it more heinous.
The fact that a child molestor gets into the clergy and abuses his position of power is not a black mark against the Catholic church...

The fact that the Catholic church COVERS IT UP, pays off the victim, and moves the molestor off to a new parish with fresh victims is the black mark.

If the Catholic clergy had brought the whole thing to the attention of the authorities (not religious authorities), it would be an example of people you trust to do the right thing DOING the right thing after a bad thing.
Instead, the right thing is being ignored.
And for what reason? To protect the image of the Catholic church?
To protect a pedophile?

I think there is a significant difference between pointing out that a priest molested a young boy, and pointing out that a gay person molested a young boy.

A Catholic priest is someone who has dedicated his life to preaching Catholic beliefs. Included in those Catholic beliefs is the belief that children should not be molested and people should not have same-sex relationships. So when a priest molests a boy, he is going against the beliefs that he stands for, and he is betraying the faith that people put in him. A Catholic priest molesting a child is hypocrisy, corruption, and a betrayal to all the people who put their faith into that priest.

But there is no common ideology of gay people; homosexuality is simply a trait used to describe sexual preference. To point out that a molestor is gay is as relevant as pointing out that he has brown hair. It isn't really related to the crime. What happened is someone who thought it was okay to have sex with children was arrested for having sex with children. Oh, and he was gay. And he had brown hair. See, it isn't really important.

If you think sexual orientation is more important than hair color when talking about molestation, remember that as foundit said, a molestor's heterosexuality is never pointed out. You would never see the headline "straight man molests child". The molestor's usual sexual attraction to women is not relevant: his sexual attraction to children is.

Though I wonder if this article was just looking for a way to describe the relationship between the two molestors. Instead of saying "married couple", he said, "gay couple".