JFKvsNixon Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 It's so obvious. You shouldn't have to ask the question. So you wont even give me a chance to defend myself against your slurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 And if he goes for girls he's a heterosexual pedophile. What point are you making? Yes. But you cannot deny that many of the priests were gay and paedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yes. But you cannot deny that many of the priests were gay and paedophiles. No, I haven't tried to make that claim, but you cannot deny that many pedophiles are heterosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yes. But you cannot deny that many of the priests were gay and paedophiles. Many of them were heterosexual and paedophiles and the Christian Catholic Church helped cover up their crimes and provided them with fresh children to rape for decades regardless of whether or not they were homo or heterosexual paedophiles. A monstrous crime which no amount of homophobic scapegoating from your or your fellow travellers in the Vatican can disguise or distract from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 And if he goes for girls then he is a heterosexual paedophile, what's your point? In each case what is more significant the gender of the victim or their age and the fact they were raped? Because so seem obsessed with gender to the exclusion of all else. Thank you for your posts tonight plekhanov, for confirming some priests were hetro, others were homo, while all were paedophiles. That is the truth and that is the way it stays. Please don't try to disassociate the gay community as you have attempted to do previously. People of all persuasions were involved and you need to accept that which you have just admitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Many of them were heterosexual and paedophiles and the Christian Catholic Church helped cover up their crimes and provided them with fresh children to rape for decades regardless of whether or not they were homo or heterosexual paedophiles. A monstrous crime which no amount of homophobic scapegoating from your or your fellow travellers in the Vatican can disguise or distract from. I wouldn't want to make anyone a scapegoat. The priests were wrong and so was the Catholic church. I think everyone is united on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdyamos Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I'll give that the contempt it deserves. You thanked me for my post making much the same point, albeit one made sardonically, to show what rubbish the argument was. But you didn't get the point, you just saw what you wanted to see. Can you not admit that most child rapists are family men? Or does it not count if the child is a man's own offspring? Or if he's married to mum, that gives him the right to rape the children (as well as his wife according to you)? Or is heterosexual rape more *natural*, and so less *deviant*? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Thank you for your posts tonight plekhanov, for confirming some priests were hetro, others were homo, while all were paedophiles. That is the truth and that is the way it stays. Please don't try to disassociate the gay community as you have attempted to do previously. People of all persuasions were involved and you need to accept that which you have just admitted. And once again your homophobia pushes you to take a completely unjustified bigoted leap from some paedophiles raping children of the same gender to "the gay community". If "the gay community" is associated with paedophiles then so is "the heterosexual community" you included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 You thanked me for my post making much the same point, albeit one made sardonically, to show what rubbish the argument was. But you didn't get the point, you just saw what you wanted to see. Can you not admit that most child rapists are family men? Or does it not count if the child is a man's own offspring? Or if he's married to mum, that gives him the right to rape the children (as well as his wife according to you)? Or is heterosexual rape more *natural*, and so less *deviant*? You didn't get the point then that my saying "thank you" was at all sardonic? As for the rest of your post I will also treat it with the contempt it deserves as you know full well that any form of abuse is wrong and illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 Because by saying what you did means you are accusing me of being a sexual deviant. There is a difference between abstention and the fact no one will have sex with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.