Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Why are folks only "Gay" when they do good things?

You see it in the news incessantly--

"Gay couple gets married after waiting 40 years!"

"Gay actor speaks out on gender bias"

"Gay congressman sponsors bill on LGBT rights"

"Gay football player reports to training camp"

"Gay basketball star scores to win game"

"Gay CEO named to run Apple"

"Gay author wins Pulitzer Prize"

"Gay screenwriter wins Oscar"

"Gay filmmaker wins at Cannes"

"Gay musician wins Grammy Award"

"Gay man appointed Secretary of the Army"

But when a Gay man (who happens to be a Catholic priest) molests a teen boy:

"Priest arrested for molesting boy"

Odd, that. It's almost like a marketing campaign conducted by people who love homosexuality and hate Christianity. 


  1. Billy:

    Molestation of a boy by a man is a homosexual act.

    Simple question: point me to msm articles in which "gay" is associated with molestation of boys.

    Do the same for "priest".


  2. "Molestation of a boy by a man is a homosexual act. "

    In the same way that rape is a heterosexual act. What is your point.

    "Simple question: point me to msm articles in which "gay" is associated with molestation of boys."

    Simple question: point me to any MSM articles in which "straight" is associated with rape.

    "Do the same for "priest"."

    If the occupation of the person afforded the person the opportunity to perpetrate the offence, the person's occupation becomes relevant. In every case of priests molesting children that I have read about, the child has always belonged to the parish. The Priest was in a position of power and of trust.

    When a teacher, regardless of orientation, has sex with a student, the headline always reads "Teacher charged with..." because it is relevant. The same is seen in situations where it is a coach or a scout leader. There was also a recent case where a dentist was fondling his female patients when they were under anesthesia. In that case the headline read "Dentist charged with...". And this is not restricted to sexual crimes. If the CEO of a bank embezzles millions from his bank, the headline will read "Bank CEO charged with...". Why should Priests be treated any differently. Or would you prefer that we go back to the days that this sort of crime is swept under the rug?

    1. Billy:

      Address the actual issue I raised in the post: why is it that homosexual orientation is only mentioned in describing laudatory behavior, never in bad behavior.

      Just as "heterosexual" is not particularly relevant to the description of a rapist, "gay" is not particularly relevant to the description of an actor or an athlete or an author etc.

      Yet "gay" is mentioned incessantly, unless the owner of the moniker rapes a boy, in which case the gay man is called merely a "priest" or a "teacher".

      If you leave out the gay part there, why not leave it out when describing actors, authors, athletes, etc.

    2. "If you leave out the gay part there, why not leave it out when describing actors, authors, athletes, etc."

      I agree that the term is used in many situations when it is irrelevant, but I am not offended by it. We made a big deal about the first American woman in space, the first catholic president, the first black president, etc. In that respect, I think some of them are newsworthy. For example, the first openly gay football player. In an ideal world, it should not be news, but sports remains one of the areas where being gay can be a career killer.

      You could try to do like the rest of us do. When I see a headline like that, I skip to the next story. No big deal.

    3. "The first gay screenwriter?" "The first gay artist?"

      There are few areas in American life today in which "first gay" is anywhere near applicable.

      Yet "gay" is used all the time, except for child sodomy, etc.

      I feel like I'm being sold a product. If I didn't know better, I'd say there was an agenda.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. What does this got to do with Nazis and Jews?

    6. "What does this got to do with Nazis and Jews?"

      Using the actions of a minority to demonize an entire group. Sound familiar? You would have looked lovely in a brown shirt. Have you ever thought of doing medical experiments on twins?

      You are shameless in trying to tar all homosexuals with the same brush. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. Is same sex abuse any worse than opposite sex abuse? Please think before you answer, if that is possible.

      You were the one who complained about headlines that state "Priest charged with...". And then refused to answer the question about whether the occupation of the molester was relevant. Well, is it? Or should Priests (or teachers, or bankers) not have their occupations mentioned? Is the fact that the person molesting a child is a Priest entrusted to provide spiritual and moral guidance to this child not relevant?

      Priests are not centred out in headlines any more than any other person using their position of authority to commit a crime. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

  3. Holy mama! Is this post about you William? You accomplished a lot. :D

  4. "Holy mama! Is this post about you William? You accomplished a lot. :D"

    But he forgot to mention that I saved a drowning puppy and found a cure for cancer. He must have missed those headlines.

  5. "Gay man saves drowning puppy"

    Yes, you would be Twitter hero for day and a half :D

  6. Somewhat off topic

    Recently I met first homosexual man and I didn't freak out. William you should be proud of me. It was little creepy as if you meet 7 foot tall man. You don't hate him but it's really weird.

  7. Eugen, actually I am not gay, but I am a very happy person.

  8. You may not be homosexual but you worship them.

    1. There is nothing that I have said that implies worship. In fact, the entire idea creeps me out. But that is my weakness, and I acknowledge it and make efforts not to act on it.

      Some, however, prefer to demonize homosexuals. Because I speak out against this demonization does not mean that I worship homosexuals. I also speak out against capital punishment; that doesn't mean that I worship murderers.

    2. I don't blame you for being creeped out.

      Usually I get this impression about atheists: because they have lost compass and common sense they cling to some narrow issue in life or society to make them worth living. They produce lots of activists who preoccupy themselves for causes like climate change, homosexuality, abortion (baby killing industry), save the frogs, tree hugging, ban smoking, shut down power plants...etc

    3. Eugen,

      What is 'common sense' about the dogma theists accept withou question?

      Personally, I take the common sense position that there's no God who's going to rescue us when we've damaged the Earth sufficiently to make survival of a significant fraction of the global human population difficult if not impossible. Or that he's going to destroy this Earth and replace it with a better one beforehand.

    4. bach:

      Get a sandwich board, go to main street, and walk around with the sign "The World is Ending".

      Malthusianism and AGW are just lies and delusions. Get psychiatric help.


    5. Bach

      In my first language for common sense we say (directly translated) healthy reasoning. You don't have to be super duper genius to conclude using a little healthy reasoning, logic and science that there is Creator of the Universe.

      Again using some healthy reasoning ,logic and science we can conclude that our home - Earth may be warming mostly due to natural cycles, not only because of human activity. Earth has to be treated with respect but not worshiped. We have to reasonably reduce pollution but I have no idea how bureaucratic solution of carbon taxing will solve anything, other than help politicians and corporate crooks fill their pockets.

    6. "Get a sandwich board, go to main street, and walk around with the sign "The World is Ending". "

      We leave that to the Christians.

    7. It's yours now. Christian apocalypses are nothing compared to science apocalypses--eugenics, Malthusianism, DDT hysteria, AGW hysteria. And you get the government to pay for your crazies.

    8. Christian apocalypses are the real thing. They've been predicting that the Earth is coming to an end, that God was going to destroy it, for almost 2,000 years now, condemning most of humanity, past and present, to eternal hellfire if they hadn't acknowledged Jesus as saviour.

      Science 'apocalypses' are partial and precautionary. AGW won't lead to extinction of the human species - not even close. It will likely make survival of a considerable fraction of the human population difficult if not impossible - rising sea levels, increased heat waves and droughts, famines, increased old prices.

      And anyway - government does pay for your (religion's) crazies. Religion is tax exempt.

    9. Oops, 'increased food prices'.

    10. Eugenics was scientifically sound. We know from animal breeding that we can select for, or against specific traits. There is no reason to think that it wouldn't work for humans. But just because something has a scientific basis doesn't mean that we should do it. Nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons are all scientifically based. Whether or not they are used is something that society decides, not science.

      DDT wasn't going to make humans extinct. In fact, it is still used in parts of the world where malaria is of a high risk. But it's affects on birds was extremely well documented. Frankly, I like birds. And we had alternatives to DDT.

      AGW is as close to a fact as science can ever get. The physics are simple. CO2 traps radiated heat. We have demonstrated this conclusively. The physics also are conclusive that trapped heat will result in changes to weather patterns and, ultimately, climate. What these changes will likely be is what is being researched.

      I'm surprised that you didn't also mention leaded gasoline and the ozone layer.

  9. 1. The reason gaiety is mentioned in the first set of headlines, is because until recently, being gay would have prevented the person being described doing any such thing as he is doing, whether because of legal discrimination (e.g. in marriage) or because of outright hatred by creatures like you (e.g. in the case of leading a company), Engor (I always thought hat would make a god name for a type of pterosaur evolved to fit the vulture ecological niche). That fact they are able to do whatever they are doing despite the discrimination directed against gays is newsworthy.

    2. The main point in the case of the priest is that he betrayed the trust placed in him as a priest as as been pointed out tot you already. But as I recall, you have the habit of defending child-molesting priests don't you?

    3. The priest who raped the little boy is not gay. He does not want a romantic or sexual relationship with an adult of his owngender. Gays do want a sexual or romantic relationship with an adult of their own gender. People who want to have sex with children (they usually don't care about the child's gender) are not gay, they suffer from a mental illness that has hopelessly warped their sexuality out of normal bounds; this is not the case with homosexuality which has always been a relatively large part of the range of sexual preference. When priests rape little girls do you thin that makes them, heterosexual? Perhaps you do.

  10. Because gays have been stigmatised, jailed or even killed for many decades if not centuries. Priests on the other hand are well known for their "piety"... It's a sign of the times where society will reward people regardless of them being gay, and will heavily punish those that have abused their position (i.e. in the church).

  11. Superb post, we enjoyed each and everything as per written in your post. Thank you for this informative article because it’s really helpful, I really like site. @Packers And Movers Delhi
    Packers And Movers Greater Noida
    Packers And Movers Noida
    Packers And Movers Ghaziabad