Top U.S. Catholic Church official resigns after cellphone data used to track him on Grindr

Quote: Gandler

How is it biased it is a nonprofit that fights against sex crimes... Almost every Stat on that page is from the U.S. gov (CDC or BCJ), so they are citing from official gov data.... (You can click the icon and it will take you to the source page to view the original gov publication). It does not get much more official and nonbiased than the CDC and Justice Dept.

Who do you think joins a non-profit association against sex crimes. It is biased from its founding principles. It publishes papers that start out to prove a biased position by biased researchers not unbiased raw data from gov sources.

Please forgive me if I don’t buy any specific numbers cited as to what percentage of the population is gay.

Half* the guys I’ve hooked up with off of Grindr have identified as “straight.”

*not really half, but lots

Quote: kenarman

Who do you think joins a non-profit association against sex crimes. It is biased from its founding principles. It publishes papers that start out to prove a biased position by biased researchers not unbiased raw data from gov sources.

I don't agree. They even have a page on false reporting stats.... If they were totally biased they would not mention these figures.

The real, existential fundamental problem with priests being gay or straight is that they took a vow of celibacy and promised to be neither, i.e., asexual.

They took this vow to god, therefore in violating their vow they are ipso facton now damned and can no longer qualify to serve as god's messenger on earth, i.e. they should be disqualified from serving as priests.

They cannot serve two masters, god and Bacchus.

I suppose a thousand years ago it was easier to induce people to remain celibate, but that is no longer the case.

Were one to ask "Why doesn't the church immediately excommunicate any priest who violates his vow of celibacy?", the answer would be "Because there'd be damned few priests left."

Hopefully the Catholic church will remove the celibacy requirement: that would help ease the stench of hypocrisy.

Quote: missedhervee

I suppose a thousand years ago it was easier to induce people to remain celibate, but that is no longer the case.

You do not really think life was so different 1000 years ago, do you?

Quote: AZDuffman

You do not really think life was so different 1000 years ago, do you?

Yes, I do, and yes, it was.

Had you stayed awake in your history class you'd have known that.

Quote: AZDuffman

Who?
When?
What thread?

[1] Here is a certain poster saying they have no problem with 16 after disputing that some state are 12 (which they still are), from earlier this year:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3011/107/#post165908


[2] Questioning why there should be any age limits (2019):

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3011/26/#post125207
"Not really. If we are going to redefine marriage so two people of the same sex can marry, why should we restrict it based on age? Isn't that the two people love each other all that matters? I would really like to hear a good, logical reason. Just be prepared to defend your logic. I look forward to the debate. Bring it on."


[3] Quote from a certain member agreeing with the above post:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3011/26/#post125219


[4] Another post alluding that age should not be a factor in marriage:

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3011/26/#post125219
"I still do not see why you are upset that two people who love each other cannot be married just because of age."





I could go on, but it is safe to say a not insignificant portion of conservatives here support marrying girls under 18. And, I cannot find one liberal who does....


I stand by what I have said since 2019, marriage should be 18 period. I get the age of consent for people within two years of age (like a 18 year old and 17 year old), and I do understand the arguments on that, and I think that is a reasonable debate. But to legally marry it needs to be 18, no exceptions. There should be no way that a full adult can marry somebody 12-16 (in some states) if their parents sign them over (which happens), this is just wrong, and I find it strange that more people are not outraged about this (and some apparently support it)..... As far as I am concerned a male of 18+ marrying a 12 year old (legal in a at least 1 State and 1 Territory) is legalized pedophilia... This is the kind of thing that is common in developing countries, but not in the USA (and the fact that some places still allow it is sad.....)

In almost every State (over 40), and most U.S. Territories, a parent can sign over a daughter who is underage (12-17, depends on State) to "a husband" who is an adult, this should not be a thing in 2021 in America. Honestly this should not be a thing in 1950s in America..... The fact that this is still legal in any context boggles my mind.

And, yes this is a double standard because in these States it encourages (even legally rewards with tax benefits ) adult men to go after underage girls.... And, once legally married, any act becomes legal..... So if anything in this discussion we should be afraid of "The Straights".... (Of course we should not, I am just pointing out the absurdity of a culture that rewards straight men for pursuing underage girls, and acts like its a problem in the LGBTQ community).....

Quote: missedhervee

Yes, I do, and yes, it was.

Had you stayed awake in your history class you'd have known that.

LOL. Sorry, it really wasn't. Human nature was the same then as it is now. People did the same things. Governments tried the same tricks. Names and faces change, but the song remains the same.

Had you ever seen more shall we say, "raw history" not just your sanitized and approved history books you would see this.

Podcast I listen to used to have the "year that was the episode" going back to the year 1 and it was amazing how it all mirrored what we see today. I have seen all kinds of court cases and documents in my land research and it is all the same human nature as we have today.

You asked "Do you think life was so different 1000 years ago?"

Yes, it was very different.

People didn't have printing presses.

No computers, either.

They didn't even have flush toilets.

Shall I go on?

I can give you more examples for your edification if you wish.

Quote: missedhervee

Yes, I do, and yes, it was.

Had you stayed awake in your history class you'd have known that.

1000 years ago priests were allowed to get married and have families. Problem was, a lot of these priests owned a lot of property by the time they died and they left it to their families and not the church. So around the 12th or 13th century the church disallowed marriage and the priests had to be celibate. This is when the problems started. Nobody wants to be celibate when they're 27 and walk around with serious wood all the time. So more and more gay men started joining the priesthood so they could have affairs will all these other gay priests. And of course have their pickings of the alter boys. In those days you can get away with everything there was nobody to stop them and that lasted right up until the 20th. Of course is FRG was here he would disagree and say celibacy is from god blah blah blah. It's all about money just like everything else. What I have read is very few priests are actually full-time celibate. They go in and out of affairs both heterosexual and homosexual. They talk a big game but they're really just like everybody else.

Look at that well-known priest that was on TV all the time, on CNN and Fox, Father Jonathan Morris. He finally quit the church in his late forties and got married. He said screw it I'm tired of hiding everything. The whole thing is just silly.