FEAR THE VAGINA!

I am offended and filled with disgust, shame, and heart-ache at your post.

On the other hand, I do appreciate your use of the word "ninny." It's so appropriately.....dismissive.

There is a very prevalent and, frankly, disturbing youth fetish amongst gay men (does "twink" ring any bells?). We are beginning to see quite clearly that leaving men alone in charge with youth, especially boys, is quite unwise. (For the record, a number of religious organizations, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have rules about limiting youth, boys or girls, under an unattended person.)

Anyway, the Vatican is only being faithful to its principles and rules, and trying to institute measures to prevent further cases of abuse. As it is, to practice, promote, condone, tolerate, or otherwise be positively disposed to homosexual acts is quite against the teachings of the Magisterium (which, by the way, the priesthood is obligated by their oaths to uphold). Remember that with all his hope-giving and hope-inspiring messages, John Paul the Great opposed the embracing of homosexual acts. So, really, if JP were alive, he would have done the same thing. Benedict XVI is in the model of JP (which is one reason why he was chosen).

If being gay is not the problem, then why are there so many problems with gay priests? (Google "St. Sebastian's Angels" for a disturbing story.) Will gay priests be willing to uphold the Church's beliefs, including that homosexuality is a disordered condition and that homosexual acts are sins and unacceptable? If no, then why should they be accepted by the Church? It would be like an Orthodox synagogue being run by one of those "Jews for Jesus" dudes.

Andrew Sullivan your avrage balbbering idiot

Thanks for your commentary, by the way, Ace. I enjoyed it.

It amazes me that someone can take a completely voluntary organization like a religion and start dictating terms to it.
Call me crazy, but if you don't want to be in the Catholic Church, go join some other operation. There must be some which hold to your views.
And for Pete's sake, don't pretend that you're going to shoot holes in the thinking of a guy like Ratzinger. I'm sure he's done his homework.

I know a lawyer who specializes in suing the Catholic Church on these cases. He said 90% of the incidents involve boys.

The mainstream media mischaracterized the problem as 'pedophile priests'. It was their way of damning the despised Catholic Church while exonerating gays and their PC-protected lifestyle.

The vast majority of victims weren't children. They were adolescent males. The Church had allowed a homosexual subculture to flourish within the priesthood, inflicting moral and spiritual damage on the most vulnerable of its flock.

Andrew Sullivan ought to ashamed, not for his former spiritual home, but for his current, morally debased Church of Homosexual Self-Indulgence.

Ratzinger’s attitude toward homosexuality is essentially the same as his predecessor’s. If Andy had been blogging thirty years ago, Karol Wojtyla would have driven him just as batshit, and he’d be pining for the good old days under Paul VI.

Why doesn’t Sullivan become an Anglican? Similar theology, similar rituals, and no lifestyle issues. His faith would give him absolutely no reason for going off on these hysterical rants every few days…

Okay, wait. Just forget I asked that.

The best part about a hysterical Sullivan rant is the hysterical Ace anti-Sullivan rant.

Is there any evidence of cross-over between homosexuality (i.e. males attracted to adult males) and homosexual pedophilia? I'm skeptical. Adult men are so different from boys that it seems to me you really couldn't be into both. I don't know. I'd want to see some data before assuming that honestly-self-identified gay men are more likely to be child abusers. It doesn't make sense to me.

I have decided to join the Hell's Angels.

But in order for them to keep me as a member, they have to stop wearing those icky leathers and cut out all that motorcycle-driving.

I was thinking it could be more of a ladies' tea club.

What's different about this new pope's position on gay people in the clergy? Seems to me that the Catholic Church, whether under Ratzinger or John Paul II hasn't been thrilled with the idea of gay people in the clergy uh, ever.

Worse than any are the perverts who claim children are sexual creatures and can give their consent to be abused by adults. The Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is worst of the worst.

Great idea! We can re-name the group "Heck's Angels" and all wear hats. Lovely chiffony hats. Yipee!

Is there any evidence of cross-over between homosexuality (i.e. males attracted to adult males) and homosexual pedophilia? I'm skeptical. Adult men are so different from boys that it seems to me you really couldn't be into both. I don't know. I'd want to see some data before assuming that honestly-self-identified gay men are more likely to be child abusers. It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't get this whole objection. If you're a guy sucking on a boy's dick, that's, what, an example of deviant straight sexuality?

Although some pedophiles are equal-opportunity violators, most have a preferred gender and stick to it. Genitalia is not fungible for most people.

Further, as has been pointed out, many of the underaged boys abused were not really pre-pubescent children, which is the preference of a true pedophile.

They were underage boys, teenagers, with full sexual development. Just younger and little less hairy than full adult men.

You can hardly say a 16 year old boy is sexually undifferentiated from a 16 year old girl, or that someone's sexual preference doesn't enter into chosing between them.

NEWS FLASH:

Andrew Sullivan discovers that Pope is in fact a Catholic!!

...who knew?

Is Sullivan a blithering hyperemotional moron?

Duh.

Does Andrew Sullivan shit in the woods?

stop wearing those icky leathers

what about boots? we're going to have to special order for Lipstick.

When are we going to stop pretending homosexuality is merely a lifestyle one can choose and admit it is syptom of a deep rooted pathology?

It is utter nonsense that we are forced to tolerate a small group of people that insist they are defined by their sexual preference. Just a because a guy likes to be boned up the ass by another guy, why should we have parades with penis floats? Why should we change the definition of marriage? Why should we treat them as though they are a minority entitled to special civil rights?

It is so obvious that being gay is a cry for help. Why do we pretend it isn't? You don't see heterosexuals walking around telling everyone they see that they are straight.
Hi, my name is Bart and I like having sex with women. Especially women with big boobies. My entire life revolves around sex with large breasted women. I have parades with floats of mammary glands. My favorite charities are those that donate breast augmentation surgery. I'll fight tooth and nail any politician that infringes on my right to sexual relations with a big breasted woman. We need to teach the importance of sex with ladies with big ta-ta's to children so they understand and tolerate me.
Society needs to acknowledge my needs, my desires, my whims. Dammit, I am here, you will congratulate me for being so brave to show who I truly am -- a man God created to love women with large melons.

The reason many homosexuals are attracted to young/prepubescent boys is because they resemble females, but without all those icky parts. So its like the best of both worlds for these perverts.

"...as he must control and silence every other aspect of the Church that does not conform to his views."

That phrase is just too perfect. Sums up Sullivan so tersely. How dare the head of the Church tell members of same Church what that Church teaches!?!

what about boots? we're going to have to special order for Lipstick.

Nah, just order some up from the men's department.

Society needs to acknowledge my needs, my desires, my whims.

Then we can have a Mammary Pride Parade, and lauraw & Lipstick can ride their hogs in their chiffon hats.

I see scarves!

I don't get this whole objection.

My point is that if you like grown-ups, you don't like kids, and if you like kids, you don't like grown-ups. So equating typical homosexuality with pedophilia is really very unfair to homosexuals. They get this all the time, and I don't think there's any basis to it. It's just not right.

However, this may be a moot point since it's been pointed out that the victims were often teenagers, which are physically more adult-like than child-like. In which case, I have no idea.

The reason many homosexuals are attracted to young/prepubescent boys is because they resemble females, but without all those icky parts. So its like the best of both worlds for these perverts.

Iblis, do you actually even know any gay men? I've got a few gay friends, and they're attracted to macho men. This is pretty typical, as I understand it.

Karol's nailed it (so to speak).
Andy's acting like this is a Big Change for the Church. John Paul was never in favor of gay priests, or gay anything for that matter. You could have gay feelings, and as long as you didn't act on them, you were fine. It was as if being gay were like being an alcoholic or some other thing that you just lived with. Maybe not in sync with modern psychology, but still a pretty enlightened approach for a group which must lay out behavioural absolutes.
I think JP had a better vibe, or a more fatherly appearance, or something that made him less objectionable when he said the same things, but he was saying the same things.
Ratzinger was John Paul's doctrinal whip (there I go again). He used to clean up all sorts of theological messes for JP, including the Liberation Theology crowd in South America.

And Sobek really pushed it home (now I'm just vamping) with his comment about Benedict's right to enforce Vatican policy. Why is it, in minds like Andy's, that when a guy like Benedict enforces two-thousand-year-old Church edicts, he's some kind of control freak?
I think I know why. Folks like Andy are convinced that they are 'Right', and any entity which claims to be 'Right' must believe likewise. Liberal types have discovered a new kind of 'Right' which had gone previously undiscovered for thousands of years, and which religions must accept. This is in contradiction to the 'bad old days', when it was understood that people were un-Right and enlisted the graces of things like the Church in correcting themselves.

Also, it appears that Liberals only care about religions when they are trying to co-opt them.

I don't want to nitpick or appear like I'm defending "gay" priests, but keep in mind that the majority of the abuse scandals that broke involved altar boys. Back when many of these abuses occured, women and girls were not allowed to serve in the mass.

These priests most likely didn't have the option of molesting girls.

Oh boy.

Kevin knows gay men.

The gay men that Kelvin knows report they are attracted to "macho" men.
You mean macho like a...

...father figure?

The reason the homosexual-doers are lumped into the same category as pedophiles is because people like me regard the whole gay lifestyle as a form of sexual deviancy, say it with me, everyone, brought on by a phsychological disease rooted from childhood that desperately needs treatment.

Turning to the gay lifestyle and seeking comfort amongst the gay community only masks the problem. Now that the gay community has grown in population, it is easier to use brow-beating PC tactics to gain sympathy and change the attitudes of society -- like it or not.

Personally, I don't care if 90% of the population goes gay. I'll still believe it is immoral and repugnant. Just because lots of people do it doesn't make it okay.

For argument's sake, let's say being gay is normal, as normal as a guy growing up to be attracted to woman (with big bazooms).

If it is normal, why is the gay life centered around sex?

Why do gay men feel the need th wear feather boas and stand a giant penis float in a parade in San Francisco?

Why do gay men have lots and lots of "sex" with total strangers?

Why are gay men a lot more emotional than straight men?

Why do gay men have such a problem with gender issues?

Why do gay men suddenly adopt a lisp and other feminine characteristics? Doesn't anyone else find it peculiar that these traits are suddenly pulled out of thin air when a man comes "out?"

Okay, so if gay people are just like the rest of us, why does gayness completely consume their lives? Why adopt the persona so common from coast to coast that is prevalent in the gay community?

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that these men and women choose the gay community for love and protection and identity, the crucial staples that every person needs but somehow along the way these poor people were neglected of?

It's not at all clear to me that JPII had a particularly antagonistic approach to paedophile priests. Cardinal Law certainly had a hand in protectively moving our local buggers around from parish to parish over the decades, and he remained a great favorite of the Pope's to the very end. In fact, when Law was hounded from the country, the Pope's official position was to complain that the media was making too much of it all.

How anyone can prey on children sexually and claim to believe one word of the Christian doctrine is a great mystery to me. How a third party can sanction this activity by covering it up repeatedly is a greater mystery still. And how the holy guy at the top of the heap can be beatified within a few years of the whole thing breaking wide is...well, you know.

Of course, I'm in Boston.

Weasel: Yeah, I'm pretty bitter at the vatican for all that, too.

Bart:

The trouble I have with your theory is that it just doesn't match my experience. Some of my heterosexual friends have good relationships with their parents, some have bad relationships. This is true of my gay friends, to the same extent. In other words, I don't see a correlation. The sample size I'm looking at is obviously pretty small, but then the same goes for you. I don't see any anecdotal evidence in my own experience, and I haven't seen any credible statistical evidence (although that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Lacking evidence, it's not something I'm gonna just believe on blind faith.

As for all the "persona" stuff, I see the same phenomena with many different subcultures. (For example, the whole urban hip hop subculture. I've seen kids who start listening to hip hop music and then change their clothing, the way they talk, and the way they walk.) It's what people do.
(Showtunes, on the other hand, I can't explain away. That's one of life's mysteries, I guess.)

Nah, just order some up from the men's department.

someone's been down this road before

Ace posted at 3:29 PM - since then, Andrew has dragged himself from his bed of pain to make a further 3 posts on this subject. Just imagine what he could do if he were feeling better! But not to worry: "But my doc says I'm improving, and should be back in the saddle soon." Take that any way you like.

Bart - I can understand where your theory stems from, being that's the pretty much the only image the gay community puts out. And I unfortunately have to agree with you that it is a little odd that gay men adopt these "traits" when they come out. And yes, the gay community does revolve around sex. It's one of the many things I am ashamed of about the culture.

But there are plenty of gay men out there that don't own a boa, don't lisp, hate Cher and showtunes, and prefer monogamy. I'm one of 'em.

I'm guessing you don't have any gay friends or at least try to steer clear of their immorality and repugnance. That's fine. That's your deal. All I ask is that you allow for the possibility that the stereotypical "gay" isn't the norm.

Well, Chad, I would have to say you are the exception to the rule and the typical gay man I described is indeed the norm. But you're right, I am making that judgement on what I've seen and I'm not privy to the life.

No, I don't have any gay friends. But I've never not become someone's friend because of homosexuality, it's just that the opportunity to befriend a gay has yet to happen in my life.

What I find immoral and repugnant is the actual sex act between men, and women/women, not the person. The thought of kissing (with tongues) another man is sickening to me. The thought of inserting my penis (and vice versa) in another man's shit-hole is beyond my comprehension.
This is where the gay guy usually says, "Well, that's who I am, so you can't accept me for who I am."

To be perfectly blunt, is a penis in your anus "who" you are? My penis in a vagina certainly isn't Who I am.

Bart,

With all due respect, it's normal for a straight man to be put off by the thought of intimate contact with a man, but it's normal for a gay man to be aroused by it.

That's what homosexuality is, after all.

It may be repugnant as a personal matter, as a straight guy would find it distasteful to engage in, but it's kinda dumb to knock gays for it.

You're projecting your idea of what sexuality to be on to people who simply have a different sexual attraction. It makes as much sense as a gay man telling you you should be open to gay sex.

Which is something some guy told me on-line one time. If I weren't open to gay sex, I was a "homophobe."

That was dumb. But so is suggesting that men sexually attracted to other men should be, you know, attracted to women instead.

And let's face it, women are no goddamned picnic.

Bart, I assure you that there are other exceptions to the rule besides myself. Also keep in mind that what you see on the news of gay pride parades and what you see on TV shows like Will & Grace should not be taken as Gospel when it comes to "what gays are like".

While I understand that you may not be in a situation where gays run rampant, you need to understand that just because you see it on TV, it doesn't make it the norm.

The reason the stereotype stands out is exactly that... because it stands out. It's obvious. It's flashy. It's gaudy. It's gonna end up on your nightly news. But there are those of us out there who blend in a hell of a lot better. And you will find that many of the more "low-key" gays would be just as uncomfortable at a gay pride parade as you would be. 95% of what's considered gay, I don't identify with in any way. I like football. I drink lager. I'd rather go to a bar that's showing the Yankees game than a club that might have a sighting of Madonna.

In any of my mannerisms, I'm just as straight as you are. My only differnce with you is that I prefer the "penis/shithole" combo. My only difference with the gay community is that I don't let that fact define me.

I agree with Chad. There is diversity in the gay community: these perspectives are not widely known because the gay community in general does not tolerate very well those who step out of line. (Which is quite ironic: gays being intolerant, but it's true.) There are plenty of "normal" gay people. And even a few who are quite conservative (politically, fiscally, and/or socially).

Being gay is not only about sex, although it is one thing that does stand out. Just as straight men are attracted to and desire the love of women, and just as straight women are attracted to and desire the love of men, similarly gay men are attracted to and desire the love of men, and gay women are attracted to and desire the love of women. It's the "desire the love" part that's sometimes drowned out by the hypersexual nature of the "gay community". I once asked a (very promiscuous) gay friend of mine which was better: sex or cuddling. He said he'd trade a week of hot sex for an hour of cuddling.

My theory is many gay people -- and, increasingly, many straight people -- are looking for love but trying to find it through lust. It's like thirsting for water but drinking tea. Eventually they have to realize that love is not found in one-night stands and whatnot. What is more disturbing that there is definitely an image that is portrayed of and perpetuated by the "gay community" that emphasizes sex, youth, and physique. As I ask my gay friends: where are the old and/or ugly gay men? why don't I see any on TV? (Notice: almost all gay men portrayed on TV are, besides being femme, good-looking and well-built.) Walk into a famous gay bar in a big city sometime: the almost universal good-looking-ness and well-built-ness would make any guy feel insecure. Unless he's drunk, I suppose. So, when someone comes out of the closet, they are faced with one model as to how to behave. (And God forbid someone criticize this lifestyle!)

Having said that, there are a number of gay men and women who, especially being part of conservative religious traditions or cultures, seek to minimize the impact of their sexual orientation in their lives and the choices they make. I firmly believe that there is a difference between orientation and acts: the former is not chosen, the latter are chosen. This is where a number of religious organizations teach their adherents that although they may not have chosen their sexual orientation, they can choose how they will act on it. Most counsel celibacy. Whether this is good or bad is another issue altogether. If I remember correctly, this is where the Catholic Church stands. Of course chastity (if defined as sexual activity only within the bonds of matrimony between a man and a woman) is counselled for all. Gay sex is a sin. Fornication is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Et cetera.

I can see where the disordered-ness comes from. It seem nature has one plan or blueprint, which homosexuals quite blatantly violate. It makes no evolutionary sense (unless one wants to bring in Malthusian elements, which would validate and even encourage war, famine, pestilence, and death - hey, bring on the Apocalypse!).

I need to publish a book or get laid.

The best part about a hysterical Sullivan rant is the hysterical Ace anti-Sullivan rant.

And let's face it, women are no goddamned picnic.-----Ace you abviously have some woman "issues". Don't take women so seriously and personally. I've been married 29 years and its been very interesting, sometimes madening, but always worthwhile because I made the decision to love her regardless of the situation and to treat her as my cherished baby in every situation. You need to be the daddy, not the boy friend or soul mate; a fully formed adult without expectations of reciprocal adulthood from women. If you're looking for a confidant, make friends with a homosexual hairdresser or get yourself a puppy. Either will work. Never ever expect nor ask for mercy, help or understanding from a woman (mothers being the one exception). If you want mercy, help or understanding, look to your dog. Better yet, suck it up, change the circumstances and get on with it. Be the rock not the wimp. I can tell you who is at fault in every failed heterosexual relationship--its the one wearing the testicles. You do the choosing so if she is wrong for you or you are wrong for her, YOU screwed up. If you think men have problems with women because of the nature of women, believe me it's much worse for women trying to deal with men and men's nature. Cheer up, be of good courage, but watch out for the Lorena Bobbit type woman. They're the type of woman that could ruin your whole day (and a very personal part of your anatomy).

John, I believe you have just become my new hero.

John,

It's schtick. I've said multiple times that vaginas scare me. I am not really afraid of vaginas. In fact, I kinda like them.

It's woman-bashing, just for fun.

But thanks, I agree that women are wonderful human beings.

I just wouldn't want my daughter marrying one.

" As I ask my gay friends: where are the old and/or ugly gay men? why don't I see any on TV?"

*

I'm not gay, but I live (only 3 more weeks, though!) in Berkeley, which makes me sort of an honorary homo. And it's sort of dispelled any mystique, positive or negative, that the "gay lifestyle" ever had. Most gay people are schlubs, they get old and painfully unhip just like everyone else. Eventually their back gives out or their hair falls off and they stop making the scene.

I'll tell you right now: the old and/or (and it's often *and*) ugly gay men are ... pretty much the same sorts of places the old and/or ugly straight men are. Pathetic "hip" singles bars with cool jazz combos. Art galleries. Bookstores. Mediocre and overpriced ethnic restaraunts.

The mad bacchanalia of gay life you see in the parades and on TV is really just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the water waits the other 9/10 of the gay population - fat, bald, old, and/or ugly people.

Think of those ridiculous "pride" parades as making up for all the cheerleading and prom royalty shit they never got to do. Straight/normal sexuality has lots of sublimated rituals to celebrate and develop it. Gays have created their own rituals, mostly since the advent of TV, so they're gaudy, profane and annoying. Like the culture they developed in.

The young and/or attractive are the ones dancing in clubs, or getting their pictures taken, or appearing on TV. Such is the way of the world, straight or gay.

Do you see that many old and/or ugly people of any type on the TV? Would you buy a soft drink being advertised by Grandpa Simpson? (Okay, I would too. But mass media aim for the common denominator, not moroncommentors.)

"You need to be the daddy, not the boy friend or soul mate; a fully formed adult without expectations of reciprocal adulthood from women."

john ... are you in fact Dave Sim?

As a Foster Parent for girls between 2 and 8, I have to doubt that more boys are molested than girls.
My wife and I have been doing this for 3 months now, and of the ten girls we have fostered, only one has not been sexually abused - and she isn't in the system for abuse of any sort.
It is truly heartbreaking, and it seems that any form of abuse toward a girl appears to somehow devolve into sexual. I'm glad I'm not a violent person, or I couldn't do this without murdering former parents.

Thanks, Knemon! It's good to know normal people are out there. :-)

NATTERING NINNY sounds like a name for the ROBOT on the 60s sci fi series LOST IN SPACE YOU BLITHERING BUMPKIN