Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[alva]

Humans do. By deciding it is. Many humans do, but not all. Yet.




For me it's the exploitation in cultures where girls are raised as chattel and boys are driven off if they are not part of the inner circle.

From societies POV, it probably is not a good idea to have a lot of poor, young males floating around who have no one to pair off with and settle down.

For children it can get messy when there is one father for 20 or 40 or more children.

Well, let's say there is no exploitation of any kind, then what?

Btw, bit of a male chauvinistic pig, are we not!! who says it needs to be one male, many females? Why couldn't it be the other way around?

[loinburger]

Could be, but AFAIK it never has been

[Ben Kenobi]

This isn't true - the Catholic priests have to answer to secular law when they rape children, so there are some limits on what religious practices are permissible in a secular society.

And apparently it's ok to be gay. Just don't be a priest and then the hammer comes down.

[giblets]

Shut up, Ben.

[loinburger]

And apparently it's ok to be gay. Just don't be a priest and then the hammer comes down.

Are you seriously saying that the rapist priests should have gotten off scot free? Wow.

[Al B. Sure!]

Could be, but AFAIK it never has been

There are a few example of this. The Maasai, for example, engage in polyandry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you seriously saying that the rapist priests should have gotten off scot free? Wow.

I'm saying that homosexual men raping boys is wrong priest or no. You seem to belive that only the frock is relevant.

[loinburger]

I think that the Church's coverup and complicity is relevant. GLAAD doesn't move rapists between cities to avoid scandal/prosecution.

[Al B. Sure!]

Who thinks homosexual lay men who rape boys are just dandy?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think that the Church's coverup and complicity is relevant. GLAAD doesn't move rapists between cities to avoid scandal/prosecution.

Which is why Nambla is front page material?

[giblets]

Who thinks homosexual lay men who rape boys are just dandy?

The voices in Ben's head, I guess.

[notyoueither]

Well, let's say there is no exploitation of any kind, then what?

Btw, bit of a male chauvinistic pig, are we not!! who says it needs to be one male, many females? Why couldn't it be the other way around?

I see the wink. I was discussing things that actually happen that are negative.

I'm all for polyamoury for men and women if it works well for them and is done ethically.

[Al B. Sure!]

I said homosexual lay men who rape boys but I should clarify, the 'homosexual' qualifier is as necessary or relevant as me saying "heterosexual lay men who rape girls". The genders imply a certain sexual orientation but that orientation is not the salient point.

[notyoueither]

I am under the impression that homo/hetero identity is not the salient issue for paedophiles.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am under the impression that homo/hetero identity is not the salient issue for paedophiles.

Which is why we see boys sexually abused by men?

Apparently the collar is salient but not their desire for boys. Funny that.