Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[loinburger]

Then the answer is to ban male priests and require female priests. For the children. Or do you not care about the children?

[giblets]

Then the answer is to ban male priests and require female priests. For the children. Or do you not care about the children?

Good idea. Ideally men would never be allowed to be alone with a child because most child molesters are male.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then the answer is to ban male priests and require female priests. For the children. Or do you not care about the children?

Perhaps we should kill all men to eliminate abuse.

[loinburger]

That seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Especially when we can just ban male priests instead. For the children, who you care so much about that you'd limit the rights of people to marry and have/adopt kids.

[loinburger]

BK: We must protect the children!
loin: I agree, let's ban male priests!
BK: Now hold on there, I only want to protect children when doing so will harm homosexuals. Let's not go overboard.

[Ben Kenobi]

Especially when we can just ban male priests instead.

So you're agreeing with me that Catholic priests are not more likely to commit abuse because they are priests?

For the children, who you care so much about that you'd limit the rights of people to marry and have/adopt kids

Personally I think you've lost the argument if you're stuck arguing that we should ban all men.

[loinburger]

I'm sure that you'll be able to fabricate any statistics that you like indicating that Catholic pedophilia isn't that big of a deal, so I'm not going to debate the point - you've previously indicated that you don't really care what the priests got up to. But, seeing as how you care about children, and seeing as how women are less likely to abuse children, clearly you'll agree that all priests should be female - you're in favor of limiting the rights of people to marry and adopt in order to protect children, so you ought to be in favor of this minor gender-specific profession restriction as well.

[giblets]

Perhaps we should kill all men to eliminate abuse.

Not necessary, castration would be sufficient to remove such sexual urges from the population. Think of the children.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure that you'll be able to fabricate any statistics that you like indicating that Catholic pedophilia isn't that big of a deal

So you're conceding the point altogether. Thanks, Loinburger. I'm glad that you can finally see the truth.

you don't really care what the priests got up to

I'm always happy to see facts prevail over prejudice.

. But, seeing as how you care about children, and seeing as how women are less likely to abuse children, clearly you'll agree that all priests should be female.

If that's the best argument you've got, then you've lost the argument, Loinburger.

[loinburger]

So, victory by ignorance? It's ridiculously transparent that you don't give a **** about children based on your reaction to the Catholic pedophilia scandal and based on your outright dismissal that all priests should be female in order to limit future abuse. All you care about is restricting the rights of demographics that you find distasteful. I'm frankly surprised that you haven't come up with a reason why African-Americans or Muslims shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or maybe you're waiting to fight that battle until homosexuality is outlawed.

[giblets]

Ben Kenobi has already claimed that Muslims don't have actual marriages so I think he is building a case for denying them equal rights.

[N35t0r]

In this example, there are plenty of parents out there who want to adopt but cannot.

Such as gay parents (also, if there are so many, why don't they adopt?)

The orphanages are responsible for the abuse. I am responsible for the abuse if I put the child in a situation where he is likely to be abused, knowing there are better options out there.

so dead parents, and parents who abuse their kids are responsible, but since you don't like gay couples, **** those kids and let them live in the orphanages.

I found proof of greater partner abuse. Do you agree with me that partner abuse is more likely among gay and lesbian couples? What's your explanation for that?

No I don't. From your numbers, straight men are slightly more likely to abuse their partners than gay men. Your link mentions that abuse of straight men is very likely underreported.

Also, given that we are discussing the adoption of children by (gay or otherwise) married couples, and their (possible) abuse, which is what I specifically asked you for, I DON'T CARE about any other statistic you might want to pull out of your ass.

[rah]

Yeah, sure. You want to change the church into something she's not. The Church would lose more catering to you than they would to me, long run. That's been the case for the UMC, for the PCUSA, for the Episcopalians, etc.

Each of these churches have lost a third of their members.

Are you donating enough to make up for a third of the entire congregation? As well as future donations from their families?

What does that have to do with it. I can disagree with the church and let them know where I disagree. I've had discussions with priests. I have no power to change them.
But back to the original point,
Are you really trying to say that GAYS shouldn't be allowed to get married because they're more likely to need government aid?

[Ben Kenobi]

So, victory by ignorance?

I've stated, "there's nothing to indicate that Catholic priests abuse any more than men of the general population."

Rather than challenge this assertion, you've conceded my point.

you don't give a **** about children based on your reaction to the Catholic pedophilia scandal

It's perfectly clear to me that you prefer prejudice to facts. The facts are clear on this issue. Catholic priests as a collective are no more nor less likely to abuse children than the general population.

So that leaves the questions as to why some priests choose to abuse children. Why the vast majority of the children are boys, why the vast majority of the abuse is concentrated into certain dioceses, and why the primary archdiocese for abuse in America is former Archbishop Weakland's.

All you care about is restricting the rights of demographics that you find distasteful.

What right? There is no right to adopt children. Children are not property, loinburger. I oppose gay adoption for the simple reasons that children do have a right to a father and a mother, not social experimentation like cattle.

why African-Americans or Muslims shouldn'be allowed to adopt

If I wanted this, I would ask you.

until homosexuality is outlawed.

Curious. So telling no to a gay couple to prevent them from accessing children in adoption is equivalent to outlawing homosexuality. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are attempting to recruit children?

[Ben Kenobi]

Muslims don't have actual marriages so I think he is building a case for denying them equal rights.

That raises an interesting question. Should preference for sharia law disqualify a couple from adoption?