Illinois Family Institute: ‘The Male Homosexual Community Has a Serious Problem with Pedophilia’

A lot of Christians say that they love gay people even if they disagree with their “lifestyle” and that it’s unfair to accuse them of “hating” gay people.

Well, read this article and you’ll see why those accusations are made.

Laurie Higgins probably finds this picture disgusting. I find it adorable. (via Amy Beth Photography)

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute begins her piece by sharing stories of gay couples who did awful things to their children involving child pornography, sexual abuse, and prostitution… just awful, awful things. Of course those parents are to be condemned and put behind bars.

And then she makes the Hateful Leap:

I’m going to make the wildly politically incorrect statement that the male homosexual community has a serious problem with pedophilia…

… the hell?!

That’s not politically incorrect — that’s incorrect, period. And untrue. And unfair. And the sort of thing Higgins would never let people get away with if they said Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp, and Eric Robert Rudolph were all Christians who killed abortion doctors, so the Christian community at large must have a serious problem with murder.

You don’t take a few horrible people and use them as representative of an entire community, especially when the issue at hand was something far different than homosexuality.

You know that logical fallacy people make when they say Stalin was an atheist and therefore atheism is somehow a bad thing? That’s what Higgins is doing here.

She keeps digging in, too:

The Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal was primarily homosexual in nature. In other words, all of the predators were male and the vast majority of their victims were male.

Right… I’m sure power, proximity, and the Church’s rules on celibacy had nothing to do with it whatsoever. It’s just a gay thing.

Then, Higgins backtracks a bit:

Sexual crimes against children are certainly not limited to the homosexual community. And I’m not arguing that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I am arguing, rather, that the homosexual community is not immune to the infection of pedophilia

And neither is the Christian community. Or the Republican community. Or the Democrat community. Or pretty much all groups of people in general. Unfortunately, pedophilia happens in a lot of places — to pretend like it’s rampant in the gay community moreso than anywhere makes no sense at all.

Higgins tries to back up that claim, but offers no citation for it:

Though male homosexuals constitute between 3-4 percent of the population, multiple reports suggest they commit a statistically higher rate of sexual abuse than do heterosexuals.

That’s one of those myths that’s been debunked so many times that Higgins must have willfully ignored all the evidence to the contrary in order to say that with a straight face. (Or type it without an “LOL,” I guess.)

Finally, Higgins explains why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have children:

For multiple reasons children should not be placed in the homes of homosexuals. First, homosexual acts are inherently immoral. Second, there is evidence that many homosexuals find nothing problematic about sex between adult males and minors of diverse ages. Third, homosexual couples are more unstable than heterosexual couples. Fourth, for many male homosexual couples, fidelity does not include sexual monogamy. And finally, children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father

1) No they’re not.

2) No there isn’t.

3) No they’re not. Higgins’ link points to an article by Mark Regnerus, whose research on same-sex parents has no credibility whatsoever. In fact, the divorce rates for gay couples are lower (PDF) than the divorce rates for straight couples.

4) This is a red herring. Many gay couples are monogamous. Some have open relationships and are honest about it with their partners. But to suggest that strict monogamy is the only proper setting for a children without any consideration of what the other options entail is ridiculous. (Obviously, heterosexual couples work the same way, but that would complicate Higgins’ argument so she ignores it.)

5) Children should be brought up in an environment where they have people to care for them. A mother and father? Great. A single parent? Great. Adoptive parents? Great. Two men? Great. Two women? Great.

Most of this is common sense to anyone who’s not a bigot.

Higgins is just looking for reasons to discredit gay parents. But since that evidence isn’t there, she’s just settling for already-debunked right-wing talking points.

(Thanks to Ben for the link)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Miss_Beara

    Oh hello Laurie! I see you are obsessing about what two dudes do in the bedroom again. And you continue to use the tired “homosexuality=pedophilia” reasoning. That is cute. Oh, and you say it is “for the children” but without more people being able to adopt, more children will be abandoned. Is that what you want? Are you adopting many children? No, of course not. Oh you and your faulty logic. Adorable.

    • Mike De Fleuriot

      You see if less people adopt, the government would be forced to step in and this will create a cheap pliable workforce, similar to the private prison system running in the US now.

  • moother

    Somebody is lying for Jesus again…, and again…, and again…

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      I was going to post a Jesus one but I can prove this cat is real.

      • Georgina

        Nope, that’s Schrödinger’s (escaped) cat – not necessarily real – but much more alive the Jesus.

        • Katarn

          Seems quite real, we just don’t know if its dead or alive until it pokes its head out of Schrodinger’s ceiling.

  • C Peterson

    I can’t get upset at this in the least. Your included cartoon with the vomit replacing the words is spot on. We are hearing the patently absurd spewing of an organization that has already lost its battles. Every new position they take is more extreme, more marginalizing, and speaks to an ever diminishing audience.

    IFI (and similar organizations) have to obey the Law of Conservation of Froth: there’s only so much to go around, and it is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer people. The more toxic it comes, the more it repels people.

    We can help speed the death of organizations like this by continuing to publicize their craziness.

    • jferris

      Facts, logic, reason, education, publicizing insanity….a total waste of time. They will take the standard position: Oh, it’s the liberal or MSM fault, you cannot prove I’m wrong, look at the important people I get my facts from, or, more likely than not, the real answer: I hate people different than me who do not live a lifestyle I agree with. Education and patience will win the day. Education to open minds, patience to see these pathetic, hateful people die off like the generation who hated blacks, or women, or Irish, or (fill in the blank) Death is the great equalizer.

      • C Peterson

        Facts, logic, reason, education, publicizing insanity….a total waste of time.

        I couldn’t disagree more. Demonstrating the craziness of the increasingly shrill viewpoints of the extreme social conservatives has played a large role in marginalizing them, and in reducing their influence.

        It isn’t a matter of changing their minds. Somebody like Laurie Higgins is probably beyond saving- she’s pretty clearly mentally ill. A sociopath. But there is a large audience being actively driven away from her ideas (even the more moderate ones, to the degree there are any) by what she says.

        • Ben

          Well said. I found this article on Dr. Michael Brown’s Facebook page, and it incensed me so much that I had to share it.

          Much thanks to Hemant for posting this.

          The kind of rhetoric used by Laurie Higgins only further alienates potential supporters when they actually read (and carefully think about) what she is writing. The ones who are not alienated are simply the ones who refuse to change their minds, and they are lost causes.

          • Michael W Busch

            The ones who are not alienated are simply the ones who refuse to change their minds, and they are lost causes.

            No, they aren’t “lost causes” – and you may consider every person who once believed nonsense like Higgins’ and no longer does as evidence. People can and do change their minds and abandon wrong beliefs. It takes time and repeated exposure to the evidence that those beliefs are wrong, but does happen.

            • Evelyn

              It is true. Many people do change their minds. I have changed on several issues including immigration. I was very much against giving line cutters any special considerations while classmates and family trying to immigrate legally get the runaround and sent back. However because of the racist nature of the anti-immigration folks I decided I’d rather support the position of an illegal immigrant than a racist douchebag.

            • Ben

              What you shared is very encouraging to me, actually. I confess that my original post was admittedly cynical.

              Thanks for taking the time to point this out. It’s good to be reminded that even the most arrogant and seemingly hardened in their beliefs of people do actually change.

        • wombat

          You cannot diagnose mental illness over the internet. And even if you could, dismissing her as unsaveable because she is mentally ill is wrong – the mentally ill are not terminally stupid, they’re treatably unwell.

          • C Peterson

            I’m perfectly comfortable considering the possibility, or even likelihood of mental illness when somebody displays aberrant behavior. The suggestion that such speculation is somehow inappropriate strikes me as absurd.

            The reason I think she is probably beyond saving is that if she is genuinely sick, it’s doubtful that she’ll ever seek treatment. Certainly, nothing anybody says in public forums is going to change her.

            • wombat

              You didn’t consider the possibility, or the likelihood, of her being mentally ill. You declared that she is. And that makes me wildly uncomfortable, because you have no way of knowing.
              Why is it that someone who says something aberrant, they must be mentally ill? There’s a good chance they’re stupid, or deluded, or mislead, or many other things. Defaulting to ‘must be mentally ill’ insinuates that only those crazies say crazy things, that it can’t be normal people. It’s a ‘them and us’ setup.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Well said.

                Just because someone is amazingly, incredibly wrong doesn’t make them crazy. It just makes them amazingly, incredibly wrong.

              • C Peterson

                No, I said it’s likely she is mentally ill. I believe that to be the case. Many people who are passed off as “stupid, or deluded, or mislead” actually have mental illnesses.

                • Michael W Busch

                  Wrong. Most people who are dangerously wrong are not mentally ill, and most people who have mental illness are not stupid, nor are they any more misled or deluded than the general population.

            • Michael W Busch

              The suggestion that such speculation is somehow inappropriate strikes me as absurd.

              It contributes to the false stigmatization of mental illness, and is irrelevant to her saying outrageous and harmfully wrong things.

              You are continuing to wrongly equate “being mentally ill” with “being dangerously wrong”. That is ableism, and it is wrong. Don’t do that.

              This is not particularly complicated.

              • C Peterson

                No, it is your peculiar views that seem to stigmatize mental illness. I simply recognize its existence.

                There is no such thing as ableism. But there is such a thing as mental illness, and it is frequently characterized by aberrant, antisocial behavior like that of Higgins. Indeed, I believe that religiosity in general is a mental illness, simply not yet recognized clinically.

                • Michael W Busch

                  No, it is your peculiar views that seem to stigmatize mental illness.

                  It is not stigmatizing mental illness to say “you have no grounds to say that she is mentally ill, if she is or not has no bearing here, and it is wrong to link being wrong with being mentally ill”.

                  I simply recognize its existence.

                  No. You see someone saying something that is wrong and you immediately think and say “xe is mentally ill”. That is not recognizing the existence of mental illness. It is wrongly equating mental illness and wrong belief.

                  There is no such thing as ableism

                  You are lying. Ableism is defined as discrimination against people on the basis of actual or perceived disability. And that is what you are doing when you wrongly equate “mentally ill” with “dangerously wrong”. Don’t do that.

                  No, mental illness is not “frequently characterized” by behavior like Higgins’ . You are lumping together and stereotyping a huge range of conditions and wrongly treating one small fraction as representative of the whole. Don’t do that either.

                  And no, religiosity in general is not a mental illness. It is simply wrong belief. And if you were to redefine “mental illness” as “holding wrong beliefs”, which you don’t get to do, everyone would be mentally ill.

        • Michael W Busch

          What wombat said.

          Cut out the ableism

        • Thundal Archsys

          Probably not sociopathic… to upset to be a sociopath (check out gremlin’s writings if you’re interested on a brilliant take on sociopathy). Psychopathy, delusion, or others fit a lot better.

          Sociopathy is usually a lot better for people…

          • Michael W Busch

            Do not attempt remote diagnosis with no data. It is not helpful.

            • Thundal Archsys

              I didn’t try diagnosis, I refuted one by making comparisons. Is basic English comprehension too much to ask?

          • C Peterson

            Psychopathy, delusion, or others fit a lot better.

            Perhaps. Also, pathological hate and anger issues. The woman clearly would benefit from some professional mental health care.

      • Machintelligence

        Death is the great equalizer.

        Time wounds all heels.

  • flyb

    According to her piece, she apparently enjoys looking at gay twink porn. I’d love to see her browser history.

    “If you have a spare minute and a strong stomach, wander around a “gay” website. You will see photo upon photo of youthful, hairless boys who appear to be teens.”

    • Jasper

      That’s not entirely different from heterosexual porn, either.

      • flyb

        Indeed. And I’m willing to bet she “wanders” around those sites as well. Only when she has a spare minute, of course.

    • baal

      And none of it is Photoshopped. Nope. None.

    • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

      Subpoena Laurie Higgins’s hard drive!

  • Ogre Magi

    Why would you expect any better from a christian

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      We do get better from a lot of Christians.

    • TCC

      The better question is why we would expect any better from Laurie Higgins, and I don’t think anyone does.

  • martinrc
    • sara

      I always want this graphic (with or without batman) to also include childless couples. You don’t have to have children to be each other’s family.

      • Will Chain

        I’m with you on this, but I think childless couples prefer the term childfree.

        • Conuly

          Only if they are childless by choice. Those who desperately want children but have trouble conceiving and/or adopting genially don’t consider themselves free of anything.

        • Ricky Ryan

          shut up.

      • Evelyn

        I agree, no children is still a family. A couple with pets is a family and we may as well add a 3 way family, step family, grandparent family etc. Important relationships come in all shapes and sizes.

  • jferris

    Never let facts get in the way of pandering to your audience.

  • John Gills

    There’s an old wisecrack that applies here, “When the facts conflict with the theory, the facts must be discarded.”

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    It’s an oldie but I had to break it out..

  • ZenoFerox

    The Catholic Church is organized to foster incidents of man-on-boy pedophilia. It’s a structural defect that puts unmarried men in contact with boys over whom they have all but absolute power — the asymmetrical relationship of priests with altar boys. If altar girls were as common as altar boys, the pedophilia profile would undoubtedly be significantly different. Sexually frustrated men take advantage of the outlets they have access to. One might as well ask why prisoners engage in man-on-man sex if they aren’t fundamentally homosexual.

  • Carpinions

    I think a post like that deserves a few “politically incorrect” insults thrown in her direction. Conservatives always use their hate of political correctness as a get-out-of-jail-free pass for their ignorance and bigotry. They think that simply challenging PC means whatever they say next is the honest, undeniable, inescapable, hard-to-face reality everyone is kidding themselves away from.

    She libels the male homosexual community while trying to claim that the Catholic Church abuses were primarily homosexual in nature. Well, that’s what happens in a patriarchal religious hierarchy where men lead boys all the damn time. How often do male priests really come into 1-on-1 contact with little girls? I was raised Roman Catholic, went to roman Catholics schools 12 of 13 years, and served in the cathedral of my local diocese with bishops and priests of many stripes. I personally was in no way abused by any of them over that time frame, but to say that priests had easy, willing access to boys at most times is so obvious it needn’t be said. What else is a horny priest going to do finding themselves incapable of keeping their personal covenant with their god? Boys are the only prey available. Of course it was homosexual in effect. Add in the Catholic retreats when boys reach certain ages (girls have them too, but they’re not lead by priests, or at least the ones I knew weren’t), Catholic boys organizations…it literally is even in this day a brotherhood focused on some level of masculinity. If anything positive can be said for the Protestant reformation, it’s that they have been much more open to girls and women serving masses than the Catholic Church. And I know this even deeper because there are women in my extended family perfectly happy with the Catholic male reality. Higgins’ charge blames a maligned subgroup for the choices made by an organization that subgroup has no control over, and who receives unceasing bigotry from that organization in turn. She might as well blame male homosexuals for exhaling air that might turn someone else homosexual. And that doesn’t even get to the point of how the Catholic pedophile scandal came about in the first place, which was an internal effort to keep secular justice from interfering and doing its job at all costs, and protecting violent criminals for very potentially hundreds of years, a crime so incalculable that one’s imagination can truly test its limits attempting to conceive of it.

    Then she switches into concern troll mode trying to clarify what she means, and then basically continues the same line of libelous charges. “Oh I’m not saying they all do it, they’re just more prone to do it, so…they suck.” “Multiple reports suggest”? Where are these reports and who researched them? Higgins is a model of absolutely unethical behavior: if her point is so truthful and meaningful for the public good, why is she so lazy that she can’t bother to let us in on that supposedly vitally important information with a couple links?

    “First, homosexual acts are inherently immoral.”

    Again, no links, no explanation, no follow-up.

    “Second, there is evidence that many homosexuals find nothing problematic about sex between adult males and minors of diverse ages.”

    No links, no explanation, no follow-up.

    “Third, homosexual couples are more unstable than heterosexual couples.”

    One link provided to a sympathetic think tank (read: propaganda house), whose article itself references only 1 hard study, whose results seem to mesh pretty closely with heterosexual nonmonogamy. So we’re getting things third hand here through a biased filter.

    “Fourth, for many male homosexual couples,fidelity does not include sexual monogamy.”

    This is not a fourth point, it is the essence of her third.

    “And finally, children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father…”

    Gee, I wonder where she falls on the abortion question? Where is this right? How come children have certain complex rights granted at birth, and not the adults who are already alive that either choose or not choose to have them? And if a child has an inherent right to have a male father and a female mother, it seems to me then that putting kids up for adoption should be considered illegal.

    Higgins is incoherent, illogical, backed by nothing, and as always, a guiding light for hypocriticism as a human endeavor.

  • DesertSun59

    Anyone who believes that religious people are authorities on matters of sex needs to have their head examined. It is quite clear that they have PROBLEMS with sex and are not in any position to discuss it in public like responsible adults. Their ‘holy’ book discusses how to rape virgins, how to prevent people from masturbating and how to have more concubines than the population of small towns. The Catholic Church is overrun with closeted gay men who pretend we don’t know about it. The Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly abuse girls. Mormons are still trying to marry little girls. Multiple ones. Etc. They are not healthy-minded people. They are the SOURCE of the problems that plague modern society. Indeed, religious people are the sole source of anti-gay rhetoric in the US today. The SOLE source.

    All discussions that originate from religious people that are about 1) abortion 2) teens having sex 3) gays or 4) women’s gyne health care are like having a three year old launch a space shuttle: It just AIN’T DONE. They are not educated about these issues. An uneducated person is not in any position to discuss the matter at all.

    Until they regard sex as an adult matter instead of as a purely Bronze Age reaction against our secular society, their comments about it are IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

    • Frog_in_a_Blender

      Right. They’re definitely not authorities but they certainly are authoritarian. I can’t figure out why people who have so much bad information in their heads are always trying to get others to believe their bullshit.

  • Goatless

    ‘children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father’

    Then shouldn’t you be focusing on the far more widespread ‘problem’ of single parents?

    Regarding the paedophilia. Paedophiles are either offenders who have a specific type of child they are attracted to or ones who are simply in a situation with a child of either gender where they can get away with sexual abuse.

    I’m sure one thing that wasn’t included in those statistics was, if the offender was a repeat one whether the victims involved were all of the same gender (which might indicate a preference depending on the environment) or different ones (which is just opportunity).

  • WallofSleep

    “Though male homosexuals constitute between 3-4 percent of the population, multiple reports suggest…”

    That’s the FOX ‘News’ “get out of jail free” card, most often used as cover for biased propaganda. They also use “many experts say”, and so on, without ever citing or identifying said experts or reports.

    • indorri

      Correct. My own foray into switching from ” they just have their opinion” to ” they’re outright lying bigots” was actually looking at these studies and finding a) the authors never actually said those things and b) the ” experts” were their coreligionists who cited the studies so out of context they could draw any conclusion and where the authors actually had to contact them and tell them to stop using their studies because they were twisting them so badly.

  • Oranje

    I’m sure, being in a non-monogamous heterosexual relationship, that I’d be almost as evil to her. I feel sorry for her. She seems miserable.

  • Philo Vaihinger

    NAMBLA means nothing to you, then?

    • The Other Weirdo

      North American Marlon Brando Look-alike Association? What have they got to do with this?

    • tasteless chap

      Ah, I see. Because NAMBLA represents all gay men, right? We all support that organization, so therefore it is perfectly acceptable to link us all with them, right? I guess that’s fair. So then I feel perfectly justified linking all white men with Chris Simcox, Steve Parsons, Daryl Lemasters, Michael R. Jackson, etc. All convicted of molesting little girls. So, white men should all be held to extra scrutiny because these white men were convicted of sexual activities with minor girls.

      Yeah, let’s all go with that!

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Aryan brotherhood. And I’m not arguing that all white people are racists. I am arguing, rather, that the white community is not immune to the infection of racism…

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Proving that you don’t know enough about a topic to realize how little you know about it doesn’t lend you credibility, Chucklebuns.

  • Mairianna

    I can cite a few cases of pedophilia among priests so……..I’m going to make the wildly politically incorrect statement that the religious community (or any other group that would fit this huge illogical leap) has a serious problem with pedophilia.

    • Michael W Busch

      That analogy doesn’t work here.

      Many religious communities do have a serious problem with sexual abuse of children. That’s due to authoritarian social structures that protect offenders, blame victims, and enable continued abuse.

    • Sven2547

      The Catholic Church’s pedophilia problem is NOT that some priests are doing that. The Catholic Church’s pedophilia problem is that higher-ups within the organization itself are working to cover up the abuses and limit victim compensation, instead of cooperating with the investigations. Your willful attempt to deflect from this fact is shameful, but not unexpected.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        I’ve yet to meet a practicing Catholic who will admit that. Yes, these things can happen in any organization. It’s what happened once they knew that makes reveals the corruption of the organization. they could have stopped most of it by removing the priests who had raped children from contact with children. They chose not to. They enabled rapists to continue to rape. There is no truly moral ethical system that would tolerate that. What does that say about the RCC church, it’s leadership and those who continue to support it?

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    “And finally, children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father…”

    *Gasps* I actually did not realize this was an inherent right. Gosh, since I’m a widow raising four kids on my own, clearly the government needs to step in and take them away from me and give them to a heterosexual couple. It’s their right! And if one of their adoptive parents happens to die, or if this hypothetical heterosexual couple gets divorced, why, the government can take the kids away from THEM and hand them on to another home. And so forth and so on. Sounds like a stable way to run things, doesn’t it?

    Seriously. Why do kids have an “inherent right to be raised by a mother and father” when we’re talking about gay couples, but no one carries this to its logical (if crazy) conclusion by insisting we take kids away from divorced parents or widowed parents? If kids NEED a mother and father that badly, then the government needs to step in, damn it! Someone take my kids away from me– their rights are being violated!

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      I find it odd that these morons are too stupid to realize that in the process of sliming the gays, they are also sliming millions of families that are getting along pretty well without being “traditional”. We have way too many children abused and neglected. We have children whoa re orphaned or whose parents just can’t take care of them. And then all the cast-offs…children whose parents just can’t be bothered. Those are the children we should be concerned about.

      Why are so many Americans obsessed with a family model that just isn’t available for millions of children?

      • bodhi

        Well said! We should be concerned about the children who are actually in need, not the ones who will have two loving same-sex parents who obviously chose them (as opposed to some accidental pregnancy).

    • LizBert

      Clearly you need to give your children up for adoption right now, Jesus demands it. Think of what you are depriving them of, you selfish woman.

  • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

    Hate organizations like this really rile me up. You might as well join the Klan. At least they are honest about their hate, they don’t cover it up with a bunch of fake love and values talk.

  • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Rev. Ouabache

    This is the kind of thing that got her on the SPLC’s hate group list in the first place.

    • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

      Yay! There aren’t any active groups in Washington! I’m glad I live where I do. We’re generally pretty tolerant up here.

    • Carpinions

      A ignominious distinction I can safely bet she wears as a badge of honor.

  • magna

    I created an account just to ask this: how can we paint Christians as IFI crazies but then get mad when Christians paint gays as pedophiles?

    • indorri

      Well a) there are two, albeit overlapping, sectors that pulling “tu quoque” in this context doesn’t make sense; not all atheist are gay nor all gays atheists, and b) some of us don’t paint all Christians as as IFI crazies.

      • magna

        Is it ok that I am disheartened when atheists paint all Christians as IFI crazies? I might not be adversarial enough for this blog…..

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

          I don’t think I or most of the commenters are putting all Christians in the IFI-crazy-camp. But it would be nice if more Christians called out these sorts of hate groups and supported legal marriage equality even if they didn’t want it in their churches.

    • onamission5

      Translation:
      How can anyone rationally, factually critique anything ever, if they aren’t willing to have baseless, senseless accusations made against them?

  • busterggi

    Elwood: Illinois Nazis.

    Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.
    Just as correct as in 1980.

  • esurience

    “The Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal was primarily homosexual in nature. In other words, all of the predators were male and the vast majority of their victims were male.”

    If an adult male sexually molests a boy that doesn’t make him “gay” or “homosexual”, this is some really sick equivocation going on here.

    Some people have a real difficult time understanding this, let’s drop the labels “gay” and “homosexual” for a moment and just consider certain “traits”, if you will.

    Trait G: Someone with this trait is an adult male that is sexually attracted to other adult males.

    Trait P: Someone with this trait is an adult male that is sexually attracted to boys.

    Now, if we know someone has “Trait P”, is there any reason at all to assume they also have “Trait G”? Nope. The trick that bigots pull here is they call them both “homosexual” — even though these are behaviors that have absolutely nothing to do with one another and it’s reprehensible to equate them on any terms.

    There’s no reason to assume Trait P and Trait G have anything at all to do with one another, and in fact studies have shown that someone with Trait P is more likely to have “Trait S” (an adult male sexually attracted to adult females), than Trait G. And that many people with Trait P simply lack having Trait G or Trait S.

  • Phil

    Another literary masterpiece overflowing with logic – FROM THE SEA HAG!

  • SeekerLancer

    Exactly how many pedophile priests were active members of the gay community that the article was aimed at? Yeah that’s what I thought.

    “I’m not arguing that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I am arguing, rather, that the homosexual community is not immune to the infection of pedophilia…”

    Oh man! It’s almost like ANYONE could be a pedophile regardless of politics, religion or orientation!

  • arensb

    First, homosexual acts are inherently immoral.

    As I recall, we’re all born with original sin, which means that we all deserve — deserve! — to burn in Hell forever unless Jesus decides to take pity on us and save us. So that means that mere human existence is inherently immoral.

    Given that, I don’t see what your choice of sex partners/positions/acts can change. What’s Jesus gonna do? Burn you for twice as long? 2 × ∞ = ∞, sucka!

  • jimmyt

    Seems like an odd statement from Christians.

    didn’t they just canonize a new patron saint of child molestation? (Jp2)

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    I know a LOT of gay men. If I had any suspicion that even one of them was harming children in any way, I’d turn him in. I did know someone long ago (not friends but we went to the same school) who is in prison for molesting a child. He deserves to be there. I’d like to note that he did not identify as gay and so far as I know still does not.

  • pagansister

    Male heterosexuals NEVER molest children, huh? What a bunch of BS from the “Christian” community. But then one must consider the source of that “revelation” and then can totally disregard it.

  • Mark Moore

    Christian “Love” would freeze whiskey.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Remind me again why we can’t sue this piece of trash for slander?

  • Robster

    Desperate folks say desperate things. The godbots are losing every battle, their god is either not really on their side, not real, a total fabrication or lacks power even to influence a court. The god thing’s not worth a thought.

  • Thundal Archsys

    I’m in a poly relationship (Live with my romantically-involved GF and our sexually-involved roomie), and This person is probably one of the most offensive gits out there..

    Further, studies are looking more at poly-raising being hugely beneficial for the kid, due to diversity thereof. considering how many people would be ok in poly relationships on a personal level, I really have to wonder what this nutter’s high on.

  • Conuly

    So if their argument is that gay men like to diddle little boys, what is the issue with the couple on the cover? Don’t they have daughters?

  • allein

    The Boys Scouts of America sex abuse scandal revealed in 2012 was entirely homosexual in nature

    Really? In the BOY Scounts? Color me shocked.

  • Larry Meredith

    inherent right to be raised by a mother and a father? So did she just endorse taking children away from single parents? “Oh hey, sorry your husband died in that horrible car accident. Fortunately, your children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and a father, so obviously we have to take them away from you. If you get another man maybe we might return them to you.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X