Gay Does Not Equal Pedophile

Posted by Clif, Sadly, No! at 9:42 AM on April 21, 2008.

Sandy Rios, the anti-gay divorcée who was too crazy for, and fired from, Concerned Women for America, is over at Clown Hall today once again demonstrating that she has more hair than brains. Lots more hair.

“We will rid the church of pedophile priests,” said Pope Benedict on his flight to America. That’s good news except for one thing: the root problem among the priests was homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attraction by adults to children, both boys and girls and the priest scandals have been, with few exceptions, man to boy.

Okay, we can either laugh, cry, slam down three martinis, resort to Venn Diagrams, or do all those things. Excuse me while I do the first three. I’ll be back in a moment with the Venn Diagrams.

. . . . . . . .

Okay, back.

Now although the intersection between teh gay and teh pedophiles should be smaller than the one between teh straight and teh pedophiles, this diagram is an otherwise accurate representation. Sandy has somehow gotten it lodged in her “hair brain” that because pedophiles as a class are attracted to boys and girls, then a group that is attracted only to boys can’t be pedophiles. Sadly, as we say here, no.

And things go downhill from their because Sandy somehow thinks that all gay men want to have sex with little boys and she has the evidence to prove it:

Man/Boy “Love” has been a staple in homosexual practice since the time of the ancient Greeks, famous for taking young boys as students and bonding with them sexually.

Gay men, of course, are still completely influenced by ancient Greek culture which is why so many of them prance around in linen tunics, keep slaves and consult the Oracle of Delphi before making important decisions.

Modern gay magazines have regularly advertised for “Chickens,” defined by Bruce Rogers in “Gay-Talk: A Dictionary of Gay Slang” as “any boy under the age of consent … heterosexual … fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality.”

Where is she getting this shit? I mean, I have perused my fair share of “modern gay magazines” — probably hundreds of “modern gay magazines” if you count Gourmet and The New Yorker too — and I haven’t seen them “advertising for chickens,” whatever that means. (Maybe it means “Wanted: chicken to assist in subscription sales department” or perhaps it’s a reference to advertisements for the Backstreet Boys?)

It is a disservice to shift the focus of the Catholic Church disgrace to pedophilia in order to soft pedal the larger danger of homosexual behavior to an ever-increasingly, gay-sympathetic public. Denying the correlation of homosexuality and priest-abusers of young boys further enforces the persuasive myth of activists that it is “just another lifestyle.”

It’s a disservice to whom exactly? Pedophiles? And am I gonna have to drag out some more Venn diagrams? Although every priest who abuses boys is gay, not every gay priest abuses boys And although every abuser is a pedophile, not all abusers are homosexual. It’s estimated that 20 percent of the victims of abuse by priests were females, and the last I checked the Catholic Church hasn’t started ordaining lesbians.

I guess I’ll just have to draw another picture for Sandy:

Which reminds me of another Venn diagram:

Or, to paraphrase John Stuart Mill — “All Republicans aren’t stupid, but all stupid people are Republicans.”

Tagged as: homosexuality, priest sex abuse

Clif blogs at Sadly, No