Years ago, when The Philadelphia Inquirer first began to rail against priests molesting young men and boys, Inquirer articles would persistently call the priests "pedophiles." One would always see the word "pedophiles" 10 or 20 times in any given article -- but never, ever the word "homosexuals."
Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.
I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"
I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.
"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."
The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.
The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.
Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.
Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.
The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"
Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?
There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.
One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."
The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.
The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.
Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.
Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.
Stop the lying.