Classic

[pocaracas]

Actually, I would rather a homosexual than a religious heterosexual to look after my kids. Thanks anyway rondee

I'd rather have a female looking after them!
Regardless of sexual orientation, what's she going to do? make them fuck her?! LOL

[Kayenneh]

I'd rather have a female looking after them!
Regardless of sexual orientation, what's she going to do? make them fuck her?! LOL

Uh, actually, my friend did just that (fucked his babysitter, that is). After his mother found out, she decided he didn't need babysitters anymore

[KichigaiNeko]

I actually had a young "closeted" homosexual" babysitter. Lovely guy. He and his Partner have just bought a House.

[littleendian]

I'd rather have a female looking after them!
Regardless of sexual orientation, what's she going to do? make them fuck her?! LOL

Actually from what I hear sexual abuse carried out by women is an overlooked problem... of course it works in a very different way.

[Rahul]

Are you saying Homosexuality is a crime?

If you are refering to Homosxualities sin status then know it is a sin like anyother sexual sin, and requires the same repentance as any and all heterosexual sin. So what is the big deal?

Nothing is wrong with being a homosexual.

Being a prison guard and having sex with an inmate is a crime. That's why this guy is in the news. He got arrested.

Cheating on your wife is a moral crime. Whether it is with a woman or another man.

Living your life as a heterosexual when you are secretly homosexual is a crime you commit against yourself.

Being the religious leader of an organization that denounces homosexuals while engaging in homosexual behavior in secret is another moral crime.

I don't believe in sin. That's a theist concept. So when talking about theists I tend to use their concepts and words especially when they fail in those regards so spectacularly.

[John V]

Oh, Nice! Let's break it down!

Total Catholic Priests:

370,425

As of May 9, 2013, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has counted 6,275 clerics "not implausibly" and "credibly" accused in 1950-2012 of sexually abusing minors. The USCCB total omits allegations made in 2003.

So 6,275 is 1.69 percent of catholic priests that are credibly accused of sexually abusing minors.

No, 6,275 is the number of priests credibly or not implausibly accused.

EDIT: Oh, wait. That's 6,275 of Catholic priests in "America". Oops. Let me recalculate.

American Catholic Priests 46,447.

*Shudders*

...13.5%?

13.5% KNOWN?

*BARFS!*

Uh, Sherlock, your numerator represents 1950 - 2012 and your denominator is the current number only. Your conclusion is meaningless. Not to mention that you've given no data on the general public for comparison. Oops, I mentioned it!

In 1996 a Penn State professor (non-Catholic) published a book in which he found no evidence of higher frequency of child sexual abusers among priests than among the general public.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/the-myt...ile-priest

BTW I'm not Catholic, and if you can support your premise, it might be worthy of discussion.

On another site I used to frequent, the most vocal anti-Catholic atheist said that according to his studies, there was no greater frequency of child sexual abuse among clergy than in the general population. The cover-up was his complaint, and I agreed with him.

[Rahul]

If you are refering to Homosxualities sin status then know it is a sin like anyother sexual sin, and requires the same repentance as any and all heterosexual sin. So what is the big deal?

Oh yeah. Another thing.

No, being a homosexual, according to your bibull, is not a sin like any other sin.

The bible specifically says that a man that lays with another man is to be put to death.

You believe in that book. Read it sometime.

[littleendian]

The bible specifically says that a man that lays with another man is to be put to death.

No, you're not up to date, they changed that pearl of eternal wisdom lately into "hate the sin, love the sinner". It's all a big misunderstanding!

[Rahul]

Uh, Sherlock, your numerator represents 1950 - 2012 and your denominator is the current number only. Your conclusion is meaningless. Not to mention that you've given no data on the general public for comparison. Oops, I mentioned it!

Oops! I'm just copying and pasting the data, Watson.

Do I have to teach you how to use a search engine on the internet?

Number of Priests:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_ca...al-priests

Accused Priests:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtA...riests.htm

So what if the accused was from 1950 to whenever? Do priests only stay priests for 10 years or so? I thought this was a lifetime gig?

If you were born in 1930, became a priest at 20, and you're still alive you'd still be in your early 80's. Want me to drop the number slightly?

Who cares? Factor in the number that were never accused but were guilty, factor in the ones that died and the new ones that came in, still going to be around 15% easily.

Here we go. 109,694 priests in the US from 1950-2002. So 5.7 percent KNOWN. Double and you have 11.4%.

[John V]

So what if the accused was from 1950 to whenever? Do priests only stay priests for 10 years or so? I thought this was a lifetime gig?

Seriously? I thought it was an oversight which you'd understand when pointed out. Didn't think you'd defend it.

So this - if you use the current number of priests, which is static, but use allegations over a period of time, you can get any percentage you like. The further back you go, the higher the percentage.

If you were born in 1930, became a priest at 20, and you're still alive you'd still be in your early 80's.

If you were born in 1900 and accused of an offense in 1950, you'd be included in the numerator, but not in the denominator.

Who cares?

People interested in accuracy.

As previously noted, a professor of history and religious studies at a secular university found no evidence of increased frequency. Do you really think your cocktail-napkin approach is more valid?