Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic

This story is sick. What the heck is “daily mail” and how do we know for sure that the social workers feared being branded homophobic? I don’t really trust the source here, sorry. :shrug:

Looks like another way of trying to prove political correctness is so evil and bad :rolleyes:

Of course I could be wrong. :shrug: sick and very sad story regardless.

Many childern are placed in horrible foster care situations, period. It dosesn’t matter gay or straight. There’s sickos out there.

We are possibly outlawing homeschooling in our state, even though I support homeschooling frankly some of the stories I hear about from these homeschooled childern, I have no problem with outlawing it.

I’m going off topic :rolleyes: :blush:

The Daily Mail is the most right wing of the UK’s daily papers well-known for its sometimes outrageous headlines.

Yep, can’t trust it.:wink:

~A Libertarian Named Anthony~

The categories overlap. A homosexual is someone attracted tot e same sex. A pedophile, clinically, is someone ONLY attracted to children before puberty. A homosexual pedophile is someone only attracted to children of the same sex before puberty. But childhood neither psychologically nor biologically ends with puberty. That’s why legally a child molester is someone who uses children sexually before they are 18, if the abuser is over 16 and at least three years senior to the victim. So, a 16-year-old abusing a 13-year-old, or a 20-year-old abusing a 17-year-old, is a child molester. If the victim and perpetrator are the same sex, that is child abuse and it is also homosexual. NAMBLA advocates the elimination of age-of-consent laws so men can do sexual things with boys. Their publication has been displayed in the shop windows of homosexual bookstores etc.

To defend your position you must hold that the Catholic Church is ONLY her doctrines an dogma. I doubt that view would hold with very many. Rather, most I believe, would recognize that these “individuals” from whom you are so eager to distance the Church, ARE indeed part of the Church. Cardinals and bishops and priests all ordained and commissioned by extention from the Chair of Peter, bound on earth as in heaven. These men act in the personhood of the Church. To discard the Church’s sins in order to justify one’s own piety is to ignore the log in our own eye.

That’s what I recall discovering myself some time ago. I only skimmed the article but I did not see any direct quote from one of the social workers that indicated their supposed fear of being branded “homophobic”. Rather that was a supposition of some “investigator”. Also, reading between the lines, I sensed a certain bureaucratic ineptitude in the middle management who didn’t want to rock the boat of these “trophy carers” upon whom they could rely to take in the more difficult cases.

This is a clear exploitation of the fears and baser emotions of a certain segment against people who are different, in this case: homosexuals. Were the couple heterosexual, the article would not have summoned such a pack of wolves drooling over it.

How often is abuse ignored because of heterophobia?

Thank you for you clear-headed delineation of homosexuality and pedophilia. However, your closing statement concerns me…

Upon what authority do you claim what is “displayed in the shop windows of homosexual bookstores etc.”? Nearly every homosexual I know or have known despise NAMBLA. Yet nearly every time homosexuality is brought up in a, let’s call it “conservative forum”, it is equated with pedophilia clearly disregarding the overwhelming statistics that most acts of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual men. And yet this unfounded prejudice continues. I guess the demonizing just wouldn’t be complete unless we can throw in some more, extra heinous sins against them, eh?

My point is that if the Church itself is responsible for the abuses, and not just the guilty parties, than that puts the entire Church into doubt. It undermines its credibility.

There’s an old saying: The Church isn’t a hotel for saints, but rather a hospital for sinners.

While I appreciate your frankness, was it not a similar attitude that prevented the Church from accepting the discoveries of Gallileo? I can grant you the *threat *to credibility (but just the threat, not actually losing credibility), but my faith does not allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit would ever truly let the Church loose relevance to God’s children. We must find a way for the Church to accept full responsibility AND to maintain her fidelity to Our Lord and His people.

Wait, stop right there.

That’s like me saying Christianity involves cannibalism if Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian. Completely bogus. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same at all, the key being that homosexuality involves consenting adults.

I was thinking the same thing reading this.

Ok, so I guess it is a bastion of right wing conservativism, sorry, my bad. :smiley:

In Christ,

Ellen

Except that I have been to Christian bookstores, churches of many denominations as well as Catholic and Orthodox, read a wide variety of Christian magazines and newspapers, watched Chritian TV and listened to Christian radio pretty broadly and never heard any debate over cannibalism nor an ad for Dahmer. The Christian community is UNANIMOUS in condemning cannibalism and thrill-killing. That unanimity and lack of debate is the big difference.
I know the majority of homosexuals abhor child abuse. But I used to be pretty involved in the gay-lesbian-bisexual community on the West Coast and until recently I still read the gay papers now and then. I can tell you I have seen with my own eyes and had to argue with people in person about their assertions that children are “sexual” and thus not morally off-limits to adults, that it’s natural and OK to initiate sex with them. I’ve lost friends over this issue. I know they were a minority within the LGBTQ community but they were and as far as I know still are a tolerated one.
As for an earlier question about how I know the bookstore windows have featured NAMBLA covers, well, I have eyes. I know when I’m walking past a bookstore and see the featured items for sale in the window. the windows are there so people on the street can see what the shopkeepers wish to advertise for sale.
Homosexual means attracted to the same sex. This can apply regardless of age. As I explained, the clinical definition of pedophilia doesn’t describe all child molesters. Actually, most child molesters seem to be experimenters, rather than having a specific preference, but my memory tells me, so are plenty of people exploring other “alternaive” ways of being sexual. I never saw or heard as many people try to justify “being” with kids in their early teens or younger anywhere else as I did in the gay community, even though the majority always disagreed. They didn’t disagree loudly enough IMHO.

On the contrary, the Daily Telegraph is a bastion of right wing conservatism, the Daily Mail is, well, the Daily Mail.

And here we see the two of the problems of anecdotal evidence: a very limited (and likely skewed) sample and a skewed analysis of the observer due to social entanglements. MY anecdotal evidence/experience must have been almost solely amongst that “majority” spoken of above. However, as I recall, there was one kid who may have mouthed word that could’ve been interpreted as support for NAMBLA, but he was 16 or 17 and liked older men. (He was actually, as you could imagine, a sad case with a few other “problems” in his life as well.)

Hm, couldn’t that argument used to defend the Church against the sins of “individuals” be used here to defend homosexuality against the sins of those rare individuals who support NAMBLA?

“Unanimous”? Perhaps if we only allow strngrnrth to define who and who is not a member of “the Christian community”. Sadly, there are self-identified “Christians” who might well support “thrill-killing” in certain conditions. I’m thinking specifically of groups like the KKK, Army of God, and the “Christian Patriot” movement. Well, perhaps, not proponents of thrill-killing, per se, the point is they commit (or at least promote) horrendous sins in the name of their idea of “Christianity”. If asked, they would identify themselves as “Christian” so the claim of “unanimous” condemnation is a biased sampling. (Though I do agree with your point in general.)

Now I’m confused :confused: (well, more confused, I’m always somewhat confused :hypno: ).

In Christ,

Ellen

Abuse is abuse, true; however, we can’t simply ignore the homosexual aspect of this crime, especially in light of things such as the passage below (quoted from the article):

“Yesterday’s report said that the fostering panel which approved Faunch and Wathey accepted without hesitation their request to look after only boys on the basis that they didn’t feel equipped to look after girls.”

That should have rang every alarm bell in a fifteen-mile radius, but apparently it was blithely ignored. And now we have the consequenses.

Again, that would only be true if one were to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Please, oh please, can we ever get past this ridiculous prejudice?! It so permeates your mindset that your logic becomes skewed.
Look, these are two men. The agency knew that. As a man myself (and the father of daughters) I find it quite understandable that a male-only household would feel ill-equipped to deal with the various female puberty issues. The preference for “boys only” could have been easily ascribed to that. Only one with a penchant for the perverse (or that automatically equated homosexuality with pedophilia) would think otherwise.

Can you honestly say that if it were a woman who adopted a little boy to have sex with you would shed light on the heterosexual aspect of that crime?

Stop reading the Daily Mail online.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.