Here's my blush-and-giggle post. I've been asked by AAG Blogger to participate in a Sexual Education blog carnival for Scarlateen (a great sex-positive queer-friendly sex education website geared towards teens.)
So, which topic among many did I pick? Did I choose to write about the failure ratings of abstinence-only sex miseducation, or maybe abortion and how accurate information should be given about what an abortion does, how it may feel, and how Post Abortion Syndrome isn't a real, medical condition?
Nope. I picked masturbation! Maybe because I hadn't done it that day, so it was on my mind.
I think masturbation can be beautiful, and I think it can be important. In my ideal universe, sex ed classes would talk about masturbation as one part of an individual's sex life.
If you grew up Christian, chances are, you grew up being taught to stuff your sexual feelings. "Masturbation is wrong" you probably heard. (If you heard it was unnatural, a simple day trip to the monkey habitat of your local zoo should disabuse you of that notion.) But why is masturbation wrong, exactly? Here are the two Christian justifications I heard. Maybe you heard the same ones.
1) Onan. "God struck Onan down for masturbating."- Random Fictional Christian
Funny thing about that - Onan didn't masturbate. He pulled out. I really don't think the two can be compared. One invovles being (presumably) alone and touching yourself to bring sexual gratification. The other involves sleeping with *someone else*. Whatever Onan was "guilty" of, it wasn't hiding in his tent with a stack of Playboys.
The true "crime" of Onan was that he disobeyed God. God told him to knock up his dead brother's widow, and Onan didn't want to. He had sex with her, but pulled out (a primitive form of birth control with a much lower success rate than hormonal and barrier methods.)
2) Lust. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." - Matthew 5:28 (KJV)
Ah lust, the good ole imagination. This isn't a reason to avoid masturbation - it's a reason to avoid Christianity. Thoughts are not actions. I thought about smothering my ex-husband in his sleep while he snored drunkenly beside me. However, seeing as I didn't do it, I'm not guilty of murder. Mudering him in my heart? Meh, maybe. But the thing about fantasies, whether murderous or sexual or filled with material wealth, is that they aren't real. They are constructions of our minds.
Unlike Christine O'Donnell (in every other respect as well), I don't think male masturbation renders women unnecessary in heterosexual relationships. I know there is more to me than my vagina, and I know that not every day is a day I want to have sex. Sometimes I have some of that old chronic pain flaring up, and my joints or spine or knees just aren't up for fornication. Some days the depression and anxiety I suffer from numb my sexual urges down to nill, and I can't imagine wanting to be touched much less penetrated.
A man (or woman) who watches porn for a visual aid to masturbation is not cheating on his or her future or actual partner. Likewise, a man or woman who fantasizes through imagination only is not being unfaithful. Fantasizing about killing someone is not the same as killing them, and fantasizing about sleeping with someone is not the same as sleeping with them. Masturbation and sexual fantasy allow my lover to be sexually gratified, even when I have a headache. Mutual masturbation (masturbating simultaneously with a partner) can be fun, too while still not introducing the risks of vaginal or anal intercourse.
Sex is natural. Sex can be quite fun. Sex with a partner also carries certain risks. Masturbation is safe, fun, and personal. You can masturbate with or without aids, while thinking of the one you love or a stranger in a magazine or just how much you like to be touched. It's also a great way to learn what you like, information which you can then pass on to your partner (whether you have one now or in the future.)
Whether you're just exploring your first sexual feelings, or you're not sexually fulfilled by the one you love, or you're waiting till marriage for intercourse, masturbation is a great way to get the endorphin rush and stress relief benefits of sex. Women achieve orgasm in wildly different ways and different levels of pressure, speed, intensity, etc. in touching a woman's body can produce different levels of sexual fulfillment.
Masturbation can be anything from quickly rubbing one out to release stress (or reduce an erection) to a night with yourself. Light some candles, run a bath, find a juicy book or movie. Touch yourself the way you want to be touched. Don't let the shame of your childhood teachings intrude into your bedroom. Sexual repression never made anyone happy (except perhaps the asexual.)
Love yourself. Then you can teach someone else the way you want to be loved, or you can go the distance alone but well sated.
p.s. I'm fine in the general sense realizing that I probably have fans out there who think of me when masturbating, but I really would prefer you not TELL me about it. Sure I'm sex-positive, but I'm still a prude! :D
Read more!
Today I'll be continuing our multi-part ongoing series responding to Susan and her ebook "Homosexuality:The Untold Story" on CatholicEducation.org. The first three entries can be found here, here, and here, chronologically. We left off the other day with Susan's list of "known causes" for homosexuality. So far we'd dealt with Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity and Distrust of Men/Women. Today we get into full-scale homophobia.
Gender Identity Disorder "Gender identity disorder in children regularly leads to same-sex attraction in adolescence," writes Fitzgibbons. "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders DSM-IV" of the American Psychiatric Association defined "Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children as a strong persistent cross-gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a preference for cross-sex roles in play or in fantasies."
Homosexuality and transsexuality are not synonymous. I had a neighbor (we'll call her "Patty") who was born with male sex organs, identified as a woman, and who was in a long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, who was a cis sexual (not transsexual) woman. Would Fitzgibbons here consider Patty to be gay? Then there are all those lipstick lesbians and macho gay men. They identify strongly with their physical gender, yet are also homosexual.
Another theory is put forth by Linda Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality in her article entitled, "Does Born That Way Mean Designed Way?"
"… In some individuals, prenatal hormones may abnormally masculinize or feminize the developing fetus. … When a pregnant woman is exposed to certain environmental pollutants which are known to have a hormone-like effect on the body, some writers theorize that differences are blurred in her developing fetus. The resulting gender distortions could affect the child's sense of himself or herself."
Okay, now that we've gotten the NARTH perspective (NARTH consisting of less than 1% of both APAs) let's see what somebody else has to say. Oh look, here's the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association HBIGDA) saying GID shouldn't even be classified as a mental health disorder, because the best treatment involves bringing the body in line with the mind, not the other way around. This is different from the body dysmorphia of say, a bulimic. I am periodically under the intense delusion that I am fat. I know rationally and factually that this is not true - I'm a size 4. My mind is what needs to be fixed, because attempts at making my body smaller didn't make me feel better. Whereas a trans gendered person who can dress, identify, and behave as the gender they feel they are do find intense relief from doing so. My body dysmorphia is a mental health condition; the body dysphoria of a transsexual is a bodily mismatch condition. Also? The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism published a paper in 2000 showing that male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (girly brains.)
Narcissism and Profound Selfishness
I told you this was gonna get insulting. Sorry to even have to copy-paste that.
Fitzgibbons describes the narcissistic person as a person who is "preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love. For the homosexual narcissist, the goal is the pursuit of pleasure. A certain segment of the homosexual community expresses narcissism by promoting total and absolute sexual freedom. They advocate anonymous sex and extreme sexual behaviors that may explain the presence of a high degree of promiscuity in this segment of the population."
Ugh. Okay, his description of a narcissist comes straight (heh) out of the DSM-IV. I know, because I was raised by a narcissistic cult leader, and I've probably gone over that list of 9 criteria a few dozen times. However, the DSM-IV doesn't go on to make Fitz's claims about specifically homosexual narcissists. Because Fitz is making this up. A certain segment of the heterosexual community advocates the persuit of pleasure and total sexual freedom. Are you going to say this is accurate of all heterosexuals, Fitz? How about you, Susan? Are you profoundly selfish if you want to enjoy sex, or is that just the queers?
"These are the activists," Fitzgibbons said. "They want unlimited promiscuity. Their goal is to undermine Judeo-Christian morality."
Their goal is to live their lives unmolested by you and your bronze age morality. And why would anyone want to cling to such man-myths and monsters to tell them right from wrong, when we have such superior morals within secular humanism? Hundreds of atheists have composed their own, new and vastly improved ten commandments. The morality of the Bible is sorely lacking.
Dysfunctional Family Life
*Facepalm*
In the book, Same Sex Attraction: A Parent's Guide, edited by Father John Harvey and Gerald V. Bradley, Father Harvey agrees with researchers who see faulty family relationships as the source of same-sex attraction.
And which researchers would these be? Are they credible? Are they respected? Was their methodology sound, or did they start out with an agenda?
Referring to the work of Don Schmierer, Father Harvey writes, "He makes use of case histories to illustrate ways in which adolescent boys and girls can have a confused perception of their gender identity. … The fatherless home or the emotionally unavailable father joined with the dominant mother contributes to the development of same-sex attractions. … Often where divorce has taken place, the mother portrays her ex-husband in very negatives ways, and; consequently the son loses respect for the father. … In merged or foster families, one notices relationships among siblings, cousins, or neighbors that are compulsive and secretive and that can foster same-sex attractions. …"
Wow, with that kind of list it's a wonder more people aren't gay! Also, no one in the grown-up world of sexual psychology thinks this true anymore.
Spouses who verbally abuse one another in front of children may inadvertently force the children to "take sides," and, especially if there is already a distance between a child and a father, a son may begin to see his masculinity in a negative light. Marital infidelity is also a contributing factor, especially if it impacts on an adolescent boy or girl.
Again, there's no evidence. These are wild assertions, and it's a bit like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.
Other causes of SSAD are sexual abuse and pedophilia, separation from a parent during the critical time of development, or the failure of parents to encourage same-sex identification and friendships.
So let's see, children who are at risk of becoming homosexuals (according to Susan at least) are kids who: are confused about their gender identity; have domineering mothers or emotionally unavailable fathers; have foster or step families, or cousins they think are hot; experience cheating in the home, divorce in the home, bitchy moms who whinge on and on about their absentee dads, and verbal abuse between parents; are sexually abused, away from a parent, or lacked friends of their own sex to play with. Again I say, with a list like this it's a miracle anybody is straight.
In a recent interview with ZENIT News, Fitzgibbons said, "The absence of a father in the home leads to sadness, anger, difficulty in trusting and disruptive disorders. The absence of a mother is worse.
One's mother is one's fundamental basis of feeling safe in relationships; denying a child of its mother wounds the child's ability to trust and have faith in the world, which can lead to anxiety and attachment disorders."
Lacking positive role models and loving figures can seriously impact a child's life and development. But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
This is why same-sex marriages and adoption can be so devastating on society, because of their effect on children. Fitzgibbons points out that even in Belgium where same-sex unions are approved, same-sex couples are not permitted to adopt.
"Not all adults have the inherent right to have a child," he said, "but all children have a right to a mother and a father."
Want.To.Scream! In case I haven't shared them already with you fine folks, here are my views on same-sex marriage and adoption.
Tomorrow we'll take a look at the "health risks of the homosexual lifestyle" (and a few other "lifestyles" besides.) Tata for now. Go be *FABULOUS!*
Oh look, there's more Catholic bigotry! (We started it here and continued it here, but there's always more bigotry.) In case anyone would like to say I can't blame the Catholic Church for Susan's writings, I'll concede that this e-book is found on CatholicEducation.org, which is not an official Vatican site. However, Vatican.va is and here's what it has to say about homosexuality.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
and
Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
CatholicEducation.org also features a number of clerical endorsements on their site. So now let's go on with at least a few Catholics' views on homosexuality.
Assuming that there is a gay gene, it would therefore be logical to conclude that the homosexual condition is irreversible. Acting on this premise, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer of Columbia University, a champion of gay activism, pioneered a successful movement to have homosexuality removed from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders in 1973.
Yes, because being gay isn't a mental disorder. Medical science, including psychiatry, adjusts its views over time as evidence is revealed. I expect gender identity disorder (GID) to also be removed from the list of mental disorders at some point in my lifetime. And while the presence of a specific "gay gene" might well indicate that homosexuality is "irreversible" we have not yet been given sufficient reason to think a gay person should want to be straight (other than the fact that Susan would prefer it.) Also, "irreversible" is an odd word, as it suggests homosexuality is somehow "reversed" from its "natural" state, which of course does not apply to genetic traits, which simply are as they are.
Oh, one further point. Notice how Susan calls Spitzer a "gay activist" while leaving out that important word "rights." He was a gay rights activist. Rights - they matter.
Spitzer himself seems to have changed his mind and published a new study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, Oct. 2003, pp 403-417). His new study surveyed 200 respondents (143 male and 57 female). After therapy, 61 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women reported a marked changed toward heterosexual attraction that lasted at least five years.
What exactly is a "marked change?" No matter. When Spitzer first presented this paper at the APA conference in 2001, the APA immediately released a statement noting that Spitzer's paper had not been peer-reviewed and saying, "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."
A brief analysis of the problems with Dr. Spitzer's study can be found here, but the Cliff's Notes version is that the individuals he asked survey questions of were self-selected and referred by conservative Christian groups with an anti-gay agenda (including 46 out of 200 from NARTH); it is unknown if survey participants were homosexual or bisexual; and the majority still report attraction to members of the same sex. In a Washington Post interview in 2005, Spitzer said his findings had been misrepresented by groups such as NARTH.
"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right...What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare."
He noting [sic] that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious. He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
From ReligiousTolerance.org (a great reference site) I found this, from Dr. Jack Drescher of the APA's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues:
As for the scientific merits of his study, I believe it is significantly flawed. One flaw is that the majority of subjects in the study had one 45-minute telephone interview with Dr. Spitzer and no follow-ups. Other than Dr. Spitzer, I can find no reputable researcher who will agree that this is an accurate way to assess whether a person has changed their sexuality. That point was underscored in another study presented at the same symposium. Schroeder and Shidlo's study (in press) found that many individuals who claimed to have changed sexual orientation during a first telephone interview changed their story at a second, follow-up interview
Okay, so now that we know the study Susan is claiming proves her point is bogus (and not even as pro-her-view as she pretends: 86% of men and 63% of women surveyed reported they still felt attraction for members of the same sex.) Back to Susan.
In Spitzer's conclusions, he writes, "The mental health profession should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."
In Spitzer's 2001, highly contested, methodologically unsound, self-selected biased, study he made this conclusion, which 99% of the psychological community disagrees with. Okay - bully for him.
He discounts those who believe therapy to reverse same-sex attraction is actually harmful to the individual. "To the contrary," he writes, "they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself." For this reason, he urged the American Psychiatric Association to stop discouraging reorientation therapy, while encouraging treatments that affirm the gay-identity in people.
Do you realize that Susan is trying to play the "expert" card with Spitzer, while simultaneously playing the "martyr" card because no one agrees with him and the big bad APA thinks we should stop hurting gay people? Specifically, regarding reorientation therapy the APA says, "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." So the fact that Susan was able to find one guy who (kind of) agrees with her is hardly earth-shattering or so valuable it justifies throwing out the conclusions of virtually every other psychologist.
It's important that people understand that the gay gene remains a phantom. It's important to those who believe they have the "gene" and, therefore, cannot change. It's also important to the American public, which is far more likely to give in to demands for change in law and religious teaching if they believe sexual attraction is genetically determined and unchangeable.
Whether or not there is a single "gay gene" does not answer the question of whether or not sexual orientation is genetic. There is not a single "OCD gene" although there are genetic factors associated with it. The fact that I lack an OCD gene does not mean that I either do not have OCD or that my OCD is a "choice" that I should go be cured of through insane theories on gender roles (or anything else.) Susan either lacks understanding of genetics, or is intentionally misrepresenting information on the basis of her biases.
Also, even if gay people choose to be that way, so what? How are you, Susan, harmed by ATAT reader Buffy and her lovely wife being together? What does it matter to you if Ellen and Portia have a loving family? Why does it get your panties in such a twist if Perez Hilton likes men? What do you think is actually wrong with being gay?
Well, before we can get to that, Susan is going to take us through what she believes (or claims) are the "Known Causes" of homosexuality. I'm sure it will be ridiculous.
Known Causes of Same-Sex Attraction part 2 of 6
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a West Conshohocken psychiatrist and principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's book, Homosexuality and Hope, identifies the major causes of same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) in men and women.
Gee, that SSAD sounds like a real honest-to-gosh medical disorder. Is it one? No. The best site I could pull up by Googling that phrase was Landover Baptist. The medical community (including both APAs) does not recognize this "SSAD" as an actual mental health condition. Funny how old Fitz here and Susan were presenting it like it was real (kind of like "cures" for homosexuality!) Oh, and in case you were thinking Fitzgibbons was someone we ought to take at his word, please review my research on him from earlier this week.
Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity In his contribution to the book by Father John Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, Fitzgibbons writes: "Weak masculine identity is easily identified and, in my clinical experience, is the major cause of SSAD in men. Surprisingly, it can be an outgrowth of weak eye-hand coordination which results in an inability to play sports well. This condition is usually accompanied by severe peer rejection."
Wow, so not throwing a ball well makes you queer? How on earth does he handle such cockamamie opinions in the presence of the Gay Softball World Series? Even if it was shown that gay men had poorer hand-eye coordination than the male population as a whole, how on earth does one arrive at the conclusion that the poor hand-eye coordination causes homosexuality? To some degree, gay men have finger-length ratios more like straight women than straight men (yup, gay hands.) Does that mean having gay hands causes you to like men? It may be that both are the cause of something else, or several factors of something else, or that it's only a coincidence and doesn't really mean anything at all. Not all correlations are causations.
In a culture dominated by sports heroes, it's easy to understand how a young boy who can't play ball or run fast may not feel very good about himself — especially when this is accompanied by ridicule from his peers and perhaps even exclusion and isolation. He may escape the resulting loneliness with academics or by cultivating comfortable relationships with girls.
Okay, so now we have an assumption that male homosexuality is actually caused by sucking at sports and who is subsequently lonely. Gay kids don't have friends? Maybe if that's true, it results from their being gay, not from being bad at sports. (Also, what about the millions of straight men who suck at sports? Did they dodge the gay bullet?) Plus, hanging out with girls will make you gay. Uh, huh.
"The sports wound will negatively affect the image of himself, his relationships with peers, his gender identity, and his body image," Fitzgibbons writes. "His negative view of his masculinity and his loneliness can lead him to crave the masculinity of his male peers."
Wait, now if your son is wants to hang out with the guys, it's a sign he's gay? But wait, so was hanging out with girls! And there's no avoiding them, since loneliness has been linked to gayness, too. It's a miracle anybody is a heterosexual if The Gay is so pervasive. Also? Gay men hate themselves. I know it because Fitzgibbons said so and he's a dude that Susan found, so you know. He's "credible" and stuff.
Another major cause for SSAD is when a father is perceived by a child as distant, critical, selfish, angry or alcoholic. This produces yet another crucial conflict in the development of a boy's masculine identity. "As children and adolescents, these men yearned for acceptance, praise and physical affection from their fathers," Fitzgibbons said, "but their needs were never met."
No data to support this proposition is being offered - just Fitz's assertions. And it's a pretty easy target, since a lot of people grow up without a father in the home, or have troubled relationships with their fathers. (Also, he's gotten every type of difficult dad in here, so it's a pretty wide net to cast.)
Another major cause for SSAD is when a father is perceived by a child as distant, critical, selfish, angry or alcoholic. This produces yet another crucial conflict in the development of a boy's masculine identity. "As children and adolescents, these men yearned for acceptance, praise and physical affection from their fathers," Fitzgibbons said, "but their needs were never met."
First, I have to say I hate the idea that the reason fathers should accept, praise and show affection for their sons is so they don't turn out gay. Further, Fitz is continuing in his trend of offering no data, no peer-reviewed studies, no findings - just his claims.
In women, a weak feminine identity leading to SSAD can be caused by mother conflicts, peer rejection or poor body image. Fitzgibbons writes, "This condition is far more rare than weak masculine identity, and this is why, in my view, male homosexuality is much more common than female homosexuality. The female role model, the mother, is much more likely to be more affirming, to be giving, to be nurturing to her daughter than the father to his son."
Oh, this condition he made up isn't as easy to claim in woman. Well, how fascinating. Oh wait, no, it's boring, because it's bullshit. Things which are true are desirable to know.
Distrust of Men/Women Distrust of the opposite sex is the second most common cause of SSAD in men and the most common cause in women. In men, "Feelings of mistrust may develop as a result of a difficult mother relationship or from experiences of betrayal by women," Fitzgibbons writes. "Male children in fatherless homes often feel overly responsible for their mothers. As they enter their adolescence, they may come to view female love as draining or exhausting. They want a relationship that is lighthearted and enjoyable and, by default, turn to male love."
By default, you say? Why, that's what most of us have been arguing all along - that gay men (and women) are predisposed to their sexual orientation, as heterosexuals are predisposed to theirs. It is only "natural" to turn to male love if you are sexually oriented in such a way that you desire men. You know, because homosexuality is natural.
And moms, it's not your "fault" your son is gay, nor is it the "fault" of any dead-beat dad. (Nor is it the "fault" of the person who is gay.) Homosexuality is not "right" or "wrong" - it just is, like heterosexuality just is.
In females, the mistrust of men's love is one of the major conflicts a woman may choose to "resolve" in a homosexual relationship. She may have had a distant, emotionally insensitive or even abusive father and grows up with a fear of being vulnerable to men.
Wow, so lesbian ladies, the only reason you like girls is because you are trying to "resolve" your major conflicts. It couldn't possibly be because you are atracted to women, and maybe even love on in particular. No, no. It's because of your issues. Thus saith Fitz.
Women who have been betrayed in love relationships may also seek safety in a relationship with a woman. Women who are sexually abused or raped as children may find it almost impossible to trust men and turn to a woman instead for affection.
Ah yes. An old man diddled me and that's why I fancy boobs. It would make more sense to say sexual abuse might turn someone away from the sex or sexual organs associated with their abuser, but it does not follow that decreased desire for men would lead to increased desire for women. I don't like boobs because a pervert touched me as a little girl; I like them because they're kind of awesome (and soft and pillowy.)
Loneliness is another major factor in the development of SSAD in females. Many women experience disillusionment in their search for the right man and may turn to women instead.
This is ridiculous (as I'd guessed) and again, there's not a scrap of evidence offered. Just claims and assertions. Maybe the reason all these lesbians couldn't find a satisfying relationship with men was because they're homosexual.
Tomorrow I'll get on to the even more insulting "causes" of homosexuality, as reported by small-town psychiatrist Fitz.
Ah, the Vatican is in the news again - how many children were raped or beaten this time?
The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.
Jeezy Creezy, the Pope will fire someone for getting a male prostituted, but not for raping kids or hiding that rape, or exposing those rapists to more children, or abusing kids on almost every country on the planet? Okay, Mr. Benedict - you've got your priorities out of order.
Personally, I'm for the legalization and taxation of both prostitutes and marijuana (gotta admit, I feel differently about, say crack cocaine/powder cocaine than I do about weed, but that's a different conversation.) You know what I'm not for? The legalization of child rape. And no one would be, right?
Let's see... What's the age of consent in Vatican City, anyway? Big bunch of judgmental virgins, surely they must have a very high age, like thirty or something, right? Right? Wrong. It's 12 (making it the lowest on the globe.) Wow, so okay - sex with 12 year olds is fine by the Vatican's standards, but not with grown men engaging in sex work professionally. Where's the logic in this?
The Guardian story goes on to explain more of the details, including why a wiretap was in place to begin with. The sacked gentleman in question Angelo Belducci, an usher in the Papal household and senior Italian official, is under investigation for allegedly awarding public works contracts "toward favored bidders". It was during this investigation that the hiring of prostitutes was discovered (along with details about the kind of men he desired, how they should look, etc.) One of the men he contracted with was studying for the priesthood. And yet,
While Catholicism does not condemn homosexuality outright, its teaching is that homosexual acts "are intrinsically disordered". The Catechism of the Catholic church states unequivocally: "Under no circumstances can they be approved."
How on earth can the Vatican, Pope, and Catholic church have such rigid standards for homosexuality, yet none for the *RAPE* of children? I cannot undersatnd how anyone still views the Vatican as a source of morality, or how anyone continues to tithe to this horrid institution.
Go worship your god all day if you please; pray to a million saints. But please, stop letting these monsters pretend they have moral authority. Stop funding the legal defense of pedophiles. Stop giving them money which they will use to crush people, inhibit rights, and hire prostitues. (Bet you didn't think *that's* where your tithe money was going, huh?)
I cannot stomach this hypocrisy. Two adults engaging in sexual intercourse is "disordered" but grown men taking advantage of children and raping them - this is merely something which needs more prayer and faith? From Secularism.org
In a statement, the Vatican said the Pope had told the bishops the sexual abuse of children and young people was not only a heinous crime, but also a “grave sin that offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image”.
The Vatican created another storm by announcing that the Pope had also told bishops that the “weakening of faith” was a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors.
What. the. catechism. I have no faith at all - my faith is as weak and atrophied as it can be less than two years out from true belief. *And I am not raping children and I never ever will.* Frankly, I doubt I'd ever hire a prostitute either, although the thought doesn't absolutely disgust and horrify me the way pedophilia does. I don't think "all sin is equal" and I don't think hiring an adult prostitute (whatever their sex, gender, or orientation) is on par with or worse than the rape of children. Clearly, the Vatican does. After all, both the pedophiles and the bishops who shuffled them from parish to parish are still employed, yet the man who hired (adult) male prostitutes has been fired.
URGENT: If you do nothing else today, sign and share this petition on HR 3200: Prayer is Not Medical Care. Protect children and elderly from federally funded medical neglect.
Sign this petition asking Senators to move forward with the House-passed HR 911 bill to end Institutionalized Child Abuse in residential youth facilities, wilderness "experiences", and "boot camps".
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_usJ3-Ld8mC-qXYl-F-P-KQ3krEu6PaMPFT9wCGbvZi_gVj0I8Skg_2jmPsftq39E4SY-TqypBa0JwkzplmqiV-tK0C_A1s4zsYQvO5i7gh_a7TBil7gyswbnu46UPUVEiJoN2WkbSaLGiwVuEzGCzB=s0-d)
