Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Moron Mail

I'm beginning to resent these gay activists because they force me to blog about religion, albeit tangentially. Lately, as noted in a post below that I'm too busy to link, they've turned their ire on the Pope's (hardly) new no-gay-priests policy.

And once again we find something of a parallax (look it up): those who are able to read, comprehend and understand the reality of the situation versus those whose perspective is obscured by their own biases (gay = good; Catholic = bad), and inability to engage in rational though or formulate any kind of coherent argument, forcing them into the last refuge of the imbecile - name calling:

No link to pedophilia

A Nov. 29 letter writer argues that the Vatican's goal in banning gay priests is "to provide the Catholic Church with priests of strong moral fiber who are unlikely to prey on those in their care."

It is hateful rhetoric like this that continues to support the lie that gay people are pedophiles. Gay men are no more prone to preying on children than straight men. In fact, it has been well documented that the majority of pedophiles are straight men.

JEFF FUZZYBUTT, MINNEAPOLIS.

Not one to let the facts get in the way, like most of these drooling morons who poop out such assininity, note how Mr. Fuzzybutt sets up his brickbat with the phrase "banning gay priests". This is a distortion. They are banning actively gay priests. Just like they ban actively heterosexual priests. Again if I were a liberal, I'd be shouting:

LIAR!

but that's name-calling also; so I'd be no better than Mr. Fuzzybutt. As you can tell, I am better than Mr. Fuzzybutt once we get into the second paragraph:

"It is hateful rhetoric like this..."

Hateful? This is hateful:

"to provide the Catholic Church with priests of strong moral fiber who are unlikely to prey on those in their care."

That's not hateful. This would be hateful:

"to provide the Catholic Church with non-butt-pirating priests of strong moral fiber and not homos who are likely to prey on those in their care in their effeminate, limp-wristed ways."

That's hateful. Anybody disagree? But nobody said that (including me. I use those slurs for illustrative purposes only. I don't think in such vile terms). And is "homo" a worse slur than labeling someone with whom you disagree a "hate-monger"? Seems to me they would inflict substantial, if disimilar damage to their intended targets.

He follows up with the lefty conceit:

"support the lie"

and supports it with this blistering logic:

"Gay men are no more prone to preying on children than straight men."

Well, he's probably right.

But out of all the people mentioned on the news that were molested by priests over the past few decades, how many of them were girls? Hmmmm, Mr. Fuzzybutt? And are you really trying to tell me it's merely a "pedophile" problem, and not a "gay pedophile" problem?

Get back to me on that one.

No comments: