Homosexuality not learned or unlearned, it simply is

Jan 22, 2014


Following Sandusky news from 2,000 miles away has its benefits. I can keep up with local news, turn off the computer when I’ve had my fill of snowstorms, and be grateful I relocated to Arizona.

One storm I have not been able to turn off, however, at least in my mind, is the one surrounding the resignation/firing of St. Mary Central Catholic High School band and choir director Brian Panetta.

I have read the stories and opinions regarding the legality, morality and outrage surrounding the issue. But, in sifting through the bluster of emotion and opinion, I realized something important was missing throughout this discussion: The impact on students, especially an often overlooked group of young people who hide their homosexuality or who silently struggle to make sense of their sexual orientation.

An ongoing debate in any community is whether or not homosexuality is a choice. If one asks gays or lesbians when they “became gay” most will explain they knew from an early age they felt different from others even before they understood why. That “feeling” was not a choice; it was as much a part of them in childhood as it is now. Only when they learned the terminology and heard about what is “normal” and “not normal” did they discover they failed to fit into the described norm, heterosexuality.

I understand the issue is not necessarily that Mr. Panetta is gay. The issue is that by announcing his plans to marry and, thus, become physically intimate with another man, he violated the terms of his employment agreement. This violation led to his resignation/firing, and it’s obvious the community feels the impact.

This is when I noticed that missing from this discussion was the potential impact this situation has had on those silently struggling students. As I thought about them, my attention drifted back to my own experiences.

In school, gay classmates were harassed and shunned. I saw their pain and tried to ignore the fact that I could relate so well to them. I feared someone might see what I was trying to suppress even from myself, and I hid behind schoolwork and tennis.

It wasn’t necessarily because I enjoyed those activities; they kept me safe. The more desperately I tried to change the “different” feeling I had known since childhood, the more I grew to detest myself. I fell into a long-lasting depression almost hoping that my selfhatred would destroy me.

My high school guidance counselor accepted me unconditionally, however, and that connection saved my life. She was not gay, but I saw kindness and traits that inspired me to keep going. Without her presence, I might have given up.

Life experience has taught me that homosexuality is not banished by fervent prayer. It is not something that can be turned on or off. It is not learned or unlearned. It simply is.

Reaching that understanding takes time and support.

I do not know Mr. Panetta but, from what I understand, he did an outstanding job and inspired excellence. He used his God-given talent to help students tap into their own gifts. And, yes, he violated his employment agreement in the interest of being true to himself. Whether or not you agree with how he chooses to live his life, it is his life.

When this story fades, SMCC will still have its employment policies and Mr. Panetta will have moved on. However, the young people silently struggling with their sexual orientation and their fears of the consequences of not fitting the norm will remain.

This is the most salient facet of the SMCC/ Panetta storm. I noticed that concern for them was absent from the inches of opinion published these last few weeks. Not because I was looking for it, but because I sensed the void.

I believe we must do what we can to reach these young people, support them, accept them, and help them to reach their potential as they walk their personal path. Each one is important and each one belongs to us. The storms of life will come and go, and all of us deserve to feel accepted both internally and among others.

Tiffany Gray, M.S., ACSM-CPT, is an adjunct faculty member in the Exercise Science department at Mesa Community College, Mesa, Arizona, where she teaches introductory courses in wellness. She also›owns and operates Gray Wellness Consulting LLC, and serves as the exercise specialist for the Family Wellness Program at St. Vincent de Paul, Phoenix. Gray formerly worked for The Sandusky Register as a news clerk



Anybody who has ever watched anybody "come out of the closet" knows that sexuality is NOT a "choice." If it were, especially in the past, nobody would choose it and the agonies that often accompany it.

I watched a long term partner refused access to his partner's FUNERAL by the man's parents (who, by the way, had refused to speak with their own son for years prior). I watched a man who loved his family dearly lose all contact with them because, as his mother explained, "it hurts too much" to talk to a son she knew would be "going to hell." I watched a relative who all but worshipped his father almost destroyed when his entire family, daddy included, disowned him.

In most cases, we've come further than that. But Ms. Gray makes a valid point here where SMCC is concerned: The school is merely enforcing the terms of a contract where Mr. Panetta is concerned, but it's ALSO effectively "disowning" some of its impressionable students because they're all "going to hell." Nice.



Licorice Schtick

For Sandusky, the timing couldn't be better. Thousands of pages of secret church documents released Tuesday provide a gut-wrenching look at how the Archdiocese of Chicago for years failed to protect children from abusive priests.


Good thing we don't have that problem in Sandusky. We even protect our students from gay band directors.


but the thing is, there is no hell, except here on earth.


I agree completely, Sam. It's sad that lack of knowledge and understanding drives the actions of so many people.

From the Grave

I can never remember a time when I didn't want to dig someone's grave.


Re: "And, yes, he violated his employment agreement,"

The salient point to the story, the rest is tangential.


Are you trying to make a point or just letting us know that you learned how to use the online dictionary? We're all very proud of you!


Re: "Are you (snip)"

Are you asking a question or just spewing juvenile pejoratives?


Are YOU trying to make a point or are you just being condescending?




Contango, my response was directed at PirateBacker. I was defending your comment.




I like to think that the whole point of these types of articles on homosexuality are to provoke us to look at ourselves and realize that there is still bigotry and hate for those that are different from ourselves in this world . What we do with that knowledge from that point is up to us , for better or not . The thing is , in time all things change and there will be those that will fight that change , "to their end anyway" . I wonder , if there is a Heaven and those who have entered it and shed their physical being will be limited to whom they love (In the truest sense) according to the meat that surrounded their souls ?


Bluto hit the nail on the head. Kudos for your viewpoint :)


Just because I do not agree with someone's lifestyle does not mean that I hate or fear them just as the fact that I love someone does not mean I embrace their choices and agree with their lifestyle.

John Harville

And, yes, he violated his employment agreement IN THE INTEREST OF BEING TRUE TO HIMSELF.

You just like to pick and choose, don't you?

The salient point is that now others - gay, shy, talented - will even more greatly fear being true to themselves.


I agree with Ms. Gray, and as a matter of fact I did bring up the poor kids, watching this unfold. The day after the story broke, this was my comment.

SAT, 01/11/2014 - 5:56PM

No one has mentioned the silent victim in this mess...the poor little boys that are just coming of age, and have feelings for the same sex. They may have looked up to, or been able to relate to Mr. Panetta. Now they are watching what happens if you admit your feelings, or come out. You get fired from a job you love and are good at. As if their lives were not confusing enough already.




Yes, but if the termination had remained a private matter where it belonged and not been placed into the public eye by a newspaper hungry for ad revenues and an activist group bent on stomping all over others' rights to privacy and religion for publicity would the children have been subjected to this public circus?

In other words, if Mr. Panetta truly cared about the students and the school would he have not kept this matter private and worked quietly to help students? It was his choice to go public with a private employment matter.


If we adopted Babo's twisted reasoning, minorities should have done nothing to call attention to the injustices they endured in the 50's and 60's. They should have just kept quiet, and let the discrimination continue.

This is workplace discrimination and certainly newsworthy, which is why the story received coverage across the country, not just in our area. It's newsworthy, because it's school-sanctioned and church-sanctioned discrimination. Sounds like news to me...


Spoken like a true Catholic, BABO, This behavior is exactly why the Catholics are in trouble now! All the skeletons are finally falling out of Catholic closets!

6,000 pages worth of lies and cover ups in Chicago's Archdiocese!

Blame the messenger, it's all the greedy Registers fault, for telling the SMCC's dirty laundry!

Blame the victim, it's Brian's fault he got fired, if he would have kept quiet it wouldn't hurt the kids.

"If Mr. Panetta truly cared about the students" I am sickened by you saying that! Do you know why? It's exactly what a pedophile says after he is done molesting a child! "if you really care about your family, you won't tell anyone! This a private matter between you and I "

The Catholic's obviously have not learned their lesson have they? Keeping dirty secrets about pedophile priests, don't let the parish know, just pass him along to another church. Don't talk about it, don't tell people about it, blame the little boys for telling "lies" about their priest.

Babo, ten years ago, you spoke out about something you felt needed to go public. You talked to the press, you had a blog, you sent emails, you did everything you could to be heard!

Now you are are bad mouthing and blaming Brian Panetta for doing the same exact thing you did!!! You don't have to agree with what Brian or DCFRED have to say, but how can you criticize them for doing exactly what you did?!

How many times did you "use" the Register to get your word out? Why was that ok for you, but not ok for Brian? Your negative comments about the Register are obviously sour grapes from all the negative press you got. I think you should feel grateful to the Register for giving you this FREE platform to come and spew your hatred!

I, for one enjoyed the last six years of silence.




Nobody is disputing that terrible crimes happened in the Roman Catholic Church but one cannot analogize the termination of an employee for cause under their contract by a private institution with sex crimes against children. IMO that's irrational and indicative of anti-social behavior.

Mr. Panetta is not a victim of the Roman Catholic Church. He is an adult who made his own decisions and has to deal with the consequence of those decisions. How dare you compare the suffering of victims of sexual abuse and crimes of violence by cleric, law enforcement and other men of power to the loss of a job for violating a contract.

As stated in other comments, I support the right of Mr. Panetta and his supporters to use whatever legal means possible to tell their story. I also support the right of people who disagree to use whatever legal means possible to express their viewpoint.

I don't know where you got the notion that I'm criticizing Mr. Panetta and his supporters for expressing their political and religious viewpoints. They have that right.

I just wish they would have had more sensitivity for the children and not used them to advance their political and personal agenda. The children's rights and their parents' rights to privacy and religion IMO have been stomped upon by supporters of Mr. Panetta. In fact IMO it borders on emotional abuse.

Finally, you may be confused with someone "else". Though it is interesting that you are grateful the government imprisoned a woman for expressing a political viewpoint concerning government corruption and or exposing sexual abuse crimes by the politically connected. That activity was largely selfless, it benefitted the community while the activity by Mr. Panetta and supporters is IMO selfish (own financial interests and trying to force personal beliefs on others).

Your writing reveals a man with deep seated hatred of women and mastery of emotional abuse. No wonder you don't care about anyone else's rights but your own and those who benefit you.


No, Elsebeth, I'm not confused. How can I take seriously anyone who has been adjudicated to be mentally unfit?

The Order of the State Board of Pharmacy, finds Elsebeth Csizmadia-Baumgartner to be impaired mentally to such a degree as to render her unfit to practice pharmacy, to wit: the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: "we share the concern that respondent, who is apparently also a licensed pharmacist and has no history of professional disciplinary sanctions, may suffer from some mental illness or other disability that is compromising her professional judgment and contributing to the misconduct . . ." Disciplinary Counsel v. Baumgartner (2003), 100 Ohio St. 3d - 41.

You were not imprisoned for "expressing a viewpoint", you
were sentenced in January 2007 for intimidation and retaliation counts when she made threatening Internet postings and e-mails. Threatening a judge is not selfless, it's a felony.

Babo, (aka Elsebeth) is the ONLY person in the state of Ohio that would call Elsebeth Baumgartner SELFLESS, that's a dead give away!

FYI , spending time in prison, does not make you Mandela.

Does your probation even allow you to be back on the internet, pretending to be a lawyer?


Again, you are confused and making illogical statements. Check my language, it stated "largely selfless".

Also for the sake of argument: Did the judges and pharmacy board base their rulings on a doctor's report. Do you believe just anybody can diagnose a person as mentally ill? I read the decisions, I can't find a citation to a medical report.

Since you know so much about her case, I am curious what were the actual threats against a judge that were made by Elsebeth Baumgartner? I can't find them as they don't seem to have been published.

Also if she was "mentally ill" a common smear on women of a certain age and others who report abuse or who challenge power why would anybody take her "threats" seriously?


Babo, I follow your comments but that doesn't mean that I always agree with you. I will try to find out who you are and will either send you an email or postal mail. It might take a couple of weeks so be patient. Don't worry as all will be confidential between you and I. Don't post your email address. I once did that on another newspaper online site and got all kinds of SPAM and emails from porn sites. If I do not contact within 30 days, it is because I was too busy with other things. Meanwhile, keep on posting comments here. Two things never to debate about are RELIGION and POLITICS. That is just asking for online fights, trolls and flamers.

What happened to that troll and flamer "4shizzle" that used to follow me around here?


DickTracey, I do follow your comments and saw your earlier comment (Wed, 01/22/2014 - 5:52pm). You provided a lot of clues so I and others wanted to know who Babo (like the Comet cleanser?)is. We have ruled out that Elsebeth Baumgartner was using that name. A couple of years ago, somebody mentioned that Frugal Spender was EB and was using a computer from prison. That was not true. Just wanted you and the readers to know.

DT, I believe that is was you who posted comments that EB was released last year from prison. I understand that EB is prohibited from posting comments on any newspaper forum. I am very busy at the moment and might post some links to OHIO court documents about EB's release from prison, that is, if the public can view the documents via the links. Stay tuned.

By the way DT. I and others have researched Elsebeth's problems with OHIO's corrupt, good old boys courts. What a joke to throw into prison an OHIO political activist.

At one time, I was able to send private messages to the people who post comments here and they could also send me messages.

I would post my email address here but I get enough SPAM and garbage. Any way that you can contact me, DickTracey?


Cent, I'm going to pass on the offer to contact you. And I'm going to use your own reasoning.

You do not want to hang around gay guys because your friends might think you are gay.

I don't want to hang around crazy people because I don't want people to think I'm crazy.

Elsebeth (Babo) has been adjudicated to be mentally unfit, and you are her number one fan, so that doesn't say much about you.

Your late night, paranoid rants last night about the FBI, CIA, death threats and arrests, make you sound like you two are two peas in a pod!


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal information.


Well, I guess you told HIM!


"Elsebeth Baumgartner SELFLESS, that's a dead give away!"

After extensive research about the Baumgartner OHIO court cases and OHIO newspaper research, I an others can state:


Why would a successful OHIO attorney risk it all to help victims of corrupt OHIO's courts? Perhaps to silence other OHIO attorneys or face punishment from OHIO's powers that be?


You're apparently still confused, unless you're okay with forming opinions based on untruths as opposed to any facts.

As has been repeatedly stated by ALL parties, Mr. Panetta didn't go public with ANYthing. He met privately with his boss, described his current circumstances, and offered his resignation effective at the end of the school year. At that time, it seems to me he demonstrated a good deal of honesty AND class! It was the subsequent firing (quickly revised into an immediate "resignation") that caused all of the trouble.

Where, pray tell, have you got the idea that Mr. Panetta demanded ANYthing? I grant you that some who have posted here have roundly criticized the Catholic Church in general, its beliefs in specific, and the administration of St. Mary's. I'm on record myself as being in opposition to the coercion of the school OR the church to change a tenet of faith by means of threatening lawsuits, protests, namecalling, or anything else.

Had the school done the RIGHT thing (not to mention perfectly legal and still within the bounds of its own contract), it would have accepted Mr. Panetta's springtime resignation.

I don't believe that the school is using the students any more than Mr. Panetta is, but it's the school's own actions that brought this into the public eye with such a splash and which has forced parents to explain, excuse, defend, or condemn the actions of the parties involved.

Yes, this is a mess. But it's not of Mr. Panetta's doing. And there's one other salient truth here: It's not getting any LESS messy when people spew untruths, EVEN under the proviso it's "IMO."


I agree that it would have been the gracious thing to do for the School to wait until Spring to accept his resignation. However, Mr. Panetta could have waited until Spring to announce his engagement and not placed the Church in a difficult spot. He knew once he announced his engagement that he breached his contract.

I find the timing interesting in that the Diocese is presently without a Bishop and the Interim Administrator is restricted in what he can do. In other words the Diocese was vulnerable without a leader who can change policy.

My beef is with activists who exploited the opportunity and threw the school and in some ways Mr. Panetta under the bus. I am also offended at the Catholic bashing and personal attacks on anybody who even reasonably disagrees with the dominant viewpoint. One would hope that prejudice/hatred against Catholics would end in 1960 when this country elected a Catholic president. The Catholic church has plenty of issues, but the vast majority of its priests and members are good people who wish to worship their God according to the tenets of their church.


What activists? The parishioners and alumni who are rightfully outraged over the event? We are not activists we are sickened by the arrogance and hypocrisy of some in the church and specifically SM, and found it a very good time to confront the issue. The people "bashing" the Catholic church have every right to question the church because they are the Catholic church.


"One would hope that prejudice/hatred against Catholics would end in 1960 when this country elected a Catholic president."

Interesting comment. JFK, the Irish Catholic.

"Anti-Catholic prejudice was still very much in the mainstream of American life when JFK decided to seek the presidency in 1960."

John Harville

my understanding remains that he didn't go public... discussing it with his supervisor in a closed, PRIVATE conversation is not PUBLIC.

Giving him the letter during a basketball game (did that really happen) WAS public and designed to humiliate.

John Harville

AS I listened to the interview, I picked up that parents/others were present and THEY brought the issue to the SR.

The Diocese said it was a local matter - then sent unnamed representative(s)to explain it to Brian.

There was no way this was not going public - simply because of the totally unprofessional manner in which it was handled by the woman hired to handle the PR and other aspects of the school.

If they - and you - believed it would remain private, that merely demonstrates the unprofessional naïve attitudes involved

John Harville

jWhile I saw that, I also repeatedly have raised the issue of students - male and female - right down to kindergartners who only know the teacher is gone.
But my statement always were in terms of whether Ms. Curtis and any others had considered these ramifications - for which I was accused of bashing her.
All I really wanted to know - then and now - is who thought about the 200 SMCC students and all the others? And who is caring about them now?


Good article, Ms. Gray. Thank you for sharing your story.


Dick- I remember that entry. Also, a couple people in the Facebook band alumni group mentioned the issue. Here is an interesting article, "Thoughts from a gay teacher in a Catholic school", and it touches on the same theme as this opinion piece:



Whether it is biological or a choice the citizens of the US are covered under the Constitution. As for personal opinions the people are entitled to that as well. One is a opinion the other is a right. I would say the right beats a opinion any day of the week.

John Harville

Opinions, Donegan, bring abuse of rights before the public in the hope that enlightenment will inspire action.
Sometimes it's a long faith journey. Consider my patron St. John the Dwarf. Every day for three years he carried water 12 miles one way to water a dead stick given by his Bishop. After three years it sprouted and grew to bear fruit. His bishop encouraged his followers to eat "the fruit of loyalty".
Some of us are such loyal Catholics we are willing to persevere to bring The Light to The Church.

Coram Deo

Another view:


God in His grace has a plan.


Yes, Coram, according to that view, even unconsensual sex between males is a sin, punishable by death.

So that means all 32 little boys that Jerry Sandusky raped should be burned at the stake!

And what about all the little boys that the priests had their way with? Did they ask for it? Are they sinners, do they need to beg for forgiveness or put to death?

If you want to honor your God, do you really think the best way, is to create a fake screen name and creep on stories about gay people, just to tell them what sinners they are?

How righteous.

Coram Deo

Clearly you did not read the entire thesis.


A wise professor once said in my class "If you believe homosexuality is a learned behavior, and a homosexual can be 'changed' to a heterosexual through therapy, then by reverse how many sessions would it take to turn a heterosexual into a homosexual?". Food for thought.


SMF1-- indeed food for thought!


LOL, did you ever take any kind of class in logic? Your prof started with a faulty premise that homosexuality is normal when it is abnormal.

A basic characteristic of life from a single cell organism to complex animals and plants is reproduction. Without reproduction there is no life. Ergo, homosexuality is counter to life and therefore abnormal. So of course you can't change the normal behavior to abnormal behavior, it is normal for life to fight to survive.

However, you can go the other way. Is it normal behavior to starve oneself due to a negative body image? Of course not, it is abnormal behavior because it is destructive to the body/life. But can the abnormal behavior be modified or avoided because it is destructive to life?


According to your "logic", every person who practices birth control is abnormal. My day is completely thrown off...according to the poster below, my husband may be gay and for sure we're both abnormal. Oy.


Well we're all a little off/imperfect. That said, it is not abnormal from a biological perspective to engage in heterosexual activity.

In fact from a biological/life perspective it may make sense for a female to engage in sex but avoid pregnancy due to financial concerns, children too close together etc and to please her husband in order to preserve and strengthen the family unit so that off spring have optimal success at attaining adulthood.

One of the reasons the country is in such a mess in my opinion is that the nation has a policy of encouraging those least capable of parenthood and least likely to raise a child to successful adulthood to have children while making it difficult for those best suited to be parents to have children.


Homosexuality is not "normal" in that it is not "usual." That being said, homosexuality is NOT "unnatural." How do we know that? It occurs in nature, in animals whose brains are well outside the ability to intellectualize any kind of a "choice."

As for your biological perspectives, well, they're not. The ONLY "normal" biological imperative is reproduction. Financial concerns, pleasing a husband (monogomy itself, in fact), even the spacing of children is far more modern and more social in nature than biological.

I won't argue your last point seeing as how you've hit the nail on the head with it, but again, that's less a matter of evolution than it is COUNTER-evolution!


Babo, it matters not if homosexuality is "normal". These are people, and like all people, they deserve equal rights and equal treatment under our Constitution.


I agree with you. Homosexuals deserve equal rights and equal treatment under the Constitution. In fact if his rights were violated, I'd probably be his biggest supporter.

However, under that Constitution, people are free to enter into contracts. He breached (broke his contract)and his employer took action to terminate the contract because of the breach. Thus no violation of anybody's rights.

Also, everyone seems to have forgotten that Mr. Panetta told his employer he intended to commit an illegal act in the State of Ohio, i.e. enter into homosexual marriage.

I happen to believe pot should be legal and maybe Mr. Panetta thinks so too; but it is illegal in this State. If Mr. Panetta admitted smoking pot, would the church have the right to terminate his contract under the morals clause? Yes.

Further, there are legal acts that still violate employment contracts. For example Pilots can't drink alcohol within a certain number of hours before a flight. It's a condition of employment for pilots. Similarly, it is a condition of employment for teachers in a Catholic School to uphold the values and tenets of the Catholic Church. He didn't, so his contract was terminated.


Babo, I'll tell you what's not normal, asking a man to marry a brick and mortar church!!

Normal men like sex. (probably with the exception of your husband) Normal men like to have sex a lot. Normal men think of sex 19 times a day. If normal men can't have sex they masturbate, why? Because they are normal!!!

When the Catholics put out their job descriptions asking for men willing to never have sex again in their lives, that's when they opened up the playground for perverts. no normal man would take a job like that.

John Harville

BABO... then according to your thesis CELIBACY is counter to life and therefore ABNORMAL. Can abnormal behavior be modified because it is destructive to life? Your question.

We agree!!!!

Well, except that homosexuality is about love.

John Harville

And yet some in the universe of which you speak is that two beings are not always necessary for reproduction.

By your position, then, celibacy is abnormal.

John Harville


thinkagain's picture

No research has found biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Casual factors that can lead to homosexuality:
A homosexual experience in the early years.
A dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother.
An absent, distant, or rejecting father.
Seduction by peers or authority figures.
Pro-homosexual indoctrination.
The lack of a religious home environment.

The primary cause for homosexuality is man's sinful nature. Like all sin, homosexuality is a choice made from free will.

Homosexuality is something someone does—not something someone is.

mimi's word

I always enjoy your hateful attitude...I am so glad you know all about being gay...


I put this in the "Go away, gay" thread. But I think is an appropriate comment in this one, too:

Leviticus is often quoted as the place in the bible where homosexuality is an abomination, a sin. But he also goes on to say "And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."--King James version. Pardon my indiscretion, but if we applied Leviticus literally across the board how many people would be left in Sandusky?


You would have a point if you could point to ANYONE here who has advocated killing people for homosexual activities.

thinkagain's picture


thinkagain's picture

mimi's word
Mon, 01/27/2014 - 4:38pm
“I just do not find the need to be nasty to you because your opinion differs from mine.”

Lying hypocrite!


So is it just ONE of these factors? or a combination of these factors? or a couple of them? There would be ALOT of kids from single parent families that would turn out GAY! How many children from a single parent home with a DOMINATE mother, an ABSENT father, that do NOT go to church, OMG ...this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen! Heck by this my own husband could be labeled "gay".

John Harville

TWO PARENTS in a 50-year marriage bear/rear eight children.. Male, Male, Male, Female, Male, Female, Male, Female. The Oldest male and youngest male - 16 years apart with five siblings separating them - are gay. The oldest is out of the home before the youngest is old enough to be influenced. The father DEFINITELY is the dominant parent.
How does that fit the 'causal' factors in his example?
Sorry, posted in the wrong place.


Thinkagain: Your list of "reasons someone is gay" reads like an old textbook from the 1970's, and is basically a template for MISunderstanding and Ignorance (with a capital I)

Let's give you a test: How old were you when you decided to become heterosexual? What's that? You say that you didn't decide, you just always 'knew'? Guess what? It's the same for gays.

I know probably a dozen gay people, and to my knowledge, all realized early in childhood that they were gay. So your last statement is 180 degrees wrong: Homosexuality is NOT an act - it's not something that someone "does". It is something that someone IS.

Finally, homosexuality is not a sin. Bearing false witness against your fellow man, as you are doing, IS a sin. In fact, it made the list of 10 commandments, if I'm not mistaken. What's worse for you, is that your sin is one of choice.

You should probably change your screen name. We're all waiting for you to think 'for the first time'...

John Harville

Wow. Self-portrait? 'Casual factors'? I think you meant 'Causal Factors' cuz that's how the American Psychiatric Association titled this list before 1973 when they removed homosexuality as a disease or mental illness.
Again? Is this self-analysis?

Oh one more thing. Do these 'factors' apply also to lesbians?

John Harville

TWO PARENTS in a 50-year marriage bear/rear eight children.. Male, Male, Male, Female, Male, Female, Male, Female. The Oldest male and youngest male - 16 years apart with five siblings separating them - are gay. The oldest is out of the home before the youngest is old enough to be influenced. The father DEFINITELY is the dominant parent.
How does that fit the 'causal' factors in his example?


Re: "Let's give you a test: How old were you when you decided to become heterosexual? What's that? You say that you didn't decide, you just always 'knew'? Guess what? It's the same for gays."

Unfortunately, if you use that example you run into the problem that pedophiles make the same claim, they were born that way. It is rather hard not to be bigoted towards pedophiles... many felt the same about gays 60 years ago, and pedophiles, back then weren't even mentioned.

I don't like pedophiles and have no problem with gays, but I think the example of "they were born that way" opens too many doors of possibility. I don't think anyone wants to use that as an example if they consider all the things it opens them up to. It is not that simple.


You make a valid point. The salient difference, though, is that a pedophile takes advantage of a child, someone who is too emotionally immature to make a remotely consensual choice to participate.

There are those who also enjoy pain. But the vast majority don't torture and kill others for their pleasure. They engage instead in tamer and mutually consensual pursuits. If pedophiles could control their urges sufficiently to ask their wives, girlfriends, or boyfriends to dress up like schoolkids, none of us would bat an eye if we found out. After all, many counselors recommend a little role playing and fantasy to spice up a relationship! But what NO one recommends, and NONE of us condone, is harming others whether that harm be physical, emotional, or both. And with kids, that harm is quite literally unavoidable.


Yes Sam. That is why I made my point that it is NOT that simple as saying that is how they were born. Near as what I can tell most people treating/studying pedophiles think they are born that way, or it is learned behavior form them being molested at a young age. What the percentage of each, and how they came up with that I would have to study on and I don't wish to study such a thing. I will leave that to someone much more "enlightened" than I.

Your point about taking advantage of a young person is good... except the age of consent has come down over the last 50-60 years. What will it be in another 60 years? Again not something I wish to contemplate on much. Not something I wish to study, I can see what the trends are though, and don't like what I see.


The age of consent has not come down over the past 50 years. Years ago, teenagers could get married. Now they cannot without a parent's consent, and not even then in some states unless they are 18 or older.

John Harville

The age of consent in Ohio - according to the ORC - is 16 the "Romeo and Juliet Exception" which keeps underage participants from being indicted for felonious crime. 31 states set the age at 16.
In the Pedophile Priests case, some of the 'victims' were 16-18 and therefore could be considered 'consensual' participants - which also made them not inclusive under the RICO suit.
Come and get me, BABO.


John, Babo has not been back to this story, since I identified her on Weds at 5:52pm

I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it, when you read it.


I'm still here. Learned a while back not to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

John Harville

DICK.. so BABO is female?
Comes across very masculine.


Dick is wrong.


Actually, the age of consent is 13, but sex with someone under 15 is statutory rape if there is more than 3 years age difference between the parties.

John Harville

"The legal age to consent to sex in Ohio is sixteen (Ohio Revised Code § 2907.04). Even if a teen and older individual claim they are both willing participants in the relationship or sexual encounter, in some situations it is still considered rape under the law."
Statutory rape for age 13 is by anyone older than 17 OR in a position of authority or if force is used.
You really should check the law before you post... or at least add citations.


The real point, Sam and Grumpy, is that whether the desire to engage in a given class of conduct is inborn or not isn't a valid criteria for deciding if the conduct is moral.


True. The problem? "Morality" tends to be a relative term, the specifics of which for a given man or woman ISN'T genetic. Some people think playing cards is evil. Some people think women showing their hair is wrong. Some people think divorce is a sin. Some people think modern technology is immoral.

Me? I think if you think it's immoral, you shouldn't do it. Outside of that, as long as you're not hurting somebody else, your "morality" and what determines what you believe to be moral or immoral is not my problem and not my business. But then, I tend to have a little respect for the rights of others whether I agree with them or not.

thinkagain's picture

Spoken like a true moral relativist! And that is the difference between you, who could care less about your fellow man’s salvation and myself, who cares a great deal.


I'm not the relativist. I submit that YOU are! You do, after all, believe some things to be immoral that other people don't. In other words, you adhere to a specific set of religious "guidelines." Since those don't follow the "guidelines" of OTHER religions, they're clearly not absolutes! Except, of course, within your own framework. Relativity is as relativity does.

thinkagain's picture

You are not a relativist??? My goodness, you could knock me over with a feather right now.

Regardless of your vague implication that "guidelines" of OTHER religions” don’t agree, your question more appropriately becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? - or even, which man made religion?” Given your secular, humanistic philosophy, any discussion on moral absolutes is a meaningless exercise in futility. Fallen man cannot discover truth and goodness without God.

God has set the absolutes of our morality in His word, and it is sin to break those standards. Rather than relying on your misinterpretations of what is expected of a Christian, please review what you read earlier in my class on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.


Again, I ask you: Which version of Christianity? (Forgive the assumption that you're a Christian of some sort; you're quoting from the New Testament, so I'm taking the leap.)

The "sins" outlined in "other" religions by me happen to be espoused, one and all, by various and sundry sects of Christianity. So please tell me again how "God's Word" is absolute, and yet there are different notions of that Word within Christianity itself?

I don't argue that there are or are not absolutes, and here's mine: DON'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE. Here's the take Jesus offered on the same: LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Not so terribly different, are they?

One more time: If you've got an argument for absolutes, let's hear it. Is it the Bible? Oh, please say it is...

thinkagain's picture

And once again I reiterate, please read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 for a specific example of God’s “guidelines” of moral behavior.

You made a confusingly vague, overgeneralized implication that “guidelines" of OTHER religions differ, as your “proof” that God has no absolutes concerning morality for His children.

Just because interpretations vary on God’s absolute moral truths, doesn’t mean Truth itself is any less true. I agree that there certainly are an abundance of interpretations. Some are clearly worse than others.


Thank you for clearing that up. I believe I understand now:

1. The absolutes are what you interpret them to be, based on

2. Interpretations of God's absolutes that AREN'T worse than others.

I think I rest my case...

thinkagain's picture

Since you prefer to continue to obfuscate and fail to enlarge upon a specific example, I will assign you to the great crowd of those people who refuse to debate, out of fear of having their sinful nature exposed.


John Harville

THINK FOR ONCE: You brought this up once before and apparently ignored me when I pointed you out in the midst of the 'nine' stands you at No.8 - THE REVILERS. For Paul warned the very nasty Corinthian Church about their tendency to be judgmental and to 'revile' those who disagreed or whom THE REVILERS deemed unworthy.

John Harville

GRUMPY. Important to note that - except priests - the great majority of pedophiles are not homosexual.
Also important to note: At least one-third of the plaintiffs/victims in the major case against the Diocese were FEMALES who were abused by priests as young girls.
Sexuality is inborn. Expression of that sexuality may have 'nurture' issues. Many pedophiles were victims... just as many other abusers were abused.
Remember the Duck Dynasty example... pedophilia in one part of the culture is appropriate marriage in another.


Re: "the great majority of pedophiles are not homosexual."

Care to cite your source? Most rapes are no sexual encounters, they are dominance plays. Most pedophiles don't have "regular" sexual encounters (gay or straight) with adults, they may time to time but their preference is children. All encounters with pedophiles and children are rapes. From what I have found in limited reading gender is a preference, but most will take what is easy at the time, it is not about sex, it is about power. Please look into it before spouting what you don't know. I can't get far into the subject as I am not "enlightened" enough to tolerate looking more into it.


Re: "GRUMPY. Important to note that - except priests - the great majority of pedophiles are not homosexual."

This proves to me you have no clue what you are talking about. I was going to leave it, because I don't like the topic, but couldn't let wrong info out there. It is not that simple. I will let the experts speak. it is not something I wish to get into. The rate of men going after boys is much higher rate than gay men who prefer other gay men, by between 4 and 20 times, as shown below. Your hatred of priests is noted, and dismissed.

To get to the original sources click on the footnotes.


Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia) (3, 6, 10, 29). The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%—4%) (5, 7, 10, 19, 29, 30). This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children

I don't recomend looking too deeply into this unless you are extremely "enlightened." It tends to eat your soul.

John Harville

Oh GRUMPY I looked into it 10 years ago. I notice you and others focus on male pedophiles and ignore the large number of female pedophiles beyond the newsmakers like Mary Kay LaTournearu - and the one that is focus this week of a nighttime network in-depth.
You didn't address the issue completely ie: pedophiles who SAY they are homosexual vs pedophiles diagnosed as homosexual. Your 9%-40% figure supports my original thesis.
If you have the stomach you might want to look into the organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) which explores and explains why such love is normal and not harmful... only if you have the stomach, though


(sarcasm) Thnk you for citing your sources to back your claims.

I made no claims about homosexual pedophiles. As I stated above I will let the experts state their findings.

If you had read even the rest of the paragraph that I quoted from the study I linked to you would have seen the female pedophiles that were studied. From just this statement I can see you read none of what experts in peer reviewed studies ( The article and study was for, and reprinted with permission by the Mayo Clinic). You seem prefer or at least cite a network tv show. You claim that I only mentioned male pedophiles, sorry you were the one who only mentioned priests, who from my knowledge are only males. I never mentioned the gender of the pedophiles I was writing about, only whether they were attracted to same sex children or opposite sex children. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Your other source that you mention us NAMBLA, the very pedophiles (male pedophiles that you earlier claimed that I focused on and since proved I never mentioned gender of the pedophiles) who rape children. I am sorry but I prefer to accept the findings of those who study pedophiles, and write peer reviewed studies like the one I linked to that originated from the Mayo Clinic and articles like that, instead of believing what child rapists have to say on their websites. Actually I prefer to not read more on the subject.


You are very wise.

John Harville

grumpy... thank you for respecting me.


Re: "grumpy... thank you for respecting me."

You have deserved the respect I have shown you.




Well the one great thing I see here is that the bigots seem to be in the minority. Beautiful woman, beautiful piece. I guess the story of Mr. Panetta has made it to a lot of people and provoked thought. That I believe was his intention once he realized that there was no way to keep it under wraps.


To quote Ann Landers:

“The naked truth is always better than the best-dressed lie.”


I believe I have a gay cat. He is 10yrs. old & only likes male cats. He really likes them, eats, sleeps , follows only males. He's a great pet, I'm happy that he is happy. Being gay [ shows up all through history] has to be biological. GAY TOM CATS RULE

Stop It

That's just domination to say "i'm alpha, b&^#h". Dogs do it too.


I've had female dogs "mount" males. Those same female dogs have had several litters of puppies. It is both domenance and play. it isn't that simple an answer, especially with humans. Read some on the subject or just think you know what the reasons are. It won't change anything.

Don Lee

Proud to call you a friend, Tiffany.


The craziest thing is that MOST catholic priests ARE GAY! I knew one many years ago who was allowed by his bishop to live with his lover. I know one now who's not practicing but he and his lover just celebrated their 30th ANNIVERSARY! I DATED a seminarian! Once I went to a big wedding with 6 co-officiants, and I personally knew 4 of the 6 were gay! So next time your at Catholic Church, keep in mind its horrible hypocrisy. Odds are, the decision to fire the band director was made by a gay Bishop, or whatever!


The issue, as I see it, isn't whether a priest is heterosexual, homosexual, or even a pedophile. The ISSUE is whether or not they choose to ACT on it! Priests don't swear an oath to be straight. They vow to be CELIBATE. There's a difference, and it's a big one.

Now if you happen to question whether or not celibacy is natural, well, of COURSE it's not! It's the extraordinarily rare man (or woman) who is asexual! But the oath of celibacy is intended to serve a two-fold purpose: 1. A priest is to place the Church first, not his wife, not his children, but his CHURCH, and 2. It's a sacrifice on the part of the priest that is (theoretically, at least) offered up to God.

John Harville

They also take an oath to live in poverty. How's THAT one workin'?


The oath of poverty generally doesn't apply to parish priests but are required of those in order such as the Jesuits.

John Harville

The same for chastity? And obedience? For those who don't know, I think you mean Diocesan priests - ordained by the Diocese and not members of priestly orders.


I didn't say how many priests do (or do NOT) honor their vows. I'm just pointing out that there IS no vow made in a promise to be heterosexual. (Don't get me started on the whole "poverty" thing when it's connected to a Church that's just about the wealthiest entity on the planet...)


Excellent point, Sam. I've heard of priests who have affairs with adult women, and when it's discovered, they're defrocked in a New York minute, but because psychologists said pedophiles have a sickness, the heirarchy excused the molestors as having a "problem."

It seems to me, a vow of celibacy is a vow not to act on one's sexual urges, whether they run to men, women, kids, farm animals, whatever. Thus, there should have been no difference in the heirarchy's response.

John Harville

NEMESIS. 'defrocked in a New York minute' But not in a Toledo Minute? Remember the Sandusky priest who had an affair with a widow he was counseling? He's not defrocked. He just went to visit the Paraclete Rehab in the West. Last I heard he's still a priest - possibly with a parish.
But since celibacy interferes with creating life, is it not abnormal? God knows the Church had Popes who were married and had children. The Borgias and de Medicis are just a couple of examples.
Until the Middle Ages priests were married. In fact Mary Todd Lincoln's Todd branch traces its ancestry to an 8th Century monk.


I'm not addressing validity or history of the celibacy doctrine, only the consistency with which it is enforced. I've met former priests who had been defrocked for violating it with adult women.


Doesn't se to be working out on either direction Sam, from the comments I've seen here.


iif you think about it, Brian Panetta has been very Jesus-like throughout this modern day Catholic morality tale . And the school and diocese: well, the Romans come to mind. All the elements are there, think about it! Judas?

John Harville

DCFred checked your question about the Blade article then couldn't locate your post here.

But... yes... The Dennis Gray story is like so many others. Have you checked all the stories about the suits filed against the Diocese. Google SNAP...the group that pushes the diocese on pedophiola.

JudgeMeNot's picture

Well, since the anus is supposed to be "exit only" Is your anus exit only? I know mine is.


Why on earth do you care about anyone else's anus? The fact that you are so obsessed with that is what's scary.

John Harville

According to the most complete studies, only about 30% of gay men engage in anal intercourse - as Dan Savage reveals in his book "Savage Love: Straight Answers (though he claims to 'inseminate my husband regularly'). They are rearing a straight son DJ.
In all these comments and countercomments, commentators are putting their minds in the 'act' and not the 'feeling.
When you see a hetero couple, do you think about how they have sex - although I understand that physically there are many more options.
So why are you thinking about the sexual aspect of homosexuality between men or women?
Elevate your perspective to the attraction and love between two persons. Get your mind outa the crotch.


A few sane comments, the rest? Bigots and mouth breathers.

John Harville

But bigoted idiocy IS learned. Witness:


"Gays cause autism". Such idiocy is 'here' too. Believe it.


The problem with this article is that that author fails to recognize the fact that there ARE choices when it comes to attractions. Attractions are, for the most part, learned. That being the case, all kinds of behavior is learned, even wrong behavior. If it is learned, it can be unlearned. There are lots of things we all may want to do, but choose not to. The child who is sexually abused may undoubtedly be damaged, but he or she is not doomed to repeat the crime. People make choices to become victims of their circumstance or victors over their circumstances. Propensities are not doomed to become lifestyles. We are humans not animals. We have the ability to reason and justify. It is sad that too many take the easy road to blame someone else and justify instead of overcoming.

John Harville

FIDDLE... unless you personally have experienced any of the things you mention, you cannot speak empathetically about 'overcoming' - anymore than anyone who has not faced cancer or heart disease can empathize by telling those who are/have faced such to "get over it".
"People make choices... to be victims or victors"... "propensities are not doomed to become lifestyles".
With love and sympathy from noble persons like yourself, your statements can be true. In what agencies do you volunteer to help with the overcoming?

John Harville

"WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING HERE?" It's a question I've gotten several times here. In answer, and trying not to sound noble, I submit that without perseverance on serious issues such as this (note schools across the country which are facing bad headlines and falling contributions) it will continue.
How many times do you think women working to get the vote were asked why they persisted? Probably almost as many as those today who are working for ordination of women deacons and priests.
Why did Blacks continue marching in spite of firehoses and mean dogs - and Catholic Church that treated them as 'lesser'?
Why did Mr. and Mrs. Loving go to the Supreme Court and change the law preventing interracial marriage?
I believe God expects perseverance and loyalty to Jesus' command. This SCCS action is just a small part of a larger picture of discrimination and practiced misunderstanding.
John the Dwarf is best known for his obedience. The most famous story about his obedience is that one day Saint Pambo gave him a piece of dry wood and ordered him to plant and water it. John obeyed and went on watering it twice a day even though the water was about 12 miles from where they lived. After three years, the piece of wood sprouted and grew into a fruitful tree - the Tree of Loyalty.
KING DAVID of Cornwall.

John Harville

SANDUSKY MOM. I stand corrected, the Diocesan Superintendent of Education Christopher M. Knight is not the one about whom I conjectured.
Are you then verifying for us that THIS Christopher M. Knight is the same one listed on the SCCS Board of Directors?
Are you then verifying for us that THIS Christopher M. Knight is "the person form the Diocese" who came to tell Mr. Panetta of his termnation?


I posted some links and information here for discussion. My opinions are the following:

If somebody is not harming anybody, why should I care?
I have nothing against gay people unless they put the make on me or my loved ones. There are theories about what make a person gay. I don't know which theory is correct because I am 100% straight. Even as a child, I was attracted to the opposite sex. I really cannot provide an answer to what makes a person gay, bisexual, a pedophile, having sex with animals or being sexually attracted to urine and feces.

I am a former Catholic who married outside of the church. I tried to go back but was told I had to go to a bunch of classes and somehow get permission to return. I decided against it. I do not follow any specific religion. I pray to God often and ask for help or inspiration.

I have very little against gay people. I stopped associating with known gays for a few reasons. Not so much the gay people but the straight people who accused me of being gay simply because I was in the company of gays or I hugged someone of my own sex.


Ah, I see. Being gay is so awful that you can't stand the thought of anybody even THINKING it's possible that you could be gay yourself!

I have no certain idea how God feels about homosexuals who live good and decent lives, i.e. treating others with love and respect. I DO have a pretty good idea, though, what God thinks of those for whom appearances count more than love, honor, or loyalty!

thinkagain's picture

You don’t know how God feels about homosexuals who live “good” and “decent” lives?? Well, let me take this opportunity to enlighten you. Pay attention please, there will be a short quiz at the end of class.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

OK, now for the quiz.

Which individual demonstrates the greater love to practicing homosexuals?

A) The moral relativist, who in spite of God’s clear teachings against homosexuality, preach acceptance of this perverted lifestyle, knowing the eternal consequences.

B) A Christian who speaks the truth about homosexuality, doing so with their best interest at heart. Not only in this life, but for the life to come.

(Hint) The answer is B


Oh, gosh, I'm so sorry. Perhaps I've misunderstood every sect of Christianity out there when they ALL preach that merely accepting Jesus as your Savior isn't just ONE path to Heaven, but the ONLY path to Heaven!

Thank goodness you're here to set everybody straight (no pun intended).

thinkagain's picture

No need to apologize, I’m there for you Sammy!

Jesus not only loved us enough to die for our sins, so that those that believe may be saved, but he also loved us enough that He provided a way for us to overcome our sins, through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” Galatians 5:16

Once we are born again our old self is no more, it has been crucified with Christ and the result is that we are no longer enslaved to sin, but rather alive to God in Christ. Even still, we must fight the desires of the flesh. We can’t do this by tolerating or justifying sin.

John Harville

I guess you overlooked yourself in the list...

Revilers... "To reproach; to treat with opprobrious and contemptuous language."

Opprobrious...disrespectful, causing shame.

Contemptuous... well, even you know what that is.

Guess we'll see you in Hell.



John Harville

CENTAURI. every Catholic knows there is nothing such as a 'former' Catholic. "Runaway". "Fallen Away". "Disillusioned". But Catholic is Catholic is Catholic is...

I always heard that having to proclaim one's 100% straight status was a big rainbow flag.
"Even as a child..." you were a pedophile? (See how words can be misinterpreted).
Do you have anything against straight people who put the 'make' on you or your loved ones?. Every hear of 'just say no'?

How about association with 'unknown' gays... or do you have special gaydar?

In the company of gays? Does it bother you in a bar if people think you're an alcoholic?

You really are a piece of work. Hope I haven't accidentally been in a group with you cuz I'd hate people to think I endorse your attitudes.


John Harville,

ONE QUESTION: Are you a gay person or bisexual?

I really don't care.

Do know this.

I have been attacked by gay and bi-sexuals, straights, Christian, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists and others and religions, Republicans, Democrats and many others too many too mention.

I guess that I do not fit in because I am on the side of TRUTH and expose the LIES.

Anybody can answer.

Where should I go if everybody wants me to go away?


Another one man show, like Nemesis, to set us all on the right path! To think I may have never found my way without these great and righteous people. lmao

John Harville

ASEXUAL due to a painful and unfortunate accident. Now you have something else on which to pin your indications of my damaged psyche.

But with all those people who have attacked, you certainly have more than sufficient reasons for your misguided and hateful positions.


I've heard the terms you use before, and they're accurately descriptive of many. Me? I personally prefer "recovering Catholic," LOL!

It's my understanding that once you've been baptized Catholic, you remain Catholic (at least in the eyes of the Church) forever and ever, amen. In the eyes of an individual, however, I don't know that "former" is necessarily incorrect.


"Ah, I see. Being gay is so awful that you can't stand the thought of anybody even THINKING it's possible that you could be gay yourself!"

"THINKING"????? Your word, not mine. The Puritans THOUGHT that some people were evil. Even those people who associated with the "witches" were punished.

The gay people that I know understand how I feel. Maybe my definition of "associating" is different from yours. Perhaps you could have asked me to define "associating". There are some really hateful so called christian fanatics out there who would just love to harm a gay person, even a perceived gay person.

I don't associate with known drug dealers either because I don't want to get shot (gangs).

Here are some links about fanatic christians and how they treat gay people.


Some of the biggest christian bigots that spoke out against gay people are themselves are gay and cannot accept it.

Ted Haggard


SamAdams, I would like to continue but I am very busy. It is bad enough that I am targeted for assassination, threats of violence against me and my family and false arrest. I don't need to add to the powers that be list another list of christian fanatics who want to harm gay people.

Sam, I didn't have a chance to read all of your comments about gay people. One thing that I don't like is a gay hitting on me or others who are straight. I don't want any gay person to try to convince me and others that gay is the way. To each their own. Whatever floats your boat.

"birds of a feather flock together" is not always true but some narrow minded people seen to think so.

QUESTION: Why do gay people get mad if they don't get their way? I tried to help the gay people to be united if they didn't use the word "marriage" but some other word for a legal union. They refused my help because they are hell bent on the "marriage" word.


No "associating," eh? Well, then, here's something else you might want to google: Martin Niemöller.

As for not liking to be "hit on" by a gay man, how is that any different than the circumstances most of us WOMEN deal with on a regular basis? So what if a guy "hits on" you! If you're interested, keep talking. If you're not, you say, "No, thank you." It's really bizarre how a little honest politeness handles such terrible situations!

Targeted for assassination? Threatened? False arrest? Either you're Edward Snowden, or you've got a pretty high opinion of yourself! I haven't read about ANY of those things concerning ANYbody in the area.

ANSWER: Ask yourself why do black people get mad when they don't get their way? Why do women get mad when they don't get their way? Why do Democrats get mad when they don't get their way? Wait. You mean I'm generalizing? That ALL black people, women, or Democrats aren't like that? That MOST are perfectly reasonable people, no different from you and me? Huh. Learn something new every day...


Be calm. Relax. Come back another time when you put logic ahead of your emotions.


"Either you're Edward Snowden, or you've got a pretty high opinion of yourself!"

How about CIA, FBI and wars based on lies? How about BIG PHARMA when I expose them?

How about if I expose the LIES and the TRUTH?

It is all of the same. Exposing the truth comes with a big price.

Settle down SamAdams. I can help people like yourself. Do not get too emotional. Know this. There is no duplicate of each person on this Earth. Each person has but one life on this Earth.

There is only ONE of YOU. I try to help each person.


What does that have to do with the claims you've made here? Or are you now claiming you had something to do with "wars based on lies" or exposing same? Big pharma? Really? Maybe Dick Tracey has it wrong and YOU'RE Elsebeth in disguise!

If you genuinely want to help people, you can start by doing what you claim you're already doing: Telling the truth.


I'm curious. Dick Tracey is wrong. However, is your statement to Centauri "You're Elsebeth in disguise!" in the context you placed it intended to portray Elsebeth Baumgartner as a person who makes false claims or wild conspiracy theories?


SamAdams, Do know that God loves you just the way that you are.

John Harville

Wow. He's a piece of work, isn't he?


You can't compare women being approached by men with men being approached by men. That's unfair.

Have you ever been aggressively approached by a young, powerful dominant Lesbian? One that won't accept rejection but keeps physically pushing you. That might be a fairer analogy (and a common male fantasy ).

Why do you think you would read or have knowledge about people that question government abuses and are endangered by that work? You cited a Lutheran Pastor above and his point was people generally don't speak up for those who are targeted by abusive government or a police state because it doesn't affect them. It then becomes too late to save a nation from tyranny.

Finally you agreed that the Church had the right to terminate Mr. Panetta's contract. Yet what we read in the comments boards are overwhelmingly hostile and ignorant comments about the Roman Catholic Church almost exclusively from the homosexual community and supporters because they won't accept the fact that the Church acted within its rights.

Centauri's statements may have contained hyperbole. However one could argue based on the comments here, that there is a lot of hate and anger emanating from the homosexual community towards anyone that disagrees with them.

I've respected your posts in the past but you engaged in the same sort of unjustified personal attacks on Centauri that you deride in others.


"You can't compare women being approached by men with men being approached by men. That's unfair."

No, it isn't. Same thing. EXACTLY. (And yes, I know from experience.)

"Have you ever been aggressively approached by a young, powerful dominant Lesbian? One that won't accept rejection but keeps physically pushing you. That might be a fairer analogy (and a common male fantasy )."

Yes, in fact I have. She didn't assault me, but she didn't give up easy! On the other hand, I've had worse problems with men who are "aggressive, dominant, won't accept rejection, and keep physically pushing" me. I fail to see the difference here: You're either interested in whoever is propositioning you, or you're not. Some people take rejection better than others. That's not exactly breaking news!

"Finally you agreed that the Church had the right to terminate Mr. Panetta's contract."

Of course I did. That's the salient point, isn't it? The fact that it was badly handled by the school doesn't negate that fact.

I can't disagree that any number of comments have been hostile to the Catholic Church. At the same time, I've seen some pretty anti-homosexual comments here, too.

Centauri's hyperbole isn't the issue. It's his off-the-subject delusions of grandeur, persecution complex, and paranoid conspiracy theories that opened him up to criticism which is ALSO unrelated to the topic at hand but which remained entirely responsive to his particular claims at the moment.

Now, I've answered your questions, so here's one of mine: Why are you defending Centauri? He typically does just fine on his own. You're not here defending anybody else (except, as usual, the infamous Elsebeth), so what's up with that?


So now you're a psychiatrist qualified to diagnose an anonymous poster.

Centauri and I both have spoken up for others that were unfairly attacked by self aggrandizing posters such as yourself. (Didn't cite any facts but were intellectually dishonest in that you made a sweeping generalization to suit your purpose)

You cite Niemoller. You seem to me like a person who would cheer if the police came for someone who disagreed with you.

You can't cite any objective moral code other than don't hurt other people but you hurt people on here with false statements of fact if it suits your purposes and diagnose people you do not know from anonymous comments.

But Centauri has delusions of grandeur and you're not a moral relativist?

John Harville

have you ever been approached by a 'young powerful dominant Lesbian" (in the vernacular a "bull dyke")?