Hi All,
One of the things that strikes me is that whenever one mentions being gay and religious to particular people online, sometimes you get an argument that runs like this :
"The Roman Catholic abuse scandal was homosexual and this just shows how evil homosexuality is"
By implication in that worldview is a suggestion that homosexuals- i.e. gay men- are someone all dangerous predators.
The proof used is that the abuse scandal- 80% of it- was male priests abusing young teenage boys and then a leap of epic proportions is made from this statically factual statement to an overall generalisation, that because of this statistic , all homosexuals must be in some or form deranged abusers of teenage boys at worst and at best just something to avoid. Forgetting the 20% of abuse which was heterosexual , it seems to me that you can only make a conclusion like this stand if you have a predisposition of disliking homosexuality and homosexuals.
Why?
If you think about it , such a statistic on its own is meaningless. I have another statistic for you.
Take for example. Male teachers who sleep with their female teenage pupils- in the UK teachers cannot legally sleep with their pupils even if there is consent or even if they are above the legal age of 16 .
So
100% are men
They sleep with 100% of teenage females (13-18)
This is heterosexual sex.
Does that make 100% of male teachers or 100% of men predisposed or guilty of a crime or manipulating / being abusers?
Same with heterosexual women teachers who sleep with teenage boys.
Does this make all heterosexual sexual people wicked, wrongful or automatically sinful?
Or does it mean a handful - out of the many- of heterosexual teachers who commit a crime & go out of their way to manipulate / sleep with their teenage pupils?
Can you see the point I'm making here?
No comments:
Post a Comment