(German) Police call off condom distribution plan at youth fest

The plan involved passing out condoms only to other police officers deployed at the event

I'm not sure I understand that..

But the US organization Condoms4Life, waving the banner "Good Catholics Use Condoms", said it would not be intimidated

Condoms4Life Catholic World Youth Day ad in the Dom (Cathedral) Metro Station, Cologne, Germany. (Catholics for a Free Choice via U.S. Newswire)
Source: Catholics for a Free Choice

"The Condoms4Life Campaign is a project of Catholics for Free Choice (CFFC), which shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women's well being and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives. Through discourse, education and advocacy, CFFC works in the US and internationally to infuse these values into public policy, community life, feminist analysis and Catholic social thinking and teaching. ">
Condoms4Life Public Education Campaign

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

I thought those things were rain coats for police officers.

I'm not sure I understand that..

That's easy, the GdP was planning on "protecting" the youth from impregnation by the police officers present to "protect" them!

But..But free condoms are a natural right aren't they? How dare they infringe on a God given right.

But the US organization Condoms4Life, waving the banner "Good Catholics Use Condoms", said it would not be intimidated. The anti-AIDS group said it would hang posters in English, Spanish and German with the slogan in the subway next to Cologne's landmark cathedral.

Say a lie enough times it becomes common wisdom, like condoms stops the spread of AIDS.

Are the Germans switching to a Viagra giveaway?

Satan is obviously planning to attend this meeting to recruit.

You're not alone in confusion about that statement. Perhaps the PD was planning to get frisky?

I always wondered why the state cops were called "Bulls", now I know......

That's certainly what it sounds like. Maybe they were concerned that the union might have some liability for child support?

Perhaps the police would go around looking for... ahem.... couples who were "engaged". The officer would inspect for proper protection, and provide it on the spot, if needed.

"To serve and to protect"

The plan involved passing out condoms only to other police officers deployed at the event

I'm not sure I understand that..

Perhaps the police are pedophiles....

"Perhaps the police are pedophiles...."

What would that have to do with it? There aren't likely to be many pre-pubescent children at this event. Most of them will be teenagers.

Catholic World Youth Day festivities

I think it's just as big news that 400,000 young Catholics are meeting in GERMANY for a celebration.
We are lucky to have the PanzerPope. Germany is lucky. The Church is lucky. Our prayers worked. Thank you, Lord.

The anti-AIDS group

Is the author trying to insinuate that the Catholic Church is pro-AIDS? What a nit wit. He should have said, "The anti-Catholic group..."

"Perhaps the police are pedophiles...." What would that have to do with it? There aren't likely to be many pre-pubescent children at this event. Most of them will be teenagers.

The word pedophile is applicable even to post-pubescent teenage minors, as is the word rapist. Even Germany has statutory rape for adults having sexual contact with minor teenagers.

"The word pedophile is applicable even to post-pubescent teenage minors"

Sorry to be contentious, but that is most emphatically incorrect.

Further, the misuse of the word in this way blurs important distinctions in a way that plays into the hands of the homo "rights" activists.

A pedophile is commonly defined as an adult who is sexually attracted to children, with child being commonly defined as a minor below the legal age of adulthood. I would contend that limiting these definitions does more to "play into the hands of homosexuals" and their recruitment methodology than the more common definitions. Adults having sexual relations with children is moral wrong and generally illegal.

"Adults having sexual relations with children is moral wrong and generally illegal."

Of course it is.

"A pedophile is commonly defined as an adult who is sexually attracted to children, with child being commonly defined as a minor below the legal age of adulthood."

It is extremely important to differentiate between attraction to children who have not reached puberty and minors who have. The answer to your next statement addresses just one of the many reasons.

"I would contend that limiting these definitions does more to "play into the hands of homosexuals" and their recruitment methodology than the more common definitions."

Firstly, your definition, which extends childhood as far as the age of 21, depending on the jurisdiction, is a **very** recent development. It was absolutely unheard of when I was young, and is a ploy of people with an unholy agenda. I dispute that even now it is "more common" than the correct definition, although the marketing efforts of the activists who desire that change in the word's meaning have made it more common than it was.

Now, as to "playing into the hands" . . .

The strategy that the pervofascist activists have been using is this: when a man who suffers from SSAD molests a teenage boy, as they very commonly do, rational people might take that as an indication that men who suffer from SSAD should not be given access to the objects of their lust. That is, they should not be scoutmasters, school teachers, etc.

To counter this, the activists begin chanting that the man in question was a pedophile, that pedophilia and homosexual lust are different phenomena, that pedophiles molest children of both sexes, that pedophilia is as rare among men with SSAD as in the general population, and that, therefore, the incident in no way indicates that teenage boys should be protected from men with SSAD.

This has been a very successful tactic. Many right here on FR have fallen for it, and see no reason that men with SSAD should not be scoutmasters or shower monitors.

Misusing the word "pedophile" to include people who molest teenagers plays right into that strategy.

The problem is, you see, that the man in question was not a pedophile at all, but an ordinary, garden variety homosexual. All those things the activists say about pedophiles may (or may not) be true, but they are red herrings, intended to close off discussion of the fact that attraction to youth -- that is, boys between puberty and adulthood -- is one of the defining symptoms of ordinary, garden variety homosexuality (more correctly called same-sex attraction disorder).

Any time a man who suffers from SSAD has access to a youth, that youth is at risk, and that is a fact that should be considered in formulating social policy.

Firstly, your definition, which extends childhood as far as the age of 21

Age 18 is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood. People over the age of 18 should generally not be having sexual relations with people younger than 18.

It was absolutely unheard of when I was young, and is a ploy of people with an unholy agenda.

You attribute negative motivation to those who have none.

I dispute that even now it is "more common" than the correct definition, although the marketing efforts of the activists who desire that change in the word's meaning have made it more common than it was.

Adults having sex with non-adults is wrong.

The strategy that the pervofascist activists have been using is this: when a man who suffers from SSAD molests a teenage boy, as they very commonly do, rational people might take that as an indication that men who suffer from SSAD should not be given access to the objects of their lust. That is, they should not be scoutmasters, school teachers, etc.

Pervofascist? People with what you call "same sex attraction disorder" should not be scout masters, school teachers, priests, etc.

To counter this, the activists begin chanting that the man in question was a pedophile, that pedophilia and homosexual lust are different phenomena, that pedophiles molest children of both sexes, that pedophilia is as rare among men with SSAD as in the general population, and that, therefore, the incident in no way indicates that teenage boys should be protected from men with SSAD. This has been a very successful tactic.

You appear to be six moves into a chess game with an imaginary opponent.

Many right here on FR have fallen for it, and see no reason that men with SSAD should not be scoutmasters or shower monitors.

Sexual attraction to children is an extreme risk factor for sexual molestation of children. There is nothing to fear in making this common sense argument.

Misusing the word "pedophile" to include people who molest teenagers plays right into that strategy.

I mean this in a friendly way, but what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all.

The problem is, you see, that the man in question was not a pedophile at all, but an ordinary, garden variety homosexual.

Now it sounds like you are apologizing for their deviant behavior.

All those things the activists say about pedophiles may (or may not) be true, but they are red herrings, intended to close off discussion of the fact that attraction to youth -- that is, boys between puberty and adulthood -- is one of the defining symptoms of ordinary, garden variety homosexuality (more correctly called same-sex attraction disorder).

So you are minimizing pedophilia to magnify homosexuality?

Any time a man who suffers from SSAD has access to a youth, that youth is at risk, and that is a fact that should be considered in formulating social policy.

OK, but none of this justifies your erroneous minimization of the definition pedophilia.

"Age 18 is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood."

In recent years, the age of consent in the various states has ranged from 13 to 21, to the best of my knowledge.

"People over the age of 18 should generally not be having sexual relations with people younger than 18."

The various states set various ages. There's nothing magical about 18. Could just as easily be 35.

"You attribute negative motivation to those who have none."

I will readily admit that most people taken in by this ploy have none.

"Adults having sex with non-adults is wrong."

True, but non-responsive to my point.

"Pervofascist?"

That's my term for people who are agitating for the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices.

"People with what you call "same sex attraction disorder" should not be scout masters, school teachers, priests, etc."

The point of my note was to outline a strategy used by activists to get around that common sense proposition.

"You appear to be six moves into a chess game with an imaginary opponent."

There's nothing imaginary about the homo "rights" activists, or the strategies they use.

"Sexual attraction to children is an extreme risk factor for sexual molestation of children."

Yes, but it is a near-zero risk factor for molestation of teenagers.

Whereas sexual attraction to teenagers is a near-zero risk factor for molestation of children.

Pedophiles are attracted to children; men who suffer from SSAD are attracted to teenagers.

By conflating the two things, activists disarm arguments for protecting teenagers from men with SSAD.

"I mean this in a friendly way, but what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all."

I mean this in a friendly way, and perhaps it's my fault for being unclear, but if you think that you haven't grasped my argument at all.

""The problem is, you see, that the man in question was not a pedophile at all, but an ordinary, garden variety homosexual.""
"Now it sounds like you are apologizing for their deviant behavior."

Excuse me? I find that a very odd and completely inaccurate inference.

"So you are minimizing pedophilia to magnify homosexuality?"

And there's another. You didn't understand what I was trying to say.

"OK, but none of this justifies your erroneous minimization of the definition pedophilia."

No minimization is involved. I merely draw a distinction between two forms of sexual perversion, because activists attempt to prevent a correct understanding of the nature of SSAD by confusing the two forms.

Boy Scout World Jamboree or Orgy?

"Age 18 is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood." In recent years, the age of consent in the various states has ranged from 13 to 21, to the best of my knowledge.

And none of that changes the fact that 18 years of age is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood.

The various states set various ages. There's nothing magical about 18. Could just as easily be 35.

And none of that changes the fact that people over the age of 18 should generally not be having sexual relations with people younger than 18.

I will readily admit that most people taken in by this ploy have none.

You may be the only one who has been taken by this imaginary ploy.

"Pervofascist?" That's my term for people who are agitating for the forced endorsement of deviant sexual practices.

I will continue treating you as an exception for now, but I generally would also include in that definition people who would attempt to minimize the age of minors with which adults can have sexual relations. This has always been an overt part of the "pervofascist" agenda.

The point of my note was to outline a strategy used by activists to get around that common sense proposition.

It seams to be an extremely elaborate strategy.

There's nothing imaginary about the homo "rights" activists, or the strategies they use.

I simply question whether this is actually their strategy and you've offered nothing to establish that it is.

"Sexual attraction to children is an extreme risk factor for sexual molestation of children." Yes, but it is a near-zero risk factor for molestation of teenagers.

Says you. This sounds more like pedophile apologetics than the moral opposition.

Pedophiles are attracted to children; men who suffer from SSAD are attracted to teenagers.

These classifications are one in the same based upon the commonly accepted definitions I presented earlier.

I mean this in a friendly way, and perhaps it's my fault for being unclear, but if you think that you haven't grasped my argument at all.

Perhaps it's me, or perhaps it's your argument.

Excuse me? I find that a very odd and completely inaccurate inference...And there's another. You didn't understand what I was trying to say.

No offense intended, but the motives of anyone who would minimize the meaning of pedophilia are naturally in question.

No minimization is involved. I merely draw a distinction between two forms of sexual perversion, because activists attempt to prevent a correct understanding of the nature of SSAD by confusing the two forms.

Your distinction minimizes the scope of a horrendously deviant behavior, all to defend against a dubious opposing tactic. This level of indefensible paranoia is on the same level of voting for Hillary Clinton in the hopes of increasing the likelihood of a conservative victory twelve years later. Until you can justify your fear of this elaborate "pervofascist" strategy, you may be your own worst enemy.

"Your distinction minimizes the scope of a horrendously deviant behavior, all to defend against a dubious opposing tactic."

I think one problem here may be that you are misusing the word, "minimize." It means "To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree; to represent as having the least degree of importance, value, or size: minimized the magnitude of the crisis."

In other words, it does *not* apply if one is saying that parking in a handicapped zone is not as bad as drunk driving. One can say that A is not as bad as B without in any way "minimizing" A. The key words are "smallest possible" and "least degree."

From that starting point, it looks to me as if your objection to the correct definition of pedophilia is that:

1. Excluding statutory rape of teenagers from pedophilia implies that statutory rape of teenagers is not as bad as pedophilia.

2. You wish to assert that statutory rape of teenagers **is** as bad as pedophilia.

3. The best way to assert that is to call it pedophilia.

If that's inaccurate, let me know.

The problem with that, of course, is that (all other things being equal) the younger the person interfered with, the worse the offense.

This is easily illustrated by a simple example. Take a girl and her boyfriend waiting for her birthday (we'll make it her 18th, out of deference to your obsession with that number) to engage in their first act of fornication. Their watches are one minute fast so that actual penetration occurs at 11:59:59 instead of 12:00:01.

According to your paradigm, this is the same "horrendously deviant behavior" as a 40-year-old man raping an 8-year-old girl. You seem to be really big on consensual validation of propositions, but I doubt that you'll get too much agreement on that one.

Take a less extreme example. In a state where the age of consent is 16, a 15-year-old runaway becomes a prostitute. She has had 250 customers. She solicits a 35-year-old man who commits statutory rape with her.

According to your paradigm, this is the same "horrendously deviant behavior" as if he had raped an 8-year-old girl.

Am I getting through to you? One of our culture's most cherished precepts is that "the punishment should fit the crime." If all crimes were equally "horrendous," all punishments could be the same.

The fact is that there is a bright red line at puberty, and statutory rape of a teenager, bad as it is, is **not** as bad as the rape of a child.

Before you go on about "minimizing" again, please consult a dictionary. I am not "minimizing" the wrongfulness of statutory rape; I am agreeing with our cultural consensus that it is bad, but not as bad as raping a pre-pubescent child.

"Age 18 is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood."

In these 50 United States, there are 8 states where the age of consent for females is 18, and forty-two (42) where it is younger than that. The breakdown is:
14 – 3
16 – 31
17 – 8
18 – 8

Sorry to be contentious, but when you say, "Age 18 is the most commonly accepted beginning of adulthood," you're just flat wrong. It may be that way in your neighborhood, but not throughout the US.

"And none of that changes the fact that people over the age of 18 should generally not be having sexual relations with people younger than 18."

People should not be fornicating, period. We've pretty much legalized that, but have retained laws to protect younger people from older people who might prey on them for sex.

"You may be the only one who has been taken by this imaginary ploy."

If you think it's imaginary, you have been taken in by it.

"people who would attempt to minimize the age of minors with which adults can have sexual relations."

I'm not arguing against statutory rape laws. Lock'em up. Just don't call it pedophilia, because it's not. Words have meaning. Truth is important.

"It seams to be an extremely elaborate strategy."

Hardly. Just define attraction to teens as pedophilia, differentiate pedophilia from SSAD, then every time a homo molests a teenager you can yell, "He's not a homosexual, he's a pedophile, so this has no implications for social policy regarding homosexuality."

Happens all the time. The wonder is that there are people who still don't see it.

"I simply question whether this is actually their strategy and you've offered nothing to establish that it is."

I offer you the statements of every SSAD activist group and their willing accomplices in the lamestream media with regard to every case of a man molesting a teenage boy in the last 20 years.

"Says you."

Yes.

"This sounds more like pedophile apologetics than the moral opposition."

That particular statement is not moral opposition. It is a simple statement of fact. Pedophiles are not attracted to people who have developed secondary sexual characteristics.

People who are attracted to teenagers, on the other hand, are generally not attracted to people who have not begun to show secondary sexual characteristics.

Simple empirical observation.

"These classifications are one in the same based upon the commonly accepted definitions I presented earlier."

Maybe you need to travel more. Your definitions are not commonly accepted. Which is a good thing, because as a matter of simple empirical observation, they are incorrect.

"No offense intended, but the motives of anyone who would minimize the meaning of pedophilia are naturally in question."

Dictionary. You may be personally offended when I say "Crime A is worse than crime B, so people convicted of crime A should be executed, while five years in prison would be adequate for people convicted of crime B," but such a statement does not constitute "minimizing" of anything except the blurring of definitions.

"Your distinction minimizes"

Dictionary.

"the scope of a horrendously deviant behavior"

Our culture and our laws hold that child molesting is a horrendously deviant behavior, and that statutory rape of teenagers is immoral and wrong. A is worse than B.

"Until you can justify your fear of this elaborate "pervofascist" strategy"

All you have to do is open your eyes.

It is now apparent to me that your perception of the tactics used by the homosexual agenda are completely malformed if not delusional. I have no interest in discussing unsubstantiable conspiracy theories, particularly when their conclusions result in a behavior that directly aids the opposition to advance some dubious indirect benefit. I have nothing more to say about this with you.

(Shrug)