[Gunrunner2]

>>Again, no mention of the fact that these two child abusers are lesbians

What's the big deal? The raping priests weren't gay either. <<

Actually, the priests that did the abusing are overwhelmingly homosexual/gay.

The priests were not pedophiles, as represented in the press.

Pedophiles find prepubescent children sexually attractive, and the priests were not abusing children, they were, in the vast majority of the cases, abusing teenage boys---that is homosexual abuse.

The thing is, like in the news article in this piece, the media distorts, misrepresents or leaves out who was doing the abusing. In the case of the priests, the media actively tried to cover up the fact that the abusing priests are homosexuals. The media bent the truth and did all they could to ward off a homosexual scandal. . .at the expense of tewenagers. Imagine how much the homosexual agenda would have been set back if the media accurately reported that the abusing priests are homosexuals. Indeed. Then try and follow up with a sympathetic news report supporting homosexual Boy Scout leaders.

Now, of course, maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post. If so. . .never mind.

[xm177e2]

maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post. If so. . .never mind.

I think I see the sarcasm. Whenever a non-heterosexual does anything wrong, his/her sexual orientation vanishes as an issue. They are no longer lesbians because they are bad. It is sort of like how the media tries to hide the race of criminals when they are not white.