But I expect more of gays, who have been bashed by religion for so long. We should be more educated on this issue by now!

There is a related story on here about “affirming” churches. What a joke. “we used to hate you but now we need the money so we are going to tolerate you”.

Why join a cult in the first place regardless of your sexuality?

Ali says it may give people peace, comfort, community. Well, you can find that without paying into a cult that runs a worldwide exploitation regime.

We are the worst form of apologists when we try to fit religion into our lives….I believe worse than women. Women should reject religion too since it targets them, but they are part of the “holy matrimony/breeding” scheme and it is harder to reject…but for us, we don’t have that baggage.

Still not getting it over here…

In the RC church people come to see the priest at all hours. Sometimes because of grief over the death of a love one, having a crisses of faith such as sexuality identity, drinking, sex, etc.

Have any of you thought that the young man in question might have gone to him because he was confused over his sexuality and sought support from the church.

Have any of you thought that maybe this man went seeing help over his confusion as all children of RC are train to do. This so-call man of god, Reverend Bradley Barber decided that he have to beat the gayness of this young man.

That this attack was based on Reverend Bradley Barber hatred of gays. That this young man was a victim of gay bashing.

Sexual assault is implied in that the encounter took place at a time when the vast majority of people are asleep (or having sex). You don’t go visit Aunt Margie at 3 AM, right? You DO go for a booty call at 3 AM. There’s nothing said about a spiritual emergency, which would be a very valid reason to pop up at the priest’s door (was this at the parsonage?). If it’s not spiritual counseling, and it’s not a social call (again, what 58-year-old married man has visitors at 3 AM? No.), then that leaves the presumption of a sexual encounter. Assuming this goes to trial, the nature of the encounter will be made clear. Yes, it could be that the whole thing is some hustler trying to make a fast buck off a closeted priest, but remember that it’s the priest who’s under the presumption of keeping hands and genitals to self. The fact that the accused is a priest does change the case, because part of determining the truth is determining what happened. If the priest was gonna get some nookie, then the charges are bogus, but he’s violating the standards of conduct laid down by his own church, and that will definitely have consequences. So there’s the implied sexual nature of the attack.

It is not OK to rape a woman if she is scantily dressed and it isn’t OK to rape a man who dresses similar either. Nor is it appropriate to use that type of defense in a trial.