msgr clark blames sexual predation on homosexuality

[mojo]

http://www.nydailynews.com/today/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-148459.asp


St. Pat Msgr. Hits Gays On Scandal
Blames woes on 'disorder,'
U.S. immorality

By NICOLE BODE and GREG GITTRICH
Daily News Staff Writers

Edward Cardinal Egan's stand-in at St. Patrick's Cathedral pointedly blamed the priest sex abuse scandal yesterday on homosexuality, a "sex-saturated" society and a constant assault on celibacy by liberals.

http://www.nydailynews.com/today/News_and_Views/City_Beat/MsgrClark.JPG
Msgr. Eugene Clark

In a 15-minute homily from the most prominent Roman Catholic pulpit in the city, Msgr. Eugene Clark labeled the United States "probably the most immoral country" in the Western hemisphere. He also called homosexuality "a disorder" and said gay men shouldn't be allowed to become priests.

Clark, 76, a longtime key player and conservative voice in the Archdiocese of New York, delivered his stinging homily as Egan and other U.S. cardinals left for Rome to meet with the Pope about priestly pedophilia.

After preaching about forgiveness, Clark detailed reasons he believes some priests victimized children. He appeared to place most of the blame on homosexuality, saying the theory that people are born gay "is not true."

"The tendency to homosexuality is a disorder, not a sin," he said. "But the practice of homosexuality is truly sinful."

http://www.nydailynews.com/today/News_and_Views/City_Beat/Pride_StPats.JPG

Motorcycling participants in
last year's Gay Pride Parade
ride past St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Some parishioners in the packed pews shifted uneasily, others nodded in agreement and a few walked out. But Clark continued, arguing that it was a "grave mistake" to allow gays in the priesthood. He blamed American society for being "very protective" of homosexuality.

"Homosexuality became in the American exchange of views a protected area," he said. "And unfortunately ... homosexual students were allowed to pass through seminaries. Grave mistake. Not because homosexuals in anyway tend to criminality, but because it is a disorder."

'The Most Immoral Country'

Clark also criticized what he called "the campaign of liberal America against celibacy."

He theorized that priests who have a tendency toward sexually abusing children — a group he pegged at 3% of the nation's clergy — were affected by a barrage of sinful images in society.

"Liberated sex is offered to people all day long, all evening long," he said. "There is nothing quite like it."

"We know — we won't mention it outside the cathedral — we are probably the most immoral country certainly in the Western hemisphere and maybe the larger circle because of the entertainment we suffer and what it's done to our [country's] morals ...," Clark said.

Christine Schubert of St. Paul dashed out of the cathedral midway through the homily. "I left because I realized I have no desire to be connected with the institution of the Catholic Church," said Schubert, 27. "I thought, wouldn't it be great if the entire church walked out?"

But few did. Most parishioners stayed, and many applauded Clark after his sermon.

Marianne Duddy, executive director of Dignity/USA, the nation's largest organization of gay Catholics, called Clark's comments linking the sex scandal with homosexuality "incredibly horrifying and irresponsible."

"This is a poor attempt to deflect attention away from the church's culpability for the sexual abuse of minors by priests and its attempt to cover it up for decades," she added.

But Catholic League President William Donohue praised Clark. "He makes a great deal of sense and to have this said so articulately by one of the brighter priests in the New York area is very encouraging," Donohue said.

"The internal problem in the church is a lack of governance and due to diligence," he added. "But there is no question about it — this is a societywide problem that goes way beyond the Catholic Church."

http://www.nydailynews.com/today/News_and_Views/City_Beat/exct.gif

With Gretchen E. Weber

Original Publication Date: 4/22/02
i...don't...know...what...to...say....:disa:

[Nija]

:angry:

ya know... they say the most homophobic people are really in the closet right?

/me looks for the Richard Simmons' pic...

[goyo2]

I have a friend who is a gay Priest and he's a really cool guy. His sexuality doesn't come into play with his vocation as a priest. I think the town I grew up in would be a worse place if he wasn't allowed to be a priest because of his sexual preference. He has helped many many people...

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homo or heterosexuality. There are pleanty of school teachers, coaches, managers, librarians, KFC cooks, police men and women, etc. etc. who molest small children, its not just gay people and priests.

[Ladogaboy]

So, is this guy saying that it would be better if these priests were having sex with little girls instead of little boys?

Here's an idea: why don't they just drop the whole celibacy thing, so that these priests have an outlet with consenting adults (if they choose).

[sbp]

Pedophilia in the Church has been known about for years! Some dioceses did the correct thing and didn't tolerate that crap while other dioceses allowed sexual predators to keep on hurting people. This is totally unacceptable for an institution that is supposed to help people out. This is going to co$t hundreds of millions-money that could have been spent on helping the poor, the sick and education.

Thankfully the Church will survive but it needs to take care of the mess and learn from it. And that goes for other institutions out there also.

Celibacy has nothing to do with kids being molested.

I would concur in many ways the US is a "sex-saturated" society.
I would also agree that some folks do choose to be homosexual. Certainly engaging in homosexual acitivity is a choice.

It is the nature of the news media to revel in stuff like this-certainly when it is by organizations they dislike so much.

I think a decline in morals does affect society's institutions.

[ufcrusher]

We have a priest in the family (he is my step-mom's step-brother) and when my step-grandparents use to come visit they stayed at the rectory.

So one day I was talking to my step-grandmother and asked what it was like to stay at the rectory. Without missing a beat, she says, "Its g-d awful. The priest are constantly sneaking in and out of each others rooms and you cant get any rest because you hear all the moans and beds squeaking. Its a g-d damn shame." She continued on for a few minutes but I wont give her full rant. I always thought it was funny as hell.

[whitak24]

i think that homily is just sad.

logic is nonexistant in his tirade. somehow, he managed to connect the media, "attacks on celibacy", and his belief that homosexuality is a chosen disorder all together and blame it for sexual predation. i don't get it.

he obviously doesn't want to accept any responsiblity for the horrific things that have happened, and instead hit all his favorite whipping boys and blame them.

the key error in his thoughts center around his misconception that homosexuals = child molesters. that is not true. homosexuals have sex with men. pedophiles have sex with children. there is a difference. and in the catholic church, children of both genders have been abused. it's usually a matter of what children are most accessible, not what gender they are.

i don't really care how immoral the united states is. priests are not supposed to molest children. there is no one else to blame but the people who hurt the kids and their superiors who shielded them and allowed the abuse to continue

[welfareloser]

newsweek interviewed some recovering pedophile priests. it seems that the major problem is this: you have a group of young men with urges to have sex with little boys. the urges scare these men, they cover them up, and try to run like hell from them. the run straight to the priesthood, hoping that that will eb a way to purge themselves of these urges. probably works for some, obviously doesn't work for others.

so: i originally thought that the celibacy thing was a cause, but it looks like it's not at all. it's just that a celibate priesthood attracts these sick individuals, and the beaurocracy of the church covers it all up for them when they attack, which they do because they are hiding and trying to suppress their sick urges all by themselves, rather than seeking help.

[DankNstickY]

i got a friend thats a cop and he's gay. and he's buff. and he kicks peoples asses. and he's gay. and buff. a buff gay guy. bein gay doesnt "prevent" him from giving a good assbeating. so...:umm:... i dont know what my point is.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by DankNstickY
stuff

okay. you funny. official welfare stamp of approval, contingent upon your choosing an avatar so i can keep track of you...

[Memo]

Originally posted by welfareloser
newsweek interviewed some recovering pedophile priests. it seems that the major problem is this: you have a group of young men with urges to have sex with little boys. the urges scare these men, they cover them up, and try to run like hell from them. the run straight to the priesthood, hoping that that will eb a way to purge themselves of these urges. probably works for some, obviously doesn't work for others.

so: i originally thought that the celibacy thing was a cause, but it looks like it's not at all. it's just that a celibate priesthood attracts these sick individuals, and the beaurocracy of the church covers it all up for them when they attack, which they do because they are hiding and trying to suppress their sick urges all by themselves, rather than seeking help.

That makes a lot more sense. So I guess we shouldn't blame it on homosexuality but on those young boys sweet sweet perfectly round butts. :puke:

[mojo]

Originally posted by DankNstickY
i got a friend thats a cop and he's gay. and he's buff. and he kicks peoples asses. and he's gay. and buff. a buff gay guy. bein gay doesnt "prevent" him from giving a good assbeating. so...:umm:... i dont know what my point is. so...he's a "top" then :hehehmm:

[topane]

Religion's fixation on homosexuality is simply an extention of past idiocy. They burned people for being "witches" although none of the accusations were ever proven true. Then there were many religious folk who believed (and still do) that slavery was OK because the Bible said it was. Same with women -- they are property; they are inferior. In another hundred years, the church will find someone else to bother.

[OC]

Yeah, and the fact that few of these cases were reported to the authorities - priests were just transferred from parish to parish - has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

The people responsible for covering up these illegal acts are just as culpable as the perpetrators - it's called being an accessory to a crime. You can start with that bastard Law.

-OC

[Apex]

Originally posted by topane
slavery was OK because the Bible said it was.

Link please.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Apex


Link please.

i think he's talking about what ppl believe based on their (sometimes fantastically stretched) interpretations of things in the bible. slavery is mentioned in the bible. how to treat your slaves properly is mentioned. hence, some ppl decided that that was equivalent to slavery being sanctioned, condoned, advocated, and even mandated as the only proper thing to do with africans.

homosexuality is mentioned in negative terms in the bible. ppl will take that and run with it as far as they want to... anything from "there are hundreds of admonitions agains hetero sex, so the 6 agains gay sex mean little" to "i don't agree with it but whatever" to "it's wrong and they shouldn't do it, god's gonna git em in the end" to "of course god wanted me to kill that fag."

[welfareloser]

for example:

http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:ic4uJrKgO7gC:www.thekumara.com/religion/slavery.html+bible+god+slavery+good&hl=en

AUCKLAND - Pastor Brian Tamariki, of Auckland's Density Christian Life Community Fellowship, is leading a campaign to bring back Slavery.

In a sermon to his congregation last Sunday morning, Pastor Brian complained of "declining moral standards" in the community. "We've so normalised sin in the community," Pastor Brian preached, "that many people think that it is 'normal' to be doped out; to be absolutely boozed; and have had sex with half of the town.

"We've got so used to living in wickedness that there's no longer anyone who can tell the difference between what is Good and what is Bad."

Pastor Brian roundly condemned the "humanist, new age, and worldly ethics of The World", and claimed that "only the Bible provides us with an unchanging guide for what is Good and what is Bad."

When asked by theKumara to clarify his position, Pastor Brian was unrepentant. "Yes, the Bible says there's nothing wrong with slavery!" stated Pastor Brian. "Does that surprise you? Well - if so, you've been listening to the perverted morality of The World for too long. If we had kept following the Bible, we would never have got rid of Slavery!"

Ms Emelia Johnston of the New Zealand Section of Amnesty International was amongst the first to oppose Pastor Brian's Pro-Slavery Campaign. "Mr Tamariki's campaign is a misguided throw-back to less enlightened times," Ms Johnston commented. "We have come a long way in the development of human rights, and I for one do not want to see basic human rights being replaced by the more primitive laws and ethics of Middle-Eastern nomadic tribesmen."

Pastor Brian Tamariki was unconvinced by such an argument. "But the Bible shows no such regard for "human rights". Neither should we either, if we want to follow God's will for our lives. I want to share something with you from the Word of God: People are only Property!! Let's all repeat that together: People are only Property!! Look in Leviticus Chapter 25, verses 44 to 46, where the Scriptures say this: "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the foreigners residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your Property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as Property." Hallelujah!"

"Now, this country has a lot of immigrants coming here to make a new living for themselves," Pastor Brian added. "It is the will of God, as revealed in the Bible, that we should be enslaving these people. Now, why is the New Zealand economy going so badly? I believe that God has cursed the New Zealand economy - because of this country's rejection of slavery. If we brought back slavery, God would bless us with many riches!!"

A leaflet entitled 'Let's Bring Back Slavery', published by Density Christian Life Community Fellowship, is equally to the point. A section in the leaflet entitled 'Slap your Slave Up' clearly reveals Pastor Brian's intentions:

"Enough of this trendy liberal 'equal treatment' of all people! Let's follow the Bible's morality code instead, and Bring Back Slavery!! Hallelujah! The Bible teaches us that it is not 'wrong' to treat people as only being Property. In fact, it is not even 'wrong' to beat your slave black and blue. If they are only Property, you can do what you like with them. And if you beat them to death, you will only be slapped over the wrist, and levied a small fine. Let me repeat it: these people are only PROPERTY! Amen! This sound, moral, biblical teaching is set out in Exodus 21:20-21:

"When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two before dying, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's Property."

Yeah! If God had wanted to give rights to slaves, he wouldn't have given slave-owners the right to beat slaves to the point where they couldn't recover from their injuries - but would have set far better 'minimum standards of care'. Let's bring back slavery, and beat our slaves senseless!"

Pastor Brian's viewpoint is one not shared by all other church-members. "It is no longer the position of the Anglican Church that slavery is morally good," stated the Bishop of Westland, the Rt Revd Dr Edmund Priapus. "In fact, it is our official position that Christians should not in fact own other Christians."

Pastor Brian disagrees strongly. "Rubbish! The Scriptures teach us that God has no problem with one Christian owning another Christian. In fact, God says that the Christian-slave should just buckle down and take it. In the book of 1 Timothy Chapter 6, God commanded that "Slaves who have Christian masters must not be disrespectful to them just because they are fellow members of the church; rather they must slave for them all the more, since those who benefit from their slavery are Christians." Amen!"

"Christian slaves should sit back and take what's coming to them. Slaves should not offer any resistance. Here's another moral teaching from Scripture: "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly." That's from 1 Peter 2:18-19, but it's not the only verse - have a look at Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22 and Titus 2:9-10 next time you read your Bible. God will reward you in heaven for enduring some pain, Slaves. Amen. Hallelujah!"

Divisions are already appearing in some denominations over the morality of slave-ownership. In the Presbyterian Church, hard-liners such as Rt Rev Mark Leersnyder are in full agreement with Tamariki: "The historic Christian understanding, directly drawn from Scripture, is that God sees slavery as something to be continued within his Church. If God did not want slavery in his Kingdom the Church, he would have banned it, instead of upholding it as in 1 Timothy Chapter 6. Therefore the Bible says it, I believe it - end of story."

Meanwhile, other more liberal Presbyterians are urging "grace" and "inclusivity" as overriding guiding principles in the debate.

But having no time for "inclusivity" is Pastor Brian Tamariki: "As Bible-believing, Church-going, Spirit-filled, Tithe-giving, Happy-clapping Children of God, we should be encouraging slavery!! Let's petition the government to Bring Slavery Back! Remember this: what the Bible says is "Good" is Good - even if it offends our consciences!!"

---------
---------

of course he sounds outlandish to most ppl these days... but he wouldna sounded quite so loony 150 years ago. certain opinions of homosexuality may go the same way.

EDIT: in reading over this more carefully, i honestly can't decide if this is an onion-style parody or what. anyway. y'all get the point one way or t'other, tho, right?

[mojo]

ya, welfare...i was on the fence about if this guy was serious or what. in fact, it seems so absurd, that maybe his point is that not everything the bible says can be taken word for word or sumpin. either that, or someone's about to take him as a slave and he'll just accept it :hmm:

[jase71]

Well, as big a nutcase as the guy might be, his quotes are accurate.

So even if he's a parody, he can back it up with chapter and verse... and if he's not a parody, he's got enough justification to make some people believe him, just by quoting the bible to support his point of view...

[Apex]

The Bible says stuff about sin too, but that doesn't mean that the Bible says it's ok. There's a difference between the reforms set forth in the Bible and Biblical support for an institution. That must either be a parody or that guy has some serious deficiencies in his reading and comprehension abilities. Sadly, there's more than enough people out there who are unable to read and think for themselves, that will believe the bible actually supports this. As you said, welfareloser, there's a difference between what is sanctioned, condoned, advocated, and even mandated and what is mentioned.

[DankNstickY]

Originally posted by welfareloser


okay. you funny. official welfare stamp of approval, contingent upon your choosing an avatar so i can keep track of you...


?? come again ??

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by DankNstickY



?? come again ??

you questioning me? oh, now don't you start with me, buster... :angry:

[craziepanda]

Originally posted by topane
Religion's fixation on homosexuality is simply an extention of past idiocy.

i don't really agree with the first part of that statement. using christianity as an example because it's so prevalent, i really don't think that christians focus on homosexuality. instead, i think what happens is that those who argue against christianity focus on this topic because it is one of the modern symbols of accepting people for who they are in our society, making it easier for them to criticize christianity. when presented with this topic, christians should respond only with what they believe.

however, i am also completely against the christians parading the streets, shouting vulgar slogans and stating that homosexuals will go to hell. condemnation is not a part of God's loving message to us, nor should we be condemning others as well. the truth is that the conservative christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but the part that generally isn't emphasized is that God hates all sin, whether it's homosexuality, adultery, murder, lying, idolatry, etc. in this respect, all sin is despised equally. so truly, it's not as if we focus on homosexuality...no more than we exclaim to the world, "liars are going to hell."

[mojo]

Originally posted by craziepanda

crazie's reply to topane i think what topane was doing was referring to the article and not making a general statement. since the original article had a priest scapegoating homosexuality instead of addressing the problem, then of course his reply to that would focus on that exact slant.

this guy is standing in for a cardinal, and as a result, it can be fairly said that he speaks for the cardinal and for the church. hopefully the church is now administering the proper lashings for drawing more negative attention to this ordeal.

[craziepanda]

Originally posted by mojo
i think what topane was doing was referring to the article and not making a general statement.

ok, that makes sense too...i guess i misinterpreted a little bit.

[Nija]

I remember when I used to hang out at the venice boardwalk. (Venice, CA :)) adn every year the Hare Krishna's had a festival, totally legal of course, and to "offically" kick off the festival they would have "followers" (for a lack of a better word) would drag these massive wooden wagons into the center of the festival. Well, a head of them... every year was a group of Christian, holding signs, shouting obscenities, "warning" everyone ahead of these festival goers, that they are sinning, and are going to hell, and are weak minded blah blah, and i always remember them saying how much better they were than these Hare Krisnahs (ok i can't spell it). It was disgusting. The thing that really got me. every year the group of "Christians" grew, noticeably. Now how this relates to this thread was.. every year the "Christians" had at least one, at least, sign that read something to the effect of Hare Krisnah's are no better than gay people (i wanted you to read it as opposed to what it really said)

[sbp]

Assuming its real that pastor in Auckland has his head shoved up a part of his anatomy. Kind of ironic since it was mainly Westerners and Christians who stopped the scourge of slavery around the world.

[johnnymk]

Onesimus, an unconverted slave of Philemon, had escaped his master and was found by Paul (the writer of many of the books of
the New Testament). The book of Philemon is a plea by Paul to Philemon (a believer) on how to treat Onesimus in a loving manner
when he returned.

A few words concerning ancient slavery will assist in an understanding of the lesson of the epistle. Slavery was universal.
Aristotle, one of the most enlightened of the Greeks, held that the Creator had made the majority of the human race for slavery.
Even the Mosaic law permitted the relation, but mitigated the condition of the slave by protective regulations which made Jewish
slavery far the mildest in the world. Under the Roman law the slave was not considered a man, but a chattel without any civil rights
whatever, completely at the mercy of his master. The master could sell him, give him away, torture him, crucify him, put him to death, even feed him to the fishes, and there was no law to interfere in his behalf. But when Christ came he introduced new relations between man and man. All in the church were a brotherhood. In Christ Jesus there was neither bond nor free, male nor female. All stood on a footing of equality before the Lord; all were brethren; all God's children, and to be bound to each other by the ties of brotherly love.

Such revolutionary ideas were sure in the course of time to destroy the condition of slavery, but in the meanwhile,Christianity sought to prepare men for the revolution before it was declared, and hence the relation was continued under newregulations. The servant was to continue to render faithful service to a master who was a brother beloved, and the master was to love and trust his servant as a brother, and to do unto him as he would be done by in such a relation. Hence in the early church thousands of masters and slaves met on an equal footing and often the slaves were the bishops who ruled the church and watched over the spiritual welfare of their masters.

The following concerns the treatment of Hebrew male slaves by Hebrew masters after six years of service:(This is from an Old Testament book)

“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever” (Exodus 21:2-6).

[topane]

Originally posted by mojo
i think what topane was doing was referring to the article and not making a general statement. since the original article had a priest scapegoating homosexuality instead of addressing the problem, then of course his reply to that would focus on that exact slant. That's correct, mojo. Sorry for any confusion, as I was in a bit of a hurry. Welfare also answered Apex's question about my statement about slavery. I was referring to some people (a small minority, I'm sure) who used the Bible's passages to justify slavery, especially during the Civil War era. This joker welfare mentioned is a good example as well.
To me, it seems that homosexuality is the "sin dujour" -- it didn't become anything which was bothered with much until recently (latter half of the 20th century).

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by topane
I was referring to some people (a small minority, I'm sure) who used the Bible's passages to justify slavery, especially during the Civil War era.

And what is so interesting about this is the dichotomy that was formed using the bible. Slaves and free blacks were able to reinterpret the bible in a way that denounced slavery and undermined one of the great Southern "justifications" for slavery. They were able to use Christianity as a tool, mainly in the form of the AME, for emancipation.

Oh, and DankNstickY, word of advice:

Stay on welfare's good side!!! :hihi:

[DankNstickY]

welfare has a good side??:hehehmm:

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by goyo2
I have a friend who is a gay Priest and he's a really cool guy. His sexuality doesn't come into play with his vocation as a priest.

Someone 'splain this to me... A Catholic Priest is supposed to be celebate. That means no sex. If a guy is not having sex, how can he be gay? It's kind of like saying a guy who weights 150 pounds is fat, because if he actually ate what he wanted, he'd be fat...

Now, if he's having sex, he shouldn't be a priest. If I were Catholic and he were my priest, I'd want him gone more because he violated his vows, than the fact he was gay.

You're a "straight" priest if you give up sex with women, you're a "gay" priest if you give up sex with men?

[jase71]

Originally posted by kb0wwp


Someone 'splain this to me... A Catholic Priest is supposed to be celebate. That means no sex. If a guy is not having sex, how can he be gay? It's kind of like saying a guy who weights 150 pounds is fat, because if he actually ate what he wanted, he'd be fat...


Does that mean you're not "straight" either if you're celibate?

Seems to me that "gay" or "straight" are indications of your sexual preference... not necessarily indicators of your sexual activity. It's not as if you're "undecided" right up to the moment of your first sexual act, and then choose your team based on the outcome. You've usually got a pretty good idea whether you're "gay" or "straight" long before your first experience.

Your sexual preference determines whether you're "gay" or "straight", not whether or not you get a chance to act on it...

[mojo]

Originally posted by kb0wwp


Someone 'splain this to me... A Catholic Priest is supposed to be celebate. That means no sex. If a guy is not having sex, how can he be gay? It's kind of like saying a guy who weights 150 pounds is fat, because if he actually ate what he wanted, he'd be fat...

Now, if he's having sex, he shouldn't be a priest. If I were Catholic and he were my priest, I'd want him gone more because he violated his vows, than the fact he was gay.

You're a "straight" priest if you give up sex with women, you're a "gay" priest if you give up sex with men? so i guess by that token he's not straight either? so he's neither straight nor gay...seems we have an enigma, wrapped in a puzzle, and sealed with a conundrum :hihi:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by mojo
so i guess by that token he's not straight either? so he's neither straight nor gay...seems we have an enigma, wrapped in a puzzle, and sealed with a conundrum :hihi:

Pat!!!!!!

:heh: