Monday letters
Mitt Romney’s tax returns, political ads and the gun lobby in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Scouts are protecting impressionable boys
The Boy Scouts of America are right to stick to their principles. I agree with the statement by Randolph Wynne (“Scouts are wrong to discriminate,” July 23 Pick of the day) that “many of our institutions have failed us,” but the Boy Scouts of America has not.
I was a Boy Scout and an adult leader, and my son is an Eagle Scout.
It may feel good to posit that it is abhorrent to discriminate for sexual orientation, but it is more abhorrent to witness, as I have, what homosexuality can do to impressionable young Scouts in a group setting.
Sadly, we need only look at the tragedy at Penn State for another example of poor stewardship in protecting youth from vile acts.
WENDELL HENSLEY
BLACKSBURG
July 30, 2012 - 6:10 AM
Once again, someone is falsely connecting homosexuality and pedophilia! There are no indications that the “tragedy at Penn State” has anything to do with Sanduscky being homosexual. He is a pedophile.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Health, “A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relatives’ heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual.” The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, “Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children.” According to these studies, gay men are actually less likely to molest children.
“Create jobs that don’t kill people
Re: “EPA rule will kill jobs” (July 19 commentary):
EARLE MITCHELL
SPRINGFIELD”
Pure conjecture, Earle. Please respond with irrefutable links to your claims. Thank you.
“Where’s the outrage over assault weapons?
HAZEL BRAY
HARDY”
Hazel, I believe, but do not know conclusively, that the weapons used by Mr. Cho in his rampage were a Glock 19 and Walther P22. Hardly “assault weapons” in any sense of the accepted meaning.
I table lamp could be classified as an “assault weapon” if used to beat someone else up-side their noggin.
Everyone gets stuck on this term: “Semi-Automatic.” A double-action revolver is “semi-automatic” in that a bullet will be fired every time you pull the trigger.
If your intent is that you want all weapons banned, then just come out and say so.
RE: Doobage legalization:
And not only that, Robert, but hot dog and Doritos sales would increase 10-fold, giving a much-needed boost to the economy.
Mr. Sharpe is 100% correct: marijuana is relatively harmless, but marijuana prohibition is deadly.
#1 “Once again, someone is falsely connecting homosexuality and pedophilia! There are no indications that the “tragedy at Penn State” has anything to do with Sanduscky being homosexual. He is a pedophile.”
How many young girls did Sandusky molest?
#6 “How many young girls did Sandusky molest?”
Utterly irrelevant, Jim. I notice you made no effort whatsoever to counter OtherSilentBob’s references from either the U.S. Department of Health or the American Psychological Association, two professional health organizations who (unlike you) know of what they speak. I guess by that we can assume you’ve decided to concede their points. Smart move on your part, Jim.
6 – I think the point, Jim, is that the outrage should be directed at Sandusky’s pedophilia, not his homosexuality. Said differently, we would be just as outraged if his victims were little girls.
MR. HENSLEY!
“It may feel good to posit that it is abhorrent to discriminate for sexual orientation, but it is more abhorrent to witness, as I have, what homosexuality can do to impressionable young Scouts in a group setting.”
WHAT WHAT WHAT!?!?!? What are you talking about? WE are talking about adults being a positive part of childrens’ lives. WE are not talking about your sick pediophile fantasies.
#8, Hoo, well said!
#7 #8 and cheerleader #10.
#1 stated Sandusky’s behavior had nothing top do with homosexuality. This is entirely different with the rest of his post.
Sandusky molested only boys. His preference obviously was for males (albeit young). He is male. A male preferring sexual relationships with males. I call that homosexuality. You call it what you wish.
@8 89Hoo, was Sandusky gay? I thought he was married. Doesn’t that make him a heterosexual pedophile that like boys?
You guys have me confused.
@3 Mr. Krutz and everyone, ignoring for the minute what types of guns were used, you’ll find this link interesting. It compares numbers of assault deaths between the US and other OECD countries with the US being far and away the worst. Within the US, the south is more violent (in general) and blacks die more often than whites.
Why is this? Hard to say but presumably the number and availability of guns in general are a major contributing factors.
Fortunately, the number of deaths are decreasing.
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/21/assault-deaths-within-the-united-states/
There are certainly myriad examples of adults not protecting children from “Vile acts” and sadly that doubtless includes the Boy Scouts. Pedophiles are notorious for worming their way into children’s lives.
This constant, ignorant comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia tells on the person lamenting same and nothing more. The two are not the same thing. A homosexual who wants to have any sexual contact with a child is a pedophile and a pervert, just as a heterosexual who wants to have any sexual contact with a child is a pedophile and a pervert. What anyone does as a consenting adult defines their sexual orientation, doing the same with children defines their criminal status. This is just one more way that society discriminates against homosexuals.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/trial-date-set-boy-scout-leader-accused-molestatio/nPLgc/
http://www.news10.net/news/article/197928/2/Boy-Scout-leader-accused-of-child-molestation-
12 – Scott, I frankly have no idea whether Sandusky is/was gay, straight, both, purple, rainbow, whatever…as I said, none of that matters. What matters is that he’s a pedophile monster, and would be a pedophile monster no matter what his lifestyle is, and no matter whether his victims are little boys, little girls, or both. The crime is the pedophilia, not the lifestyle.
The age of consent in PA is 16.
As any of Sandusky’s victims reach(ed) that age, hypothetically or in practice, at that point does Sandusky become homosexual? As opposed to 15 & 364 days?
Nice charts and graphs, thanks…
but they need to be backed up with population percentages of “blacks v whites”, etc in the other OECD countries, etc.
I also like how the writer says things like “should be OK”, etc.
In addition, the writer on the blog page mentions OECD before defining what it means, if ever.
Doesn’t lend itself well to being a well thought out or statistically significant comparison of anything without the backing facts and explanations.
I’m not saying anything presented in the blog page is necessarily wrong: only that had that page been presented to me if I were their teacher, it would be so marked up with red ink when I was done that it would be illegible.
#16 Once again, utterly irrelevant. Your irresponsible and truly offensive attempts at conflating homosexuality with pedophilia continue to reflect very poorly on you, Jim.
#16 Oh, and one more thing: I notice you still haven’t made any attempts whatsoever at disproving the scientifically-proven, peer-reviewed research conducted by the professional organizations mentioned in #1. H
From the PA code:
§ 3121. Rape.
(a) Offense defined.-A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:
By forcible compulsion.
By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.
Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring.
Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant’s power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance.
Who suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent.
Who is less than 13 years of age.
(b) Additional penalties.-In addition to the penalty provided for by subsection (a), a person may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed ten years’ confinement and an additional amount not to exceed $100,000 where the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant and has substantially impaired the complainant’s power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, any substance for the purpose of preventing resistance through the inducement of euphoria, memory loss and any other effect of this substance.
§ 3122. Statutory rape (Repealed).
§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault.
Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.
So it looks to me like we got ourselves several cases of Statuatory Sexual Assault.
Let’s be clear about this. I am not necessarily relating homosexuality with pedophilia. Any more than heterosexulaity.
However, Sandusky’s pedophilia obviously included a preference for males. Does anyone think this was not a manifest preference? Is not such manifest preference, by definition, homosexuality?
If a male pedophile abuses only females, is that a heterosexual preference?
Some will say no. Please tell me what you call the gender preference.
The Boy Scouts of America have a charter from the Congress of the United States that allows them to exist with the beliefs and goals stated in the Scout Law. This right has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Learn to live with this: The Scouts are privately funded, and have as much right to their beliefs as do all individuals in this country. You don’t have to like, approve of or condone their beliefs….and they don’t have to adopt yours. If you want a youth group that reflects your beliefs..start your own. What surfaces here is envy of the long-term success of the B.S.A.. By the way, how would you feel if people, who are not a member of your bridge club, criticized you for not using Bicycle brand playing cards. By the way, we all discriminate daily (I challenge you to look up the dictionary meaning), it is how we decide to buy one brand of jeans or car instead of another. Try, just once, saying to yourself: “.It’s O.K. that we don’t all like the same thing.” See, that didn’t hurt. You know, the Scouts could just declare themselves a religion and really give you apoplexy.
What the Boy Scouts of America does not have a charter from the Congress of the United States for is to be exempt from criticism for their bigotry and discrimination. That the laws allow them do be bigots and discriminate is clear, that it is right or something we need to shut up about is not.
Jim Lucas #21, I already answered your question. IMO, what anyone does as a consenting adult defines their sexual orientation, doing the same with children defines their criminal status.
The homosexual/pedophilia issue is irrelevant. Would you put a heterosexual male in charge of Girl Scouts on a weekend campout as a leader? THis seems to be more of a “male agressor” issue and linked to age. I don;t think we would be as adverse to a woman in charge of a Boy Scout troop in the same situation.
To clarify, let’s assume homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally prone to acting on their attractions. Let us also assume that each is as likley to be a pedophile as the other. All things being equal then, why put someone who has a propensity to be atttrated to the same sex, in a position of authority over that same sex individual? Isn’t this the fox guarding the henhouse?
If you would not be as cautious about a woman as troop leader (someone who could be attracted to the opposite sex members or be the targert of attraction) then why would we view the woman differently? It must be a function of the male as agressor rather than a homo/heterosexual issue.
#18 &19 You are correct. I never said anything reference other than the 1st para of #1′s post.
The only reference I made was to the assertion in the first para that Sandusky’s behavior has nothing to do with being homosexual:
“There are no indications that the “tragedy at Penn State” has anything to do with Sanduscky being homosexual.”
This is PC crapola. Sandusky clearly has a preference for males.
I have offended no one, indeed I have offered no value judgement of any kind. Some create offense when their PC POV is questioned. Perhaps that explains your agitation.
For clarity, in case anyone cares, I submitted my #21 before #’s 18 & 19 were posted.
#27 For the umpteen zillionth time: Pedophilia has NOTHING — nothging at all — to do with sexual orientation. Every respected medical and mental health organization on the planet agrees with me. I’ll gladly take their word for it over a willfully ignorant right-wing ideologue any old day of the week. Sorry if you consider a deference toward actual experts with actual training in the field as Pee Cee (another tired, meaningless rightist catchphrase).
#24 Nice try Ms. Saunders. Different thread, different question(s). Sure, honest mistake, right?
Maybe this will help, from Friday Open Thread:
102.Ms. Saunders, in my #’s 97, 99 & 101 I ask you explicit questions directly related to your #’s 95 & 96.
I politely ask if you intend to answer any of these questions.
Comment by Jim Lucas — July 30, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
#29 You need to read my posts in question, and get off your high horse. Ever considered de-caf?
I suppose it was purely chance all of Sandusky’s victims are male? What would you call his gender preference, if not homosexual?
Straight answer please.
As to your name calling & insults…..well, they won’t print it.
People are pretending to not understand your viewpoint, Jim, but I can see what you’re saying. You have clearly said that Sandusky’s sexual preference did NOT cause his pedophilia. Other commenters are choosing to ignore that portion of your viewpoint.
First and foremost, Sandusky is a pedophile. Period.
Secondly, it would appear that Sandusky is a homosexual, or at least has homosexual tendencies, seeing as his victims were the same sex as Sandusky.
His homosexuality DID NOT cause the pedophilia. He is a pedophile whether he molested boys or girls. But, I think it’s fair to say that his homosexuality obviously directed who he chose to molest, seeing as all known victims are boys.
So, saying that there are “no indications” that the crimes have anything to do with Sandusky being a homosexual is false. Obviously, his homosexuality dictated his choice of male or female victims. But that’s as far as it goes when talking about his sexual preference having any relation to the crimes. The homosexuality was not the crime, or the cause of the crime. It was the age and forced pedophilia that was the cause of the crime.
What on earth are you talking about now? My #24 was in direct answer to your #21 and I had already said it in #14. Not a different thread, not a different question and no mistake made…by me.
Sorry, you do not get to “direct” me anywhere. I will get to the Friday Open Thread if and when I feel like it. Hope that clears it up.
But do keep digging.
From my own comment a few minutes ago…
“But, I think it’s fair to say that his homosexuality obviously directed who he chose to molest, seeing as all known victims are boys…”
I want to be clear that his homosexuality did NOT direct his choice in the illegal age of his victims. Don’t make that assumption when reading my post.
Sandusky was married for a very long time to a woman. He has children, as well as foster children, and with the exception of one, he has not been accused of molesting them. He is not homosexual because there is no evidence of him EVER being attracted to or having a sexual relationship with another man. His relationships with children make him a pedophile regardless of the child’s gender. You all are trying to equate things that are not the same. Being attracted to children is a perversion, not homosexuality, no matter the gender mix. It is a straw that is only persecution with no evidence, stop grasping.
Nevermind that all his victims were males…we’re supposed to believe the man had no homosexual tendencies at all? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
#33 Ms. Saunders I did not ask you any question in my #21. How (even if I had) you could answer such in #14 would be a neat trick.
Now that we are clearly on the same thread, eagerly awaiting your response. Thank you.
“His relationships with children make him a pedophile regardless of the child’s gender.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I said, I 100% agree.
“You all are trying to equate things that are not the same. Being attracted to children is a perversion, not homosexuality…”
Maybe others are trying to do that, but not me. I put a lot of effort into writing my comments to show that they are NOT the same and should not be equated together.
Like you said, the crime was the age, not the homosexuality. I 100% agree. But to say that his homosexuality (which apparently existed by his choice in victims’ sex, we can’t ignore that fact) didn’t play a part in the choice of the sex (NOT AGE) of his victims is just ignoring an obvious preference. He didn’t just abuse genderless children, he abused male children.
Let’s look at it another way. Without knowing the sexual orientations of the victims, could you look at the victims and tell them that they should only be bothered by the fact that they were raped underage, and not by the fact that they were raped by someone of the same sex? I don’t think that’s up to us to tell the victims which part of the abuse that they should be more or less offended by, or not offended by.
To be perfectly clear, I do not equate pedophilia and homosexuality in any shape or form. I can’t say it any clearer than that.
But ask yourself this question. For those victims who are heterosexual, or for those victims that don’t think homosexuality is ok, do we have any right to tell them that they aren’t supposed to consider the same-sex aspect of the rapes as abuse, that only the young age and non-consensual sex were the parts that were wrong? Do any of us have that right to tell the victims how they should feel, or which aspects of the rapes that they should feel are more or less wrong for them personally?
#32 hokie24, absolutely correct. Thank you.
To be perfectly clear with my viewpoint, I’m ok with gay marriage and gay rights. I’ve got zero problem with that.
But I also am not going to tell someone that is against homosexuality that they are wrong in their beliefs, or that their reasons for their opinions is wrong.
So, knowing those things about where I’m coming from, that’s why I think it’s insulting to the victims to make the statement that there were “no indications” that homosexuality played a part in the crimes. Maybe we don’t see same-sex intercourse as a bad thing, but it’s not up to us how the victims view the same-sex aspect of the crimes. And quite frankly, that’s not any of our business to tell the victims if the same-sex aspect was wrong, right, or indifferent. That’s why I think the “no indications” statement is insulting to the victims.
#34 Again, correct.
Jim Lucas, you may deny it as you see fit, but it is quite clear you asked two questions in your #21. Albeit you did leave the question mark off the second question. Or was that a declarative?
Question 1: “If a male pedophile abuses only females, is that a heterosexual preference?”
Question 2: “Please tell me what you call the gender preference.”
I answered you in #24 and mentioned that I had already said as much in #14. Get over the nits, Jim Lucas!
Hokie24, you are still trying to equate the behavior with homosexuality IMO and I reject that.
You have not established that Sandusky or any other pedophile was or is homosexual. You assume that because the victims were the same gender, but homosexuality is the attraction of consenting adults. Being attracted to children is not homosexuality even if they are the same gender. It is a separate thing entirely. One is a perversion and one is a normal adult attraction. If anything, Sandusky would be considered heterosexual as his adult sexual relationship was with his wife. Without an adult relationship to base the premise on, a pedophile is just a pervert, not heterosexual or homosexual.
I did not say, “the crime was the age, not the homosexuality”. It is not what I implied and it is not what I said. I do not equate the two.
His access was mostly to boys and that may well be his “preference” but preferring children you can coerce or force into an act over a consenting adult is what makes you a pedophile.
The victims were children, until they are older, they do not even have true “sexual orientations” and they know they did not choose this attack. I do not know if being raped underage is “worse” if it is by an adult of the same gender. I do not believe you do either. They should be “offended” by being made a victim of a pedophile and it being a woman would not make it “better” IMO. In any case, I am not telling the victims anything, I am telling you and others here who have made remarks out of ignorance that being a homosexual has nothing to do with being a pedophile, they are not companions, they are two distinct and different things. One is a perversion, the other is not.
I cannot fathom how you can say you “do not equate pedophilia and homosexuality in any shape or form” when that is precisely what you have done.
I do not need to ask myself anything, I am not telling victims how to feel. I am telling supposed adults to come to grips with the pathology of the crime and stop dragging homosexuality into it. How can you think that does not further cloud the issue for the victims?
You do not need to think “homosexuality is ok” because the crime here was sexual contact with children. Which is never OK.
Is rape better in your mind if the rapist is a different gender? Seriously? I cannot fathom what you are trying to argue. In the eyes of the law children cannot give consent for sexual activity so it is not relevant that the pedophile is the same or a different gender.
You are the one appearing to tell victims how they should feel IMO.
1. #35 You are the one “grasping”. Or should I say, trying to support a pre-concived list of “liberal” talking points. I submit such not as an insult, but as reasonable observation that your views seem never cross such dogma.
I assume you have heard of bi-sexuality? One side of such would be sexual preference of one’s own gender.
Again (other than the pedophilia) I offer and have not offered, any value judgement.
Bi-sexuality; twice the chance to get a date on Saturday night.
Again, Hokie24 #40, you are the one telling victims how to feel.
I have no problem telling “someone that is against homosexuality that they are wrong in their beliefs, or that their reasons for their opinions is wrong”. I’ll do so all day long, every day I breathe for as long as I live.
“Hokie24, you are still trying to equate the behavior with homosexuality IMO and I reject that.”
No, I absolutely am not. From my post in #38… “To be perfectly clear, I do not equate pedophilia and homosexuality in any shape or form. I can’t say it any clearer than that.”
“I did not say, “the crime was the age, not the homosexuality”. It is not what I implied and it is not what I said. I do not equate the two.”
I know that you did not say that. I DID say that. Homosexuality WAS NOT THE CRIME. The age, therefore pedophilia, was the crime. How did you manage to twist the meaning there?
“Again, Hokie24 #40, you are the one telling victims how to feel.”
Do what??? That’s no even close to making sense. If you actually read my post, and not just assume that you know what you think I’m saying, you’d quickly see where your comment is off-track.
“I cannot fathom what you are trying to argue.”
Yes, it is painfully obvious how far off-base that your assumptions have taken you on this thread.
My whole point is that there isn’t a single one of us here that can tell the victims how they should or shouldn’t feel, because we don’t know what the victims believe. Statements by PSU or the media about whether or not “any indications” of homosexuality were involved is entirely up to the victims, and ONLY up to the victims. If you had even pretended to read my previous comments, you would have seen that.
Stop assuming and actually read the posts before you respond.
“homosexuality is the attraction of consenting adults.”
I’m sorry, but this isn’t true. I’ve had too many friends that knew for themselves well before they were 18 years old that they were gay.
“You do not need to think “homosexuality is ok” because the crime here was sexual contact with children. Which is never OK.”
Yes, I know. That’s kinda my whole point of all of my posts. What I think doesn’t make a difference to the people whos’ opinions do matter, the victims. Thank you for basically repeating my comment when I said, “the crime was the age, not the homosexuality.”
“Is rape better in your mind if the rapist is a different gender? Seriously? I cannot fathom what you are trying to argue. In the eyes of the law children cannot give consent for sexual activity so it is not relevant that the pedophile is the same or a different gender.”
Again… if you had read my comments without assuming, you would have seen that my comments were intended from the viewpoint of the victims, not in the eyes of the law. Do you think that the victims care about the law when deciding how they should feel?
For example, if one of the victims is a blatant homophobe… do you think he’ll see the crimes the same way that you or I do? I seriously doubt it. See what I’m getting at? You’ve heavily, heavily misunderstood my comments. You’ve added a lot of incorrect assumptions.
Sandi, I’m not trying to be smart-alecked, but you have really, really misunderstood where I was coming from. So much that at some parts, I honestly can’t connect the dots to how you twisted my meaning to warrant some of the responses that you gave.
Read through my comments again. I think you’ll see that you’ve made some assumptions about my opinion that are way off-base, and don’t line up with my comments.
I wasn’t trying to say that being raped by someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex was in anyway better or worse than the other. But without a doubt, they are different, especially depending on the victim. And then depending on each victims’ individual views on sexual orientation, that may dictate exactly how those scenarios are different for that individual. Does that make sense? I feel like I’m not explaining it very well.
Basically, what was driving my comments was that to me, it doesn’t look like anyone in this thread was taking the viewpoint of the victims into consideration. Each victims’ individual opinions on sexual orientation is going to affect how they view what they went through. It’s not up to us, or the media, or PSU, or a lawyer, or a judge to decide what does and/or does not affect the victims about these attacks. That’s what I was trying to explain.
Sandi: Before using the word bigotry, you might want to refresh your memory of it’s definition: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one’s own. You, by definition are as guilty as you think Scouts are. You libs, Dems, and Progs use the word tolerance as a one way street. It never runs in both directions for you. By the way, I can’t find anything in my blog that suggested you shut up. Me’thinks the lady doth protest too much. Does it bother you that like minded people who don’t think the way you do, have every right to think you’re wrong…because you are.
Sandi: Ernest Green (astronaut), Deion Sanders, Bo Jackson, Hank Aaron, Congressman Charles Fattah (Dem. PA), Michael Jordan, Gen. Colin Powell, Ben Vereen, Gerald Ford, James Lovell (astronaut), Sen. Richard Lugar, F.B.I. Director William Sessions, Steven Spielberg, James (Jimmy) Stewart, Walter Cronkite, Richard Gere, Mark Spitz, Joe Theisman, 100 U.S. Astronauts (besides those already listed), James Brady, Robert Gates CIA Director, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Michael Moore (yes, the film maker), Ozzie Nelson, John Tesh, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., Jimmy Buffet, President Bill Clinton, President John F. Kennedy, Branford Marsalis, John Ritter (Three’s Company) and Nolan Ryan (a pretty good pitcher) all have something in common. (There is neither space nor time to do a complete list.) All of these men were Boy Scouts are (an Eagle Scout is a lifetime member), or were, Boy Scouts. Shall we line them up, including two Democrat Presidents, and let you tell them they are bigots because of their beliefs…but you aren’t?
It would be hard to imagine a thread with more people talking at each other as opposed to with each other. This is a microcosm of why this is in many ways a failure.
First, hokie24, it is you and you alone that is concentrating on framing this discussion through the eyes of the victims which, unless you are one of them, is insulting on the face of it. I do not know how they feel, I do not pretend to know and I would not presume to tell them how to feel about their abuser or their own sexuality.
The discussion is about pretending that pedophiles have some latent homosexuality (even with no evidence) that stirs them to abuse children and that is just patently insulting and I reject it as being a scapegoat and a furtherance of the bigotry that homosexuals face.
I used “homosexuality is the attraction of consenting adults” in the context of the discussion about Sandusky. I am well aware that homosexuals are aware of their same sex attraction, just as we are, when they are young, some very young. That is not inappropriate nor symptomatic of anything that remotely correlates to abusing children. All of you, being all to willing to make that connection, for whatever reason, are wrong, it is prejudiced and it is without merit IMO.
I am not looking for you to agree with me, praise me or give an inch. Likewise, do not expect me to stop calling it the bigotry, prejudice, disrespect and frankly disgusting ploy that it is. I am way past sick and tired of pedophilia being “related” to homosexuality by those who cannot seem to separate their own prejudice.
Searching Bear, I have not said that the Boy Scouts is not a worthwhile organization, nor that they do not do great things in many young boys lives. My point is that they DO discriminate, it IS bigoted and it is wrong IMO. They have every right to do so, and I have every right to call it as I see it. They are far from perfect and while they are so obsessed with homosexuals being banned, they have nonetheless allowed pedophiles in and damage has been done, so please stop pretending their “vigilance” is some martyred sacrifice. This is akin to thinking red-headed children are possessed of the devil with no evidence to back it up. Pedophiles and homosexuals are two distinctly different things. Pedophiles have inappropriate thoughts and perverted contact with children. Do you believe Sandusky would never abuse again if he was only allowed to be around girls?
The basis for this prejudice is the very real belief among many of you that homosexuality is also a perversion and your posts here have proven that beyond doubt. I can readily see why many of you need to remain anonymous and launch that perspective from the safety of not being accountable.
I have no problem telling “someone that is against homosexuality that they are wrong in their beliefs, or that their reasons for their opinions is wrong”. I’ll do so all day long, every day I breathe for as long as I live.
#53, Sandi, it seems SB has confused the idea that if an organization demonstrates bigotry/discrimination (which the Scouts have), then its members, by default, must also individually be bigoted/discriminatory, which is, of course, faulty logic.
#52 “This is a microcosm of why this is in many ways a failure”.
A “microcosm” of what? What is the “is”?
“I used “homosexuality is the attraction of consenting adults” in the context of the discussion about Sandusky.”
Really? “You have not established that Sandusky or any other pedophile was or is homosexual. You assume that because the victims were the same gender, but homosexuality is the attraction of consenting adults. Being attracted to children is not homosexuality even if they are the same gender. It is a separate thing entirely. One is a perversion and one is a normal adult attraction.”
Your “but” clearly differentiates your statement from Sandusky. As does the rest of your remark.
“I am way past sick and tired of pedophilia being “related” to homosexuality by those who cannot seem to separate their own prejudice.”
You continue to make this claim. Show where anyone here has made such a relation. Indeed we have gone out of our way (several times) making it clear that is not our point, or suggestion.
#31 “You need to read my posts in question” Already have.
“and get off your high horse” You first.
“Ever considered de-caf?” Your condescension is duly noted. I’m not a coffee drinker anyway.
“I suppose it was purely chance all of Sandusky’s victims are male?” Yep.
“What would you call his gender preference, if not homosexual?” Since he was married to a woman and had biological kids of his own, his orientation (not “preference” as you insist on calling it) was heterosexual.
Like I said before and say yet again: Pedophilia has NOTHING — zip, zilch, nada, bupkus, diddly-squat — to do with sexual orientation.
“As to your name calling & insults…” Oh, so “and get off your high horse” and “Ever considered de-caf?” aren’t insults? Try exhibiting a little self-awareness, Jim. It would work wonders.
“I am not looking for you to agree with me, praise me or give an inch. Likewise, do not expect me to stop calling it the bigotry, prejudice, disrespect and frankly disgusting ploy that it is. I am way past sick and tired of pedophilia being “related” to homosexuality by those who cannot seem to separate their own prejudice.”
Your assumptions about what you think I’m saying have gotten in the way of what I’m actually saying. That’s a shame. I know you’re capable of understanding, but you’re refusing to do so. When you make comments like the one above, you’re so far away from the viewpoint that I was trying to express that you might as well be talking to someone else.
I am not connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. I am not. I am not. I am not. Yet you keep assuming that I am. There’s no prejudice here, yet you keep trying to insert it into my comments. You refuse to read my repeated comments that explain that, and instead just assume. Quit assuming, you’re making yourself look silly with your comments way out in left field.
The way that you responded is so far off-base that I have to believe that it is in no way connected to the comments that I made.
#54 “Bigotry” aside (for now). What is an organization other than it’s members? Or is this “faulty logic”?
It is the misplaced ability to see this that results in the liberal dogma about Citizens United. (Except when it involves organizations they agree with).
Yes, E., I realize not everyone in any oraganization agree on all issues germane to that organization. But there is by all common sense standards the reality that there is general consensus. Thus the organization.
Getting back to the Mr Hensley’s letter, doesn’t anybody find it incredibly ironic that the Boy Scouts probably would have welcomed Sandusky (pre-scandal) as a Scout leader?
It is not me that is refusing to see the oh so obvious:
“There are no indications that the “tragedy at Penn State” has anything to do with Sanduscky being homosexual. He is a pedophile.”
How many young girls did Sandusky molest?
Comment by Jim Lucas — July 30, 2012 @ 9:34 am
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
“It may feel good to posit that it is abhorrent to discriminate for sexual orientation, but it is more abhorrent to witness, as I have, what homosexuality can do to impressionable young Scouts in a group setting.”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
“Sandusky molested only boys. His preference obviously was for males (albeit young). He is male. A male preferring sexual relationships with males. I call that homosexuality. You call it what you wish.
Comment by Jim Lucas — July 30, 2012 @ 12:31 pm
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
“As any of Sandusky’s victims reach(ed) that age, hypothetically or in practice, at that point does Sandusky become homosexual? As opposed to 15 & 364 days?
Comment by Jim Lucas — July 30, 2012 @ 2:02 pm”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
“However, Sandusky’s pedophilia obviously included a preference for males. Does anyone think this was not a manifest preference? Is not such manifest preference, by definition, homosexuality?”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
“it would appear that Sandusky is a homosexual, or at least has homosexual tendencies, seeing as his victims were the same sex as Sandusky.
His homosexuality DID NOT cause the pedophilia. He is a pedophile whether he molested boys or girls. But, I think it’s fair to say that his homosexuality obviously directed who he chose to molest, seeing as all known victims are boys.
So, saying that there are “no indications” that the crimes have anything to do with Sandusky being a homosexual is false. Obviously, his homosexuality dictated his choice of male or female victims. But that’s as far as it goes when talking about his sexual preference having any relation to the crimes. The homosexuality was not the crime, or the cause of the crime. It was the age and forced pedophilia that was the cause of the crime.
Comment by hokie24 — July 30, 2012 @ 4:31 pm”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia.
““But, I think it’s fair to say that his homosexuality obviously directed who he chose to molest, seeing as all known victims are boys…”
I want to be clear that his homosexuality did NOT direct his choice in the illegal age of his victims. Don’t make that assumption when reading my post.
Comment by hokie24 — July 30, 2012 @ 4:37 pm”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia
I could go on, but I think I make my point. Your denials to the contrary, you have decided that Sandusky is homosexual, you have decided that his homosexuality caused him to seek boys, you have decided that his homosexuality led him to choose the sexual activity, but then you want to deny that homosexuality caused him to break the law? Is that really what you want to say? Either way, you have repeatedly connected homosexuality and pedophilia and they are not connected.
From my friends who kept memberships in churches and clubs that excluded minorities and homosexuals for decades, the excuse has always been that while they did not agree with that policy, the organization did a lot of good and offered a lot of benefits to members. So I assume that is what an organization is, other than its members.
The buying of government thanks to Citizens United is not related to this issue in any way, shape or form that I can fathom, but I do eagerly await the line you attempt to draw being made clearer.
“I want to be clear that his homosexuality did NOT direct his choice in the illegal age of his victims. Don’t make that assumption when reading my post.
Comment by hokie24 — July 30, 2012 @ 4:37 pm”
THAT, is connecting homosexuality and pedophilia”
You quoted my comments, and then made a comment of your own that doesn’t make sense with my statement that you quoted. You are straight up ignoring my words, and just commenting on your assumptions.
“…but then you want to deny that homosexuality caused him to break the law?”
I do not think that homosexuality had any connection to him breaking the law. Are you saying that homosexuality DID cause him to break the law?
“Either way, you have repeatedly connected homosexuality and pedophilia and they are not connected.”
No, I have not. I know what I’m trying to say, and I know that I do not connect homosexuality and pedophilia. You will not tell me otherwise. Why are you trying so hard to tell me that I should connect them? Your assumptions will not change the fact that I know that I am not connecting the two.
Here’s from my own post 57… it can’t get any clearer, yet you keep assuming, and nobody reading here can figure out why you continue do assume instead of actually read.
“…I am not connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. I am not. I am not. I am not. Yet you keep assuming that I am…”
Don’t quote a bunch of lines from another commenter, and attach them to me. That’s what you did in post #60.
You are deliberately taking your own words out of the context you said them AND the context I quoted them. That is a sign of desperation. I stand by my point.
““…but then you want to deny that homosexuality caused him to break the law?”
I do not think that homosexuality had any connection to him breaking the law. Are you saying that homosexuality DID cause him to break the law?”
No, I am saying homosexuality had nothing, nothing at all, to do with his pedophilia. I do not believe he or any child molester is a homosexual. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two very different things.
I have always found it odd that “gay/lesbian” always seems to show up in the bio of those of that pursuasion. Not so with straights.
And they frequently will make sure you are aware of their “gay/lesbian” status if not immediately obvious when you first meet them. Not so with straights.
My son, an airline pilot, related he once had to listen for almost 3 hours on a coast to coast flight about his copilot’s “coming out of the closet.” My son said he only cared about how well the guy did his job, not his sexual preference.
My sexual preference is not the most important aspect of my being.
#60 All of my comments were (and originated) with & only with taking issue with OSB’s #1, where he stated Sandusky’s behavior had nothing to do with homosexuality. You (and Steven K) have misconstrued & misrepresented my (and hokie24′s) comments since.
#56 “I suppose it was purely chance all of Sandusky’s victims are male?” Yep.
(At least) 9 victims. Familiar with statistics Steven? .5 X .5 X .5 X .5 X .5 X.5 X.5 X .5 X .5 = .00195. The “chance” is 19.5 times in 100 thousand.
Regarding pedophilia, I don’t recall ever reading or hearing of a female pedophile. I don’t doubt that it occurs but it must be rare.
It would seem to me that the vast majority of pedophiles are male. And I suspect that the percentage of homosexual pedophiles far exceeds the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.
Maybe some internet geek could research this and pass it on.
I am apparently speaking to a brick wall. John R, pedophiles are not homosexual! Your projection shows…yet again.
“No, I am saying homosexuality had nothing, nothing at all, to do with his pedophilia.”
Yes, which is also EXACTLY what I’m saying. Why are you trying to insert something more?
“I do not believe he or any child molester is a homosexual.”
Take Sandusky completely out of the picture, is it fair to say that your comment becomes the following below? (I’m legitimately asking, not trying to assume.)
“I do not believe any child molester is a homosexual.”
If so, and you believe this statement to be true, then how can you endorse the findings of the research by the US Dept of Health cited in comment #1 that compares child molesting occurances by heterosexual men and homosexual men?
Again, for the umpteenth time, I am not connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. I am not saying that homosexuality caused Sandusky’s crimes. I don’t know how to be any clearer, and I can’t understand how you can continue to twist my comments to mean anything else. Don’t confuse my opinions with anyone else on this thread. I’m being as upfront as possible. I think you’re tying me in with folks who aren’t saying the same thing that I am, and assuming a LOT of extra meaning into my comments that just plain doens’t exist. Please be respectful enough to not do that.
Let’s cut the mustard here:
1. No one is saying all pedophiles are homosexual.
2. No one is saying all homosexuals are pedophiles.
3. No one is questioning the behavior of consenting adults.
Some here are saying there is no relationship between male pedophiles who prefer young males & homosexuality. This is absurd.
“The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
“The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,
During his research, he also found:
The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.”
http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/
There are female pedophiles – we hear stories all the time of teachers with minors – but they are, I suspect, more rare than the male variant. Also have not heard of female pedophiles with female victims, but it would be naive to think it never happens.
It is not Sandusky you need to take “completely out of the picture”, it is homosexuality in relation to child molesters. There is just not the evidence to back you up that choosing a victim of the same gender makes you a homosexual except in the minds of those who clearly consider both a perversion.
For what I hope (but doubt) is the last clarification necessary:
Pedpohiles are not pedophiles because they are (or are not) homosexual.
Male (the vast majority) pedophiles who pursue & abuse exclusively young males are homosexual.
I am not confusing your comments with anyone else’s hokie24. I quoted YOU as well as others who now want to deny the connection they made. It could not be any clearer and there is no need for me to “twist”, tie or assume “extra meaning” to what you clearly said. No need at all.
The homosexual/pedophilia issue is irrelevant. you guys have been arguing about it for 75 posts. What this boils down to is:WOuld you put a heterosexual adult in charge of a differnt sex troop? Would you put a heterosexual male in charge of Girl Scouts on a weekend campout as a leader? THis seems to be more of a “male agressor” issue and linked to age. I don’t think we would be as adverse to a woman in charge of a Boy Scout troop in the same situation. To clarify, let’s assume homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally prone to acting on their attractions. Let us also assume that each is as likley to be a pedophile as the other. All things being equal then, why put someone who has a propensity to be atttrated to the same sex, in a position of authority over that same sex individual? Isn’t this the fox guarding the henhouse?
If you would not be as cautious about a woman as troop leader (someone who could be attracted to the opposite sex members or be the target of attraction) then why would we view the woman differently? as noted above in #72. It must be a function of the male as agressor rather than a homo/heterosexual issue.
“There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legitimate scientific evidence shows that. Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to others. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an adult sexual attraction to children. Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy’s mother or another female relative. The study concluded that “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.”
“Carole Jenny, et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994); see also David Newton, Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence, Adolescence, Vol. XIII, No. 49 at 40 (1978) (“A review of the available research on pedophilia provides no basis for associating child molestation with homosexual behavior.”)
ACLU: Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care
“It is not Sandusky you need to take “completely out of the picture”, it is homosexuality in relation to child molesters. There is just not the evidence to back you up that choosing a victim of the same gender makes you a homosexual except in the minds of those who clearly consider both a perversion.”
I was trying to determine an example by removing Sandusky so that I could try to see where you’re coming from without making assumptions.
But other than that, the rest of this comment is a clearer statement of where you’re coming from. I think I see the misunderstanding.
You’ve made an assumption that I think homosexuality is a perversion. I can’t speak for others, but I do not believe that, and my comments were not meant to convey that.