Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Bob Kauten,
Stop parroting foolish propaganda, will ya? Use rational thought like davidm2575 for a change!
😉
A future news headline:
Gays and Lesbians Destroy Marriage As We Know It…Heterosexuals Left Despondent…Bridal Shops Go out of Business…Comedians Have to Can All Their Mother-in-Law Jokes
BTW, davidm,
Listening to you could turn anyone into an atheist.
davidm,
“What you keep forgetting is that in order to give them marriage, you have to destroy the existing definition of marriage and replace it with something much more broad and less meaningful.”
We aren’t forgetting anything.
What you keep forgetting is that we don’t follow your narrow, hateful, bigoted, terrified religious beliefs.
You keep trying to back up your prejudices with a fabric of nonsense. The fabric covers you inadequately.
You give religion a bad name. As if it needed one.
Bob Kauten wrote: “You give religion a bad name.”
Not sure how I do that, but good. I have very little respect for religion. I have even less respect for you and many people on this blog who parrot foolish propaganda without a concern for applying rational thought to the problem at hand. You all might as well create your own religion because you operate just like all the religions with which I have observed. You establish dogma and then ridicule and demean anyone who thinks different from you.
davidm,
It is you who make no effort. Your mind is set. Your arguments are verbose and unconvincing because they aren’t reasonable. You can find what you will in the gay marriage/Ariel Castro connection. That’s perverted thinking.
It’s about the right of TWO people being able to marry the ones they love. Get a grip!
DavidM says: What you keep forgetting is that in order to give them marriage, you have to destroy the existing definition of marriage and replace it with something much more broad and less meaningful.
No, it only means I have to destroy your definition of marriage.
I feel confident if we took a vote of adults in America, and asked them if marriage should be outlawed between heterosexuals over fifty that could not reproduce (due to infertility for any reason) and had no desire to adopt, and whose only intent in marriage was lifelong romantic companionship (and sex) with somebody they loved, the vast majority of Americans would say no, that kind of marriage should not be outlawed.
Which would show that your reproductive-based definition of marriage is meaningless to the vast majority of Americans; to them lifelong companionship (and sex) with somebody they love is sufficient reason for heterosexuals to get married.
Which leaves only the question is if prohibiting same-gender marriage is anything other than bigotry. The ONLY part of your “definition of marriage” that would be violated is the entirely arbitrary component of requiring mixed gender. Nothing else, all the other arguments you make are superfluous.
And that mixed gender requirement IS arbitrary, it is based upon your religious interpretation and nothing else, and the majority of Americans now agree that requirement is arbitrary and should be discarded.
Your claims of harm in discarding that are all based on your stupid bigotry and flawed reasoning from supernatural premises, such as your reverence for whatever you claim is “natural” while dismissing as spin or lies, without examination, all the science that rejects your claim.
But we cannot expect anything but self-serving lies from an authoritarian, because like virtually all of them you think the means (your lies and misinformation and bigotry) are justified by the ends (the subjugation of others to your beliefs).
Tony C wrote: “No, it only means I have to destroy your definition of marriage.”
Wrong. I already provided you court definitions which you conveniently choose to ignore. Gene H also falsely claims that I am using some religious definition of marriage, even though I have provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. You both just believe what you want to believe, regardless of what is said by others. I wish Gene H would at least tell me which religion he thinks I adopt my definition from. When I showed the court case, he just mumbles something about being outdated, move one, get with progress, etc.
Tony C wrote: “I feel confident if we took a vote of adults in America… the vast majority of Americans would say no, that kind of marriage should not be outlawed.”
Yes, and I would vote right along with them, which shows that you fail to understand how I understand marriage. The reproductive aspect to traditional marriage is only one part of it, as I have said many times. Furthermore, I provided you arguments from a Cambridge professor which shows a distinction between coitus and same sex behavior, which has an effect toward Good even when reproduction is not possible.
Tony C wrote: “And that mixed gender requirement IS arbitrary, it is based upon your religious interpretation and nothing else…”
It is not arbitrary, it is based in the science of sex, about measurable differences between males and females, and about the fact that there is a greater good that is accomplished when two opposite sex partners come together because of the disparity between males and females.
The authoritarian one is you, seeking to force the will of the majority upon the minority if you are able to persuade them, without any concern whatsoever about whether this is good or bad for society. What does it hurt to treat same sex unions separately from opposite sex unions in the law? How does it hurt same sex unions one bit? It doesn’t hurt them at all except that they will lose their anarchist goal of destroying a long standing civil institution. It seems obvious to me at this point that your skin in the game is to hurt religious people who respect the traditional legal definition of marriage that has been in place for these so many years. This is apparently why you keep bringing up religion when I have offered no religious arguments whatsoever.
I don’t really agree with Squeeky Fromme’s calculations. Gay people can’t get married in 37 states. That’s still a huge percentage of the population who live in a jurisdiction where SSM is not allowed. Squeeky didn’t account for that at all. She also doesn’t account for the disincentive provided by DOMA in all jurisdictions, even those where marriage was legal. Presumably there’s lag time, even though it’s gone. She also didn’t account for the disincentive provided by lingering homophobia in America. I realize this is amorphous, but real. People who are not out to their families may be hesitant to commit to formal legal relationships that could out them in the event of particular circumstances. She also doesn’t account for the fact that most LGBT people above a certain age grew up in a culture in which marriage was not a possibility, and the effect growing up in an exclusively heterosexual marriage culture would have on one’s mindset. Also amorphous, but real. She also didn’t subtract children from the population number. The Pew study she links also lists a number of limitations itself. These are: Not all states that allow SSM have compiled their data yet for 2012. Some states don’t collect data on the gender of the participants–they simply issue a license to party A and party B. The states don’t include in their data couples that were married in foreign jurisdictions because their own jurisdiction had previously disallowed it. Most famous example being Edie Windsor herself, who married in Ontario.
Massachusetts would seem to be the closest jurisdiction we have to a normal SSM jurisdiction, i.e., with the fewest disincentivizing factors (but not by much!). I get 15% for Massachusetts, just doing it very roughly (accounting for LGBT children, etc. and using Squeeky’s figure of 3%, etc.).
But even assuming a figure like Squeeky’s, rights don’t exist on the basis of how often one avails oneself of them or whether one exercises them at all. The marriage and divorce rate presumably differ by ethnicity, too. Should the law be constructed around that fact?
Coming from someone who argues a religious definition of marriage, that only illustrates that reading Jefferson’s words and understanding them are not the same thing, David.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote on the title page of his catalog of books in his library the following:
“I am for freedom of Religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
This quote reflects the meaning of the First Amendment.
davidm2575 1, August 6, 2013 at 7:49 am
Tony C wrote: “if only 1% of them would take the opportunity to get married, then that could hardly be a threat to heterosexual marriage”
What it would mean is that the entire nation is falling for a ruse. What the homosexual agenda is really after is not gaining some right for themselves, but taking away a valued institution of society.
*****
It’s almost amusing that someone who believes that marriage is such a valued institution is fearful that it is so fragile. I have a strong marriage and have been happily married for forty-four years. I’m not worried about what gay marriage will do to this “valued institution.” I’m no Chicken Little.
Sorry about that video link! I did not mean to give a playlist. Trying again here. I think this is the video from Masha Gessen that I was trying to share.
http://youtu.be/n9M0xcs2Vw4?t=6s
Squeeker: all you pro gay marriage folks come off looking pretty stupid if less than 1% of your latest target group of victims actually do the thing that you are agitating for. IMHO.
If that were true then it really makes all your arguments look worse; if only 1% of them would take the opportunity to get married, then that could hardly be a threat to heterosexual marriage, and it would hardly prove more than an outlier example of “redefining” marriage. It would just be a blip, which means you don’t want it to remain beyond their grasp for any real harm it causes, you are just a bigot that would oppress others out of spite.
Which we knew anyway, but thanks for invalidating all your own arguments.
I find myself reevaluating my position on Bradley Manning, simply because I cannot bear to be on the same side of any issue as our ignorant little troglodyte, “Squeeker.”
Tony C wrote: “if only 1% of them would take the opportunity to get married, then that could hardly be a threat to heterosexual marriage”
What it would mean is that the entire nation is falling for a ruse. What the homosexual agenda is really after is not gaining some right for themselves, but taking away a valued institution of society. What you keep forgetting is that in order to give them marriage, you have to destroy the existing definition of marriage and replace it with something much more broad and less meaningful.
As homosexual activist Masha Gessen make clear, anyone who says gay marriage will not change heterosexual marriage is lying.
Sqeeker: and if they do most of those will be San Francisco marriages, where the right to have other “lovers” is built in.
You seem to be ignorant, adultery is legal in more than half the states; and almost never prosecuted in the others. Only about 35% of Americans believe that adultery should be a crime at all.
You must be one horny Girl Reporter, you can’t seem to think about anything but consequence-free promiscuity 24-7 with dozens of partners. Perhaps instead of “reporting” you should explore a job in the film industry; I believe the home-made variety is up and coming (pun intended).
Or do your drinking in a bar. Dress right and its always Ladies night, Squeeker. You can do an “in depth” investigative report on the heterosexual male’s capacity for promiscuity with strangers.
P Smith,
Why would you want to bring facts into this discussion? Do you want to make our girl reporter Squeeky foam at the mouth?
Joe Blow:
I seemed to miss that article where Mike S called you a troll. Would that be Troll in the Blog sense or Troll in gay slang sense? I was curious to which one you identified with.
If you are a troll in the gay slang sense (one who is on the sexual prowl looking to seduce anything that moves) I can introduce you to a few good men who are adept at counselling services to help you achieve a monogamous relationship.
But if it is the troll in the blog sense, sorry there is little we can do for you.
Ooops! Math error. I should have doubled the 80,000 marriages to equal 160,000 married gays divided by 9,300,000 total gays, or 1.7% married gays. Here is the Pew Research link, too:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
@psmith:
Who knows for sure??? Here is an article that says just the opposite of what you said, that it is gay men who are worse:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffamguardian.org%2FSubjects%2FSexualImmorality%2FPedophilia%2F14_2baldwin.pdf&ei=o5MAUtfRLereyAHysoGoAw&usg=AFQjCNHqVpe3AAAybYIC1lp4HBmtfQAFVg&sig2=eY8fZ2GMvhnutj3AtbZVzA&bvm=bv.50310824,d.aWc&cad=rja
Personally, I suspect that we could both sit here and sling studies at each other, and you could call me a bigot, and I could call you an idiot. While that would be fun, of a sort, I think it better if you just re-read what I said way far up above:
“Pedophilia is a legitimate concern. Historically, I understand that the typical gay male relationship was between an older man, and a younger boy. Personally, I give that about a decade or so before that becomes the next big gay rights thing, that it is an attraction that people are born with and can’t help themselves, etc.. Couple that trend with more and more sexual freedom being granted to teenagers and I can just see that train wreck coming. Yet, mention that, and all you get is the contempt of a “You’re homophobic!” reply.”
See, I based my remark on HISTORY, not the studies from one side or another. Frankly, I think the gays will lie like dogs to cover up deficiencies on their side, and the religious right will likewise jump on anything that helps prove their point. I read one example that one study which found “Kids of Gays are just as normal as kids of straights” was based on a self questionnaire sent to lesbian mothers. Sure, like they would admit it if their kids were all screwed up. So, with the studies, who knows what you are getting from either side???
Since there is that undisputed history of old Greek gay males hooking up with young boys, I figure there is something to it. Plus, the Gay Priests seem to be the ones getting nailed for abusing little boys. I really think you are being premature to label me a “bigot” just because my opinion doesn’t jibe with yours.
Now, if you want to call me a nasty, sarcastic b*tch who has a very low opinion of gay males, and thinks the whole gay marriage thing is a farce, then I guess you got me. But here is one thing that you probably can not dispute. There have only been about 80,000 gay marriages since 2004.
If you figure 3% of the population of 310,000,000 is gay, you get about 9,300,000 gays in the country. That means that less than 1% of the gay couples in the country deigned to actually avail themselves of the right to marry. That is a cumulative number. Over 60% of the marriages were by lesbians.That does not take into account any San Francisco type marriages which are kind of open marriages, and not monogamous. That number does not count any gay divorces since 2004. I was really overshooting when I guessed 10% above in a reply way up above.
Sooo, pout and spout all you want to, but the fact is, all you pro gay marriage folks come off looking pretty stupid if less than 1% of your latest target group of victims actually do the thing that you are agitating for. IMHO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
The difference in sources twixt us and you is simply amazing. You cite Steve Baldwin, a teabagger and California Legislator as a reference. his qualifications are a Law Degree from the fabled Regents Law School, which is one small step above “The Divine School of Metaphysics” which offers degrees in Theology. Certainly a real unbiased and scientific expert you’ve provided.
“Regent University is a private coeducational interdenominational Christian university located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States. The university, founded by Pat Robertson, which began as Christian Broadcasting Network University in 1978, became Regent University in 1989.”
The link our intrepid girl mis-reporter provided was from the Regent University Law Review, which is part of that “distinguished” school, shown above and founded by Pat Robertson. You know, the Pat Robertson who has claimed weather caused disasters on a given region as God’s punishment for homosexuality. Roberston is a semi-delusional con men who has created a television empire scaring the hell out of people frightened by death and investing it in African Gold mines. Squeeky, my already dim view of your powers of observation has reached a new low with that link you posted. It all becomes clear though now. you’re probably a Sophomore at Regent, with a Journalism Major. Silly child.
Squeeky Fromm, Ignorant Propagandist:
“Pedophilia is a legitimate concern.”
The only legitimate concern is the ignorance of bigots like you.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality except in the minds of the ignorant like yourself…the same sort of bigots who once said all black men want to rape white women, or that jews want to eat gentile babies.
Pedophilia is a disproportionately heterosexual crime, perpetrated by heteroexual males who can’t handle functional adult relationships. Girls make up only 50% of all children, yet girls account for over 75% of the victims of child sexual abuse. Why would “gay” men prefer girls?
http://www.uww.edu/sasa/statistics.htm
Heterosexual pedophiles go for boys for two main reasons: access and appearance. It’s easier for an adult to get near boys than girls by claiming to be a scout leader or coach, or by being a priest. And pre-pubescent boys are feminine in appearance, good enough for the desperate and sexually demented to assault them.
Heterosexual pedophiles go for boys because they can’t get their hands on girls, the same reason straight men rape other men in prisons. It’s about availability, not preference, a concept you seem incapable of grasping. Or more likely, a fact that you want to avoid because it disagrees with your attempts to justify bigotry.
David,
I haven’t got a response… Oh that’s right.. You demand….
VV,
It was Bowser v Hardwick…..
I see the author of this post is the same one who called me troll on another.
What a queer !!!!!
There, just called you one, Queer
Joe Blow,
Coming from a troll like you I wear the name proudly.