Wednesday, October 04, 2006

The Foley Grail of Homosexual Victimhood

Obviously, there is much talk, most of it unedifying, about the situation with congressman Foley, who, as we mentioned a couple of days ago, is not a pedophile but a homosexual attracted to young men. As linked to in Monday's post, there is a large body of evidence that a substantial portion of male homosexuals is indeed obsessively fixated on adolescent sexuality. This is not a homophobic statement (at least not in the sense intended by PC accusers who only use the term to shut down debate) but simply a statement of fact. An intellectually honest gay man will not hesitate to confirm what I am saying. Can I get a witness from an emotionally mature, conservative gay gentlemen, so that I do not have to endure the inevitable slurs?

Psychologically, it would make perfect sense for an adult homosexual to prey on teenagers if he himself had been similarly victimized as a teen. In fact, Foley has released a statement indicating that he was indeed molested by a homosexual priest.

It is a truism that victims become victimizers. This is not to say that all victims become victimizers. That would be false. Most people, for whatever reason, are able to overcome physical or sexual abuse--rarely without scars, but they do not necessarily have the compulsion to repeat the act on others (or they at least have insight, and can consciously stop themselves from acting on the compulsion). However, among the many abusers I have evalutated, I cannot recall a single instance of a victimizer who was not him- or herself a childhood victim of some sort of abuse.

This in itself shatters the agenda of homosexual activists who insist that homosexuality is a genetic condition. This is such a simplistic statement about human sexuality that it is beyond belief. For certain male homosexuals it very well might be genetic. But at the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever--none--that not all homosexuality is genetic. Does anyone believe that ancient Athenian males, who practiced widespread "boy love," were genetically different than we are?

A typical case comes to mind of a male patient who was raped (in the real sense of the term) by an uncle when he was eight years old. When he reached puberty, he acted out sexually with older men in a highly promiscuous manner. A homosexual activist would tell you that he was a “gay teen” instead of a tragically confused teen engaged in repetition compulsion of his sexual trauma. He himself never identified with being homosexual, and in fact, went on to marry, have children, and “outgrow” the homosexual behavior (although he was still haunted by what had happened to him). But activists will tell you that it would have been unethical for a therapist to try to "change" him into a heterosexual! Instead, we would have to help him feel "unashamed" of his impulses, or perhaps have instructed him on how to pursue them "safely."

Clearly, it is not accurate to say that predatory adult homosexual men only prey on “homosexual” teens. Rather, this type of predator is often looking for vulnerable, confused, weak, traumatized, or conflicted teens such as my patient. Adolescence is obviously a difficult passage, and sexual identity confusion is quite common. I cannot imagine a more harmful cultural policy than to formally instruct teenage boys that if they have a homosexual thought, it means that they are homosexual. I regard this as an example of a truly monstrous evil perpetrated in the name of “liberation” or “progressivism.”

As I mentioned in Monday’s post, the left is deeply at cross purposes with itself over this matter. First of all, they are normally the party that champions homosexual rights, openly gay Boy Scout leaders, the open expression of teenage sexuality, abortion for 12 year olds, and all forms of sex so long as they are consensual. Remember, just like the racists of old, the homosexual activists would have you believe that if you are 1% gay, then you are 100% gay. By those standards, judging by the IM’s, the object of Foley’s desire was a “gay teen.” The genes have spoken!

(The only other possibility was that the teen was merely “goofing” on a creepy old chicken hawk, which I do not think should be excluded as a possibility. I’m thinking back to when I was sixteen or seventeen, and if this had happened to me, my friends and I would have laughed our a**es off and probably tried to goad the man into making more bizarre comments; sure enough, I just heard on the radio that the homophobic pages referred to Foley as "FFF": Foley the Fag from Florida.)

One of the most destructive cultural memes of the left involves the illegitimate use of the “victim” designation. Before the 1960s, this word had an unambiguous meaning. When you heard it, you did not merely roll your eyes. European Jews were victims of the holocaust. Blacks were victims of racial discrimination.

But since the 1960’s, the category of “victim” has become a sort of floating signifier, to such an extent that most political battles come down to an unedifying struggle over who is entitled to wear the crown of victim. Once you understand the concept, you will only see it everywhere. For example:

Are illegal immigrants our victims, or are we their's? Are we victimized by Walmart? Or are people of modest incomes being victimized by the alliance between the Democratic party and corrupt big labor, who hate Walmart? Are the Iraqis victimized by our “occupation” of them, or is President Bush the greatest liberator of Muslim slaves in human history? Are the Palestinians really victims, or have the Israelis actually been the perpetual victims of Arab hatred? Are American Muslims victims? Are we victimized by black crime? Or is that unthinkable, because blacks are by definition victims? Was Clinton victimized by ABC and Chris Wallace? Or was he merely playing the victim card to obscure the fact that we are all victims of Clinton’s fecklessness regarding Islamic terror? Was Clinton the victim of Ken Starr? Or were Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, and Paula Jones his victims?

Foley, who was a victimizer, wisely played the victim card immediately. And if the teen was merely playing him for a chump, then Foley was a double victim: a poor old homosexual taken advantage of by a homophobic teen and his snickering buddies! But it’s not going to work, because there is a higher principle involved, and that is defeating the Republicans in November. Therefore, the narrative is set in stone. A Republican homosexual has already had his victim card revoked anyway. It is of no use to him. He can play it, but it purchases as much as confederate money.

I am consistent. I believe that anyone who tries to prey on a vulnerable teenager who is already conflicted about his sexuality is exploiting their innocence and bringing great harm. Again, there are true victims in this world. To tell an otherwise normal teenager whose is confused about his sexuality that he is probably “gay” is a horrible thing to do. It is in the realm of unforgiveable, because it can ruin a life in the name of a petty political agenda. The question is, does the left really care about protecting sexual innocence, or is this just blind opportunism? Do they really have an interest in promoting mature sexual relations? After all, as we wrote about last week, the more people marry, the worse Democrats do at the polls.

Ironically, there was a debate in the 1990’s in Washington DC about lowering the age of consent for sodomy to age 16. Naturally, homosexual activists were strongly behind the movement. Here is a sample of what they argued would happen if 16 year-olds were somehow barred from sodomy (emphasis mine):

“We will then begin to see some very ugly and nasty cases of arrests and prosecutions for fully consensual, private acts of Sodomy involving 16 and 17 year olds, preceded by extensive, intrusive, money-and-resource-wasting investigations, and some vicious cases of entrapment and other manifestations of the worst of police abuses. The official homophobes will have a field day.... There are always fascists waiting in the wings for a signal which will enable them to expand their repressive control over people, and to do their dirty work. This raising of the age will be taken as that signal.”

“The impact... will be particularly unfortunate upon younger Gays. We in the Gay community have worked long and hard and not nearly successfully enough so far, to provide for the normal social needs of our Gay teenagers, who are deprived of what heterosexual teens of the same ages consider, without second thought, a normal social life.... This raising of the age of consent for Sodomy is a sure-fire recipe for raising the already-far-too-high suicide rate for Gay teenagers.”

“[It] maintains and reinforces exactly the symbolic marginalization of Gays which we are trying to eliminate. In the rhetoric of the '60's Civil Rights Movement: We will now be allowed onto the bus, but will be kept firmly and calculatedly in the back. The implication of this proposed raising of the age.... is that we and our lifestyle are being considered second class, from which our younger people must be protected. That is offensively insulting and is unacceptable.”

Again, the whole issue is defined by who may claim victimhood. So was an innocent child victimized by Foley? Or are fascists shoving a teen to the back of the sexual bus, where he may well commit suicide if we do not champion and celebrate his desire for sodomy with an experienced mentor? Again, if it's just abuse of authority, isn't Clinton having sex with a 19 year-old intern much worse?

Here is the deeper problem that is attached to victimhood. No matter who you are, if you are able to perceive yourself as a victim, it entitles you to bypass the normal rules of the conscience. Murder is wrong. But it would have been perfectly moral for a Jew in nazi Germany to murder a nazi, because Jews were true victims.

But the left has discovered the great truth that illegitimate victimhood is the key to illicit power. It is the basis of a corrupt supergo, or bad conscience. Thus, if it means temporarily abandoning first principles--that the homosexual is always the sacred victim, no matter what--that’s fine, so long as it ensures success at the ballot box. But just as the left had to strip Clarence Thomas or Condaleeza Rice of their blackness in order to feel victimized by them, Foley and the predatory priests must be stripped of their homosexuality. Instead, they’re just perverts or pedophiles. Homosexuals don't do that.

But the left does at least have a certain consistency. Just as they do not feel that chicken hawks are qualified to make decisions on miltary policy, they do not feel that chicken hawks should be involved in designing policies to protect children from online chicken hawks.

*Let's see how quickly this thread degenerates into the question of whether my post victimizes homosexuals! Just in case it is unclear, I believe there are many wonderful gay people, and that we do need to be compassionate and sensitive to the needs of an adolescent who is truly "different" and not just confused or conflicted. I am talking about the wider, and I believe destructive, agenda of activists, not of individual cases.

In any event, I do not so much divide sexuality horizontally between heterosexual and homosexual, but vertically between mature and immature. And what is mature sexuality? That's the subject of a different post.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bion and Matte-Blanco are spinning in their graves.

10/04/2006 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I certainly hope so. If anyone would understand what I'm talking about, they would. They were completely innocent of the lie that all homosexuality is genetic.

10/04/2006 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger J. Peden said...

Victims have also become protected species, in effect. Not only must they not be allowed to become extinct, they must even flourish in order for the Holy Good to be done. For the Pristine Endangered Species act certainly knows no bounds or exceptions.

But then, we must even willingly allow victims to kill us so that our moral worth be established. All praise be to Death. [pbuh]

Those pretending to understand and defend Evolution argue against it and know not what they do. Nuance protects all by its comforting grace. Halleuja?

But what leads such poor souls to these reasonings, which give Chaos a good name?

Yea, is it fear of life, congenital incapacity, or that they should seek redress from whomever it was which wrote upon their Blank Slates?

Back to square one. sayeth the All Mighty Victimized Victimizer of Victims.

[I myself prefer to be Crazy without excuse. It is written. But wait, please wait: forgive me anyway. I'm beggin' you, please, I'm all down on my knees....]

10/04/2006 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Why did certain gay rights activists and Democratic officials hold onto this damaging material for so long? Were they more worried about political gain or a teenage boy being abused? Is this why they are always the ones to question the "timing" of terror-related victories by the current administration? Very interesting....

10/04/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bion wrote about the destruction of links in thought. Matte-Blanco wrote about making distinctions. The unconscious mind, both argued, destroy thinking.

M-B's critique might be: "Gagdad Bob makes no distinctions between pedophilia, pederasty, homosexuality, homosexual propaganda, and the truth of homosexuality sexuality."

Bion's critique might be: "Gagdad Bob destroys all links between Foley's behavior and the corrupt response to (or lack of response to, or denial of) that behavior by the Republican party and its leader in the House of Representatives."

By de-linking Foley's conduct from the corrupt epicenter in which it flowered (and, one could argue, was nurtured by an apathetic leadership, for over a decade), and focusing on Foley's behavior in isolation to attack Democrats and homosexual propagandists, Gagdad Bob is attacking his own mind, to preserve a -K link. L succumbs to H in order to avoid the pain of growth.

Gagdad Bob, I am your container. You projected this post into me and now I return it to you. I hope I have made you re-establish painful links and draw distinctions between what has become psychotically blurred in your unconscious.

10/04/2006 09:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forgive the above grammatical errors.

"The unconscious mind, both argued, destroys thinking."

"M-B's critique might be: 'Gagdad Bob makes no distinctions among pedophilia, pederasty, homosexuality, homosexual propaganda, and the truth of homosexual sexuality.'"

ALL sexualities are perverse, or have the potential to be, Gagdad. And all sexualities are sustained by ideology, the destruction of links, -K, H, the failure to make distinctions. (What would M-B make, for instance, of Foley's falling into "teen speak" despite being a 50something member of Congress?)

In fact, M-B would have been very impressed by Foley's lawyers attempts to offer what Bion would call -K, propaganda: "I abused a boy/I am an abused boy."

Throw bi-logic out the window: smart move to appeal to the unconscious which rejects distinctions and turns everything its opposite. Yes, Foley did victimize -- which means he himself is a victim!

What you are doing is no different than homosexual propagandists who eschew bi-logic to argue that 16 year old boys are in fact the active seducers of powerful adult men, or who use the deep reluctance we all have within us to make distinctions to argue that what is bad is actually good.

10/04/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

But anonymous, you're ignoring the point that both Bion and Matte Blanco would have analyzed all homosexuality as a perversion, not as a genetically determined condition. Something tells me you've never read them, or if so, have not understood them.

The rest is just gibberish, not even clever, let alone serious.

10/04/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Anonymous, I can tolerate any sort of critique, point of view, or even silly nonsense (of which I am fond!).

Tolerance has its self-leveling values however, and you invoke them by being tedious, tiresome, and tendentious.

Truly. The spontaneous sighs of sadness you evoke are causing global warming.

10/04/2006 09:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous. I in no way stated that Bion and Matte-Blanco would have not analyzed homosexuality (actually, they would have analyzed ALL sexuality).

I also not once said that I believe homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuality, like all sexuality, is a product of trauma, and therefore can be analyzed.

Please inform me about what I wrote that is "gibberish."

Your failure to make distinctions between mature, adult homosexuality and immature, deceitful pedophilic homosexuality, is an example of a conflation, the kind of which Matte-Blanco warns us against. Bi-logic demands distinctions.

Your refusal to link Foley's scandal to his heterosexual ennablers is an active destruction of K (knowledge) and L (love). We "K"now that Foley's activities were basically passively supported by a corrupt Republican leadership; and by destroying "L"ove for Foley's victims, you perpetuate the abuse and manipulation.

Isolating Foley's behavior and then using it to attack homosexual propagandists and Democrats is a reversal or truth and meaning. It is practically a projective evacuation! Designed to make others feel the shame which your party's behavior has made you feel.

Well some of us here are going to throw your projective identifications and evcaulations back at you, Bob -- after we've contained and transformed them of course.

This blog is one big Beta-element waiting for an Alpha-Man to come along. I am too busy to take on this task but I hope my contribution today will give you much to think on. My tip: contain before you eject.

10/04/2006 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anonymous:

Beyond repeating what I stated in the post, that "I do not so much divide sexuality horizontally between heterosexual and homosexual, but vertically between mature and immature," there is no way to even begin to respond to your idiocy. Respectfully, you are so thoroghly ignorant of what you are talking about, that you are not even wrong.

10/04/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you SPECIFY my ignorance, instead of just telling me I am ignorant.

Stop perpetuating -K. Bion wrote a short paper called "On Arrogance" in 1957 you would do well to read. Bion shows how "excessive intrusive curiosity, arrogance and stupidity" combine to attack knowledge.

By refusing to engage me, you are being arrogant, and by telling me my ideas have no validity, you are acting stupid.

Bion worked tirelessly his entire life to reach the most unreachable of souls. You won't even take five minutes to rebut a thoughtful critique designed to spur you into thought.

10/04/2006 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anonymous--

I'd be happy to engage you (at least briefly), but can we take this off line? It's a bit esoteric for the 100% of readers who are unfamiliar with Bion. Please email me--I'm very curious about where you received your clinical training and who your analyst was. I believe I'll be able to nail down the source of your errors in a matter of moments, and send you on your way. Naturally, strict confidentiality.

10/04/2006 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous geckofeeder said...

OMG, it is back. Free therapy for the oozing with anger,entitled, envious and obviously miserable anonymous.
Go home, troll. Would that you could ever have the clarity of your host.

10/04/2006 11:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

"This blog is one big Beta-element waiting for an Alpha-Man to come along. I am too busy to take on this task..."

It would seem you're not THAT busy, but it is very clear you aren't the Alpha-Man that is up to the imagined task, and I remain unconvinced by your assumptions of superiority.

And now Bob has called you outside. Dang! I just popped some popcorn, too.

10/04/2006 11:16:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

Dealing with the issue from a slightly different angle (and probably skipping ahead to the topic of mature/immature sexuality, forgive, por favor, the time-constrained rambling):

If we consider the sex drive as a manifestation of the life-force, the "cause" of homosexuality, be it psychological or whatever, might be a short-circuiting of the life force, preventing its sublimation. That is, the life-force energy remains "low" and cannot rise. Basically then, it is a dysfunction as the term is defined.

Now, the homosexual lobby argues that homosexuality is not dysfunctional, but is rather as natural as is heterosexuality. They point to the fact that nature produces homosexuality in animals, etc. Of course, if nature is "fallen" in the metaphysical sense, it's going to produce aberrations at times, including monstrosities. (and I'm just making a point about fallen nature, not linking homosexuality with monstrosities)

In other words, nature can produce dysfunction - nature can produce the "unnatural". In any event, isn't homosexuality, on the physical level, a prima facie dysfunction? I suppose one could argue that homosexuality is the result of "female souls" being placed into male bodies (or males souls placed in, etc., but that too would be an obvious dysfunction.

Then too, the homosexual lobby often makes much of their right to sexual "fantasy", which is a revealing term, probably unintended. "Fantasy" is, in fact, a corrupted, immature form of imagination. Boys have sexual fantasies; when they grow to establish loving relations with women, the "fantasies" cease and their higher faculties - their "imagination" in the real sense of the word - become the conduit through which love is manifested. Generally speaking then, the homosexual reliance on fantasy again seems to indicate a short-circuiting of the life-force so that it cannot develop into genuine imagination.

What I'm saying here is that homosexuality is basically a dysfunction and should not be taken as anything else, should certainly not be appraised as the alternative equal of heterosexuality. In the larger spiritual sense, I suppose a "dysfunction" could be defined as anything that prevents the realization of the divine in the human organism. In this sense, homosexuality is a "sin" , probably not the worst of sins. The type of uncaring pride that would lead some to use the Foley case for political convenience is, to my mind, a far far worse spiritual transgression.

10/04/2006 11:26:00 AM  
Anonymous dilys said...

"On arrogance:"
"...one big Beta-element waiting for an Alpha-Man to come along. I am too busy to take on this task..."

Fortunately, Joan wasn't too busy to take on the meta-task.

Ride, girl, ride on toward Blois. You prevail amongst the railing theologians' questions; and your mission is sure.

10/04/2006 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

As usual Dilys is correct, Joan is indeed up to the task of alpha-man and spot on with her analysis!

10/04/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

Next time, though, I would like to Joan play Alpha-man using only the first half of the alphabet. It was way too heavy with s and t. I suggest, g and c, for example.

10/04/2006 02:45:00 PM  
Anonymous kahntheroad said...

The burden of truth is on those who claim homosexuality is 'normal.'

If the evolutionary purpose of the sexual function is to reproduce then how can sexual attraction to the same sex be considered anything but a disfunction?

And not only does homosexuality offer no genetic advantage; as an adaptation would obviously doom the continuation of a species.

This is not to say anything bad about any individual who happens to have homosexual inclinations - same goes for all people who happen to have differences for whatever reason. But it's actually kind of absurd to look at sexual 'orientation' the way that we do.

Also, Will, on your point: I think the biblical condemnation makes sense, in that it discourages an activity that contradicts man's survival (i.e., anyone who gives in to a homosexual desire is forfiting their ability to continue the race). It could be argued that the inmense pleasure of sexual union is a sacred gift and should only be used in service to God. The completely 'selfish' act of homosexual activity is an abuse of sorts (a forbidden fruit? Hmmm, could that explain the term?) Now, of course, I question how many of us would actually take that strict view to heart, but, whatever...

Oh, note to flamers and trolls, I'm just thinking out loud here...not making some definitive statement. Personally, I couldn't care less about other people's sex lives.

10/04/2006 04:04:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Kahn -

Yeah, and it's worth noting that for 5,000 years of recorded history, homosexuality has been a behavior held in general opprobrium - until the last 20 years or so. All of a sudden, "we know better".

I don't want to get all finger-pointy about this. Let those without sin cast the first, etc. Everybody's flawed spiritually in some way, and , as I said, homosexuality is not the worst of spiritual transgressions, so I can't get all thunder-righteous about it. The serious transgression, I think, is being told, bullied, actually, into accepting that it is not a form of dysfunctional behavior, ie.,is not a spiritual flaw.

Of course there are those who would bully us into thinking that obesity is "normal" or that condemnation of primitive societies and their murderous rages underscores our basic bigotry and racism. The list goes on.

10/04/2006 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Not a topic I'm too inclined to comment on, but I'll contribute this.

One of my Uncles was homosexual (everytime a child snickers at "now we don our gay apparel" or other occurances of the word "gay" I curse the XXX rights people to h-e-double hockeysticks - sums up my feelings about gay marriage as well), he was with one particular man ever since I could remember - neither had affectations of swishiness or anything else, their relationship was known, not remarked on, and were in fact "favorite uncles", never absent from a family gathering.

They were good people. Their situation wasn't normal, they didn't pretend it was, they just were what they were, and both would have been aghast at suggesting that their relationship should be promoted as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. Kind of like being color blind, somethings will forever be beyond the colorblind persons being able to see and appreciate, but that's no reason not use their eyes, or for others to deny them the right to be able to see at all.

But any suggestion that people should promote colorblindness, or demonstrate with pride that they were blind to some feature of life, or be given special recognition because of it would be nuts.

10/04/2006 05:56:00 PM  
Blogger J. Peden said...

"Is this why they are always the ones to question the "timing" of terror-related victories by the current administration? Very interesting...."
lisa

You know the answer, but I will add it anyway: yes.

The mo-fo's are so paranoid and projectile that all they do is confess.

"Voter fraud", anyone?

10/04/2006 06:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Joseph has curiously cast the gauntlet of goading me into cavorting with consonants and cadences better suited to gentler pursuits of cantos and galloping cavaliers.

Anonymous, captivated by his own nocuous grinding on Gagdad and company, has failed to convince even the most callow of our cavalcade to concede to his grandiose gaggle of goofy ideas.


In other news: Van, as ever, your insights add much. Thanks.

10/04/2006 06:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

Joan,
I think I am in love.

10/04/2006 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger Kurt said...

Your comments are full of a lot of good sense, in my opinion. Anyone who has been immersed in the gay world for any length of time quickly realizes that the normal, well-adjusted gay men so important to advancing the image of gay people and the cause of gay rights are few and far between, and that a significant number of those who frequent gay hangouts are alcoholics or other drug addicts, many are hopelessly promiscuous and try to excuse that fact by saying that they are only promiscuous because "society refuses to legitimize our relationships."

And as numerous gay writers have made clear, gay culture is far too heavily fixated on the image of the "beautiful boy," something Camille Paglia has written about in detail. It's no accident that Death in Venice is usually classified with gay literature. And even a more recent work such as Hedwig and the Angry Inch deals with a relationship between an older transexual and a teenage boy.

So for liberals and gay activists to act as though Foley is some kind of pervert, far removed from the mainstream of what is commonly accepted as normal in the gay world is more than a little dishonest. One of the ironies of all this of course is that gay activists desparately need there to be gay republicans if there cause is going to be more widely accepted by the public at large; but they are too busy denouncing them to figure that out.

10/04/2006 08:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Dr Bob has been called for bs and failed miserably to refute. Dr Bob is antirational and antiknowledge.

Not a surprise.

BTW The Dems did not leak the information.

10/04/2006 09:17:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Anonymous -

I know nada about Bion/Matte/Blanco but one thing I can tell you for sure - it'd be easier to walk through a branble bush stark nekkid than it is to get through your gnarled, jumbled, mixed-up syntax.

10/04/2006 11:07:00 PM  
Anonymous kahntheroad said...

Will & Van,

Exactly. The point of this discussion is not to bash anyone, but to clarify. I'm always suspicious of those who close off debate, and before the hysteria over gay marriage I'd never really thought that much about why people were gay - all I knew was that science has 'hinted' that it was genetic. Whatever - live and let live.

But once I did a google search to check out some of the research and was astounded at how flimsy the supposed 'scientific' concensus is when it comes to the biological roots of homosexuality.

But again, whatever. People have all kind of sexual fetishes - not to mention other quirks. The only difference here is this absurd drive to pretend same-sex attraction is perfectly normal. And, naturally, to shut down debate by slandering anyone who dares to disagree as hating gays.

It's as if someone tried to convince me that, say, a foot fetish was 'normal' sexual behavior, I say it isn't and the they scream that I must hate people with foot fetishes. Utter nonsense.

10/04/2006 11:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

Van,
I have to say, I really like your comparison with homosexuality and color blindness, and I completely agree. Where is the political lobby for the color blind? They have rights too!
I had a young man that worked for me, who, turns out was color blind. He was painting a bathroom--which was yellow--and painting it green. When I asked him what the hell he was doing, he thought it was the same color. That's when I found out. He didn't say--I have the right to paint it whatever color I like--I'm color blind. And I didn't say, the Bible says....I think I'll kill you. I simply gave him the proper color paint and told him to make damn sure he checks with someone else about the color before he paints a wall.

10/05/2006 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...

Since it is the Left who wishes to make “victims” of certain segments of our population, they are ‘allowed’ to make the rules. Simply being of the same race, religion, sex, natural origin or sexual orientation as others already given “victim” status does not automatically confer the privileges and protection of the “victim” class.

The “victim” class is a select subset of race, religion, sex, natural origin or sexual orientation who’s purpose is to further the Left’s political agenda. Thus, “victim” status is extended by the Left only as far as the potential “victim” leans Left.

10/05/2006 07:18:00 AM  
Blogger Fausta said...

On a side note,
According to this and this, the age of consent in DC is 16.

10/05/2006 07:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

I agree right wing nut. I have to say I hate it, however, when the so-called right, once they have been found to be in the wrong, instantly tend to become like the left.

10/05/2006 08:35:00 AM  
Blogger Philip Marvin said...

We’ve gotten in the habit of using “sexual” to mean anything erotic. At the very least, it should always imply the participation of the sexes, namely male and female together. Strictly speaking, then, two men, no matter what erotic behavior they may rehearse, can never really develop a truly sexual experience.

Words should be used to convey meaning about reality and not destroy meaning. It’s interesting that Webster’s 1828 dictionary does not have the term “homosexuality” listed. It is a recent invention and makes our entry into a parallel universe much easier for the careless and the conditioned.

10/05/2006 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger BillS said...

The Democrats need to be careful with this one. I hear that Barney Frank is gay, and likes young boys. Is Nancy Pelosi going to initiate a full investigation of Barney Frank based on this rumor? Is she going to resign if it turns out that Barney has been diddling pages as well? Maybe we need to put an ankle bracelet on Barney as an extra measure of protection for our young people.

10/06/2006 10:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home