Since the awful situation concerning Penn State and the molestation of children broke, various religious right spokespeople and groups have been tiptoeing around connecting the situation with homosexuality.
And now the National Organization for Marriage is doing some tiptoeing of its own via the organization it sponsors, the Ruth Institute.
From Equality Matters:
The implication is absolutely tasteless and even more so when one takes into account that the Ruth Institute earlier this week attacked gay adoption by implying that gays are stealing children from the African-American community.
Now in all honesty, it would be a cheap shot for me to bring to attention the irony of the Catholic-affiliated groups NOM and the Ruth Institute trying to pin the acts of a pedophile on the gay community in light of numerous scandals involving the Catholic Church and priests who have been called out for molesting children.
I am not trying to paint the entire Catholic Church with a broad brush.
I just want it noted that it's simply highly ironic.
And now the National Organization for Marriage is doing some tiptoeing of its own via the organization it sponsors, the Ruth Institute.
From Equality Matters:
In a November 15 blog post, NOM’s Ruth Institute posted an excerpt from an article by anti-gay activist Michael Brown titled “What could end Rush Limbaugh’s career?” The article focused on a recent incident on Limbaugh’s radio show during which the conservative commentator toyed with the idea of saying what “nobody’s got the guts to say” about the Penn State scandal, but then backed away out of fear that voicing his thoughts would “end” his career.
Brown, of course, had his own theory for what Limbaugh was referring to:
He takes on the president, the Congress, and the media (not to mention his derisive attacks on foreign leaders and even radical Muslims), but there's one group he won't take on, one subject he won't touch.
What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is "glaring; it's right in front of everybody," and yet "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it"?
Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)
The implication is absolutely tasteless and even more so when one takes into account that the Ruth Institute earlier this week attacked gay adoption by implying that gays are stealing children from the African-American community.
Now in all honesty, it would be a cheap shot for me to bring to attention the irony of the Catholic-affiliated groups NOM and the Ruth Institute trying to pin the acts of a pedophile on the gay community in light of numerous scandals involving the Catholic Church and priests who have been called out for molesting children.
I am not trying to paint the entire Catholic Church with a broad brush.
I just want it noted that it's simply highly ironic.
If the religious right REALLY wants to go there...
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's go.
Tell me exactly, how many, openly gay, out-and-proud, with a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, partner, ex-partner(IE, a homosexual dating history) pedophiles there are?
Well that was quick.
Now, how many pedophiles swear they're not gay, have no ex-boyfriends, no ex-partners, no homosexual dating history but DO have a hetero dating history, perhaps with a current wife and even biological kids of their own? Who wouldn't be caught dead in a gay bar, or at a gay pride parade?
I'll wait for you to finish counting.
So, religious right, if you REALLY want to pursue this whole "there's a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia" argument, then let's see exactly where it goes.
It goes into the closet.
See, we don't see a rash of out-and-proud gays molesting kids. We see people who swear up and down they're straight going around molesting kids.
IF there is a connection, and that's a HUGE, science-ignoring, testimony-dismissing IF....IF there's a connection, it's a connection with repressed homosexuality. your Eltons, your Ellens, your George Takei's, your Ricky Martins, and your Adam Lamberts aren't going around molesting kids. It's your Ted Haggards. It's your wide-stanced closet cases.
The conclusion is simple. Kids just aren't safe with a man who swears he's straight. They're better off with a gaggle of flaming drag queens than with anyone who walks and talks like John Wayne.
Which means, all that fighting against gays, all that trying to shove us back in the closet, stop our marriages, stop our equal rights is just hurting gays, and helping pedophiles. Yep, every time you try to pray away the gay, you're making that man a danger to children.
So....are we done with this tactic? Can we move on to reality?
Jason D: Awesome comeback! My thoughts, almost verbatim!
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants to point the finger and usually the ones pointing the finger are the ones who have something to hide. I may be wrong so don't quote me on this but, I don't believe I have seen a media spotlight ever on an openly gay man in a scandal like this one. I wonder sometimes if the world was more accepting, if these closeted, sick people would do the horrible things that they do. I don't know. No one knows why people are sick and you can't pin a mental illness on one specific social community. That is called the blame game and no-one ever wins.
ReplyDelete