What do Joe Paterno and Chick-fil-A have in common? Well, nothing directly, but there’s a roundable connection.
On the one hand, liberals are indignant over Chick-fil-A’s allegedly “homophobic,” “anti-gay” viewpoint. Customers who support Chick-fil-A are “haters.”
On the other hand, JoePa’s reputation is forever tarnished. Why? Because he knew that one of his assistant coaches was molesting boys, but failed to fire him or notify the authorities.
I expect that many of the same people who demonize Chick-fil-A are outraged by JoePa. But here’s the catch: the Penn State scandal is a homosexual scandal. And it’s a familiar narrative we’ve seen play out many times before. Put a homosexual man in a position of authority over younger males, and guess what happens? Homosexuality is the common denominator in the Catholic sex scandal. Homosexual priests molesting underage boys. See a pattern?
If they had their way, liberals would turn Chick-fil-A, and every other business and social institution, into another Penn State. Another homosexual molestation scandal just waiting to happen.
Opponents of Chick-fil-A are half right: hatred is a factor in this controversy. The liberals touting equal rights (often special rights) for homosexuals are child-haters. They empower homosexuals to molest minors.
"If they had their way, liberals would turn Chick-fil-A, and every other business and social institution, into another Penn State."
ReplyDeleteThe way they tried to spin this for the BSA is by concentrating on the case of a lesbian den mother who was dismissed, as if lesbians were the main concern with regards to their policies on homosexuality.
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-boy-scouts-reaffirm-ban-gays-141719311.html
But here again is the movement's creepy, unabashed desire to gain access to boys, on display for all to see. Society is losing its collective mind.
By the way, have you heard of the problem they're having in the military with sexual assault against women by men?
ReplyDeleteBut here’s the catch: the [military] scandal is a [heterosexual] scandal. And it’s a familiar narrative we’ve seen play out many times before. Put a [heterosexual] man in a position of [anything] within the proximity of [any woman] and guess what happens?
"Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html
Since I don't believe in the coed military, your comparison backfires.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's so revealing that you're so cavalier about homosexuals molesting boys.
"Since I don't believe in the coed military, your comparison backfires. "
ReplyDeleteSince those statistics were actually related to non-military personnel, you should probably not support a coed anything. Let's just keep men and women employed in separate buildings, have them use separate modes of transportation and keep all establishments segregated by sex since, given the statistics, heterosexual men can't pass a woman without raping her.
"And it's so revealing that you're so cavalier about homosexuals molesting boys."
I'm not. What about the molestation of girls by adult men? Don't they count? And why are you so cavalier about rape?
Also, in good NAMBLA fashion, you're disregarding the reason we have statutory rape/age of consent laws. A sexual advance between an adult (especially an adult authority-figure) and a minor can be coercive in a way that's not comparable in the case of two adult parties.
DeleteJames
ReplyDelete"Since those statistics were actually related to non-military personnel, you should probably not support a coed anything."
In which case your military analogy was a scam. Revealing that you can't mount an honest defense of your position. Of course, that's because your position is indefensible.
Also keep in mind that feminists have a vested interest in popularizing inflated stats about the incidence of rape or attempted rape.
To my knowledge, the molestation of girls by adult men is most common with live-in boyfriends or stepdads. So that, once again, illustrates the consequences of defying God's design for marriage. Thanks for another analogy that backfires.
Also, I think pedophiles (e.g. grown men molesting little girls) ought to be executed. Do you? I doubt it.
I'm too far to the right for you to play a successful game of divide-and-conquer.
"Also, in good NAMBLA fashion ... "
ReplyDeleteI really hope you're not insinuating I have any sympathy for that group or that I've ever endorsed pedophilia.
Look, this is very simple. I don't believe in corporate guilt. Groups are not culpable for crimes. Individuals are.
For example, blacks are, if you go by mere statistics, more "likely" to commit crime than a Caucasian. They're disproportionately represented in the prison population. Does this mean one should assume guilt until proven otherwise when dealing with African-Americans in employment ... or anything else for that matter?
Men attracted to other adults of either gender are not necessarily pedophiles. End of discussion.
"Also, I think pedophiles (e.g. grown men molesting little girls) ought to be executed. Do you? I doubt it."
As heinous as molestation is (and it causes significant emotional and psychological damage), so are other forms of child abuse. Why not execute adults who beat their children to the point of hospitalizing them? The scars they leave are both physical and emotional. No, I do not endorse execution. I would endorse forced sterilization, however.
James
ReplyDelete"I really hope you're not insinuating I have any sympathy for that group or that I've ever endorsed pedophilia."
You deplore the consequences while turning a blind eye to the causes, like Catholics who deplore abusive priests but defend the institution which is the source of institutional corruption.
"Look, this is very simple. I don't believe in corporate guilt. Groups are not culpable for crimes. Individuals are."
You're ignoring patterns.
"For example, blacks are, if you go by mere statistics..."
Actually, there are situations in which stats are relevant, like the fact that Muslim men are far more likely to foment terrorism than Jewish grandmothers.
Likewise, if one part of town had a high crime rate while another part of town had a low crime rate, it would be prudent for you to take that into account in terms of where to buy a house, open a business, or drive.
"Does this mean one should assume guilt until proven otherwise when dealing with African-Americans in employment ... or anything else for that matter?"
An equivocal comparison inasmuch as homosexual orientation is morally disordered from the get-go, whereas racial identity is morally neutral.
"Men attracted to other adults of either gender are not necessarily pedophiles. End of discussion."
"Not necessarily" is a weasel word. Moving in to a neighborhood with a registered sex offender next door isn't "necessarily" putting your family at risk, yet it would be reckless to knowingly do so.
You indulge in moral preening, but your position is morally blind.
"No, I do not endorse execution. I would endorse forced sterilization, however."
So I called your bluff, and you responded with a deuce of clubs.