"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Gay Sex Right on Battlefield
News from The Onion clarifying the motives of the opponents of gays in the military.
(2 votes)
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Oh, my God. Funny, funny, funny, funny, funny. "The Onion" gets me hot under the collar every once in a while, but then they, uh... "whip out" something like this. Brilliant!
"Here, really, is the objection to having the openly homosexual in the military. Men do not like being eyed by other men in the barracks and showers. Pretending that the issue is discrimination rather than sexual privacy makes harder arguing against homosexuality in the barracks, which is why the pretense is made. The reality is that soldiers don't want a gunny sergeant, who they know is gay as an Easter bonnet, who has the power to make life miserable, leering at them if the towel drops.
If I suggested that male soldiers be permitted to shower with the women, everyone would understand without explanation the objections of the females. If I then suggested that I suffered discrimination because I couldn't shower with the women, people would laugh.
But, for reasons that elude me, the objection to unwanted intimacy is thought frivolous if the sexual predator is of the same sex as the prey. It isn't frivolous. Especially when children are involved, it isn't." ~ Fred Reed
Well worth the read. http://www.fredoneverything.net/HomoScoutiens.shtml
I find it interesting that in the article to which you linked, Reed, a supposed libertarian, never objects to the single thing that any libertarian ought to object to, concerning the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision, and that is that the Boy Scouts, being a private organization, can discriminate at will. That should have been the point, the only point, and the entirety of the point.
Instead, he intimated that because ONE homosexual adult might molest a ten-year-old, NONE of "them" should be allowed near boys. So I guess I shouldn't have been secluded in a room with boys who wanted piano lessons?
It is bad enough hearing the put-downs, the jokes, the negativity non-stop. A gay man must also be a de facto molester of children. Lovely.
"Men do not like being eyed by other men in the barracks and showers." I agree that individuals can have whatever boundaries they prefer, but I think that most of you should understand that you are already eyed by other men, on a regular basis, and you don't know it. Due to the put-downs, the jokes, the negativity non-stop, most gay men have gotten very good at hiding it. Those that don't get punched.
A shame that what could be taken as a compliment has to be turned into "unwanted intimacy." How difficult life must be for the rest of you.
"...Decisions of this variety are usually couched in terms of civil rights and the duty not to discriminate against homosexuals. This of course isn't the issue at all...." ~ Fred Reed
I believe Fred is pointing out the libertarian issue that because free men possess the natural right of association, they have the inherent right to discriminate against, ("to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"[1]), homosexuals, or heterosexuals, or social engineers, or against Marxists and Leninists, or Feminists, or anyone else we might wish to discriminate against. His article is simply pointing out the logical reasons why we might want to discriminate against homosexual men as Boy Scout masters.
“So I guess I shouldn't have been secluded in a room with boys who wanted piano lessons?” ~ B.R. Merrick
“Secluded”, being the key word, B.R.Merrick, it is my opinion that it wouldn't be a wise decision, on your part, (especially if you failed to disclose your sexual orientation to the boys parents), any more than it would be a wise decision on the part of an heterosexual male to be “hidden from view[2]” in a room with a young girl who wanted piano lessons. This is why most doctors bring in a nurse as a witness when dealing with the opposite sex behind closed doors.
"Specifically, men may not participate alone with girls and will not take girls on overnights, camping trips, extended trips, or events without two female adults." ~ Girl Scout Council - Northeast Texas
"A gay man must also be a de facto molester of children. Lovely. ~ B.R. Merrick
Where did you read that?! Fred wrote just the opposite: "...while I don't think that most homosexuals are pedophiles, some certainly are--and you don't suppose they would seek out positions as Scoutmasters, do you?" ~ Fred Reed
"...he intimated that because ONE homosexual adult might molest a ten-year-old, NONE of "them" should be allowed near boys." ~ B.R. Merrick
I grew up with a boy whose father sought out the position of Scoutmaster; we found out, years later, after MUCH damage was done to his son, and other young boys, that he was a predator, so it is obvious, to me at least, that James DALE may not be the only ONE, as you intimated in your response. Aside from that, show me where Fred stated that "NONE of 'them' should be allowed near boys".
And, I can assure you, I am NOT eyed by other men in my bedroom [barracks] and in the shower, which is what Fred commented about concerning the right to privacy.
Fred's article, I thought, was well-balanced, thoughtful and in complete harmony with libertarianism. I perceive you may be having what is commonly known as a "knee-jerk reaction"; sometimes when we are too close to the tree it makes it difficult to see the forest.
[1] Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate
[2]Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secluded
I don't think my reaction is a "knee-jerk" reaction at all. Reed said, "The questions are, first, the practical question of whether a figure in authority should be put in charge of children in whom he might have a sexual interest." The operative word, as I see it, is "might." A man who is attracted to the same sex MIGHT be interested, even though I cannot recall a time, even when I was young, that I would have been the least bit interested in "a boy of eleven" as Reed said, or a boy of 12 or 13 or most 14-19 year-olds, for that matter. But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea. Unlike Reed's straight friends, I would have to be interrogated before being able to associate with boys, who are far more interesting to me than teenage males, all for legitimate, innocuous, non-sexual reasons. No thanks.
And I have known many male teachers of the heterosexual variety who have been secluded in music lessons with females. You can't have music lessons out in the open: too much noise. And Reed never mentions why it is acceptable for Cub Scouts to have den mothers, all of whom are of the opposite sex. If there are females out there willing to molest children, then why aren't females subjected to the same discriminatory practice? Is it possible that a grown heterosexual woman MIGHT have an interest in a boy of 9 or 10?
Yes, men are sexually driven. There's a billion-dollar industry built around it. But being sexually driven does not lead one to pedophilia, or even ephebophelia. Unless there's some statistics somewhere that I'm not aware of.
And I am assuming that you are not eyed in the "barracks" or shower because you always shower at home? Sounds good to me. But it also seems to me that both you and Reed are making assumptions that are based in the culture's general dislike and misunderstanding of homosexuality. (Not that you or Reed dislike homosexuals, but that we are all submerged in a culture that has traditionally shown great disdain, which is bound to affect the way we think.)
I'm also sad to hear of your young friend's trauma at the hands of his own father, but I fail to see how basing a standard of this voluntary association on specious beliefs about homosexuality is going to prevent pedophiles from joining, or how it would have prevented a guy (who was at one point probably married, and assumed to be straight) from being a Scoutmaster. Furthermore, there are many pedophiles who molest children of both sexes, which has even less to do with liking grown men.
It seems to me that there ought to be a smarter way to screen out pedophiles. Barring any man who likes men sounds more like centralized control, the rather unworkable, nonsensical rules that are favored by bureacracies, not libertarians.
Ultimately, we are all in agreement that the Boy Scouts and the military can do whatever the hell they want. They can count me out, though.
"But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea." ~ Fred Reed
Again, you attribute some things to Fred, which I cannot locate. Where did he mention your, or anyone else's, "preference for adult men"? Not all homosexuals are attracted only to adult men. I was in Jacksonville, Florida during the late sixties when a law was passed protecting homosexuals and saw first-hand what happened there.
Where was there any mention of "interrogation"?
"General dislike and misunderstanding of homosexuality"; I don't suppose you happened to notice that a good deal of his article talked about heterosexuals and young girls? I think you may be taking this way to personal and I assure you, it is not intended that way.
I told you about my friend's father only to demonstrate that men attracted to boys seeking the position of Boy Scoutmaster is not UNIQUE, as you seemed to intimate by the all-cap word, ONE.
Pedophilia, by the way, is "sexual perversion in which prepubescent children are the preferred sexual object", not adults. And, not every adult who is attracted to, or even has had sexual relations with mid-to-late adolescents, is a "ephebophile", but those individuals who are, "pedophile" or "ephebophile" would very likely be attracted to positions of authority over children, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. That is the point that Fred was trying to make, I believe.
Hope this helps.
I wrote: "But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea." You responded: "Again, you attribute some things to Fred, which I cannot locate."
It is located here:
"Why then do we think it wise to put homosexuals, who as Scoutmasters enjoy moral authority as well as that stemming from simply being adults, in intimate contact with young boys?"
And here:
"And, while I don't think that most homosexuals are pedophiles, some certainly are." I could just as easily say that while I don't think that most heterosexual women are pedophiles, some certainly are. Why give these female pedophiles the opportunity to be den mothers? To paraphrase you, Suverans2, not all heterosexuals are attracted only to adults.
It's hard not to take it personally when I am lumped in with pedophiles (which definition I was clear on previously, I assure you) because I "might" be so inclined, due to homosexuality. There is no connection, in my mind.
Apparently you didn't see the question preceding the first one you show as your evidence.
"Would we want young sexually obsessed heterosexual males, which is simply to say young heterosexual males, to be in charge of pubescent Girl Scouts? Especially given that Scoutmasters have the moral authority of adults whom, after all, children are accustomed to obey?" ~ Fred Reed
So, according to you I guess I should say, "It's hard not to take it personally when I am lumped in with pedophiles (which definition I was clear on previously, I assure you) because I "might" be so inclined, due to heterosexuality.
Here is the bottom line, "...those individuals who are, "pedophile" or "ephebophile" would very likely be attracted to positions of authority over children, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. That is the point that Fred was trying to make, I believe."
I agree with Fred on that. You evidently don't.
Oh, and by the way, the article Gay Sex Right on Battlefield wasn't "Funny, funny, funny, funny, funny", in my opinion, it was moronic.
Let's just hack the branches somewhere else, shall we?
Suverans2 and Reed apparently feel that men who are inclined either heterosexually, homosexually, or both ways, should be kept from intimate contact with children who are the same sex as the adults to whom they feel attraction. Given that there are children of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual men who find themselves of the same sex as the men they are being raised by, I cannot see how making such broad assumptions about male sexuality is helpful. That, to me, is moronic.
And I stand by my original assessment of a funny article that Don Stacy thought was funny, and STR's owner saw fit to publish. It's a pity that Suverans2 and Reed had to ruin it for me with soft bigotry and nonsense.
Now that is moronic. "Methinks thou doth protest too loudly."