Well, isn’t that special

Who knew that a bitter little throwaway post mocking the LOGO Democratic candidate forum would generate 206 comments, and counting? Don’t be alarmed; much of the content consists of the regular denizens of NoVA Townhall saying mean things to each other for no apparent reason.

I made a brief appearance way down the thread to correct some misinformation of the typical libelous Paul Cameron-derived variety (children must be protected from the “homosexuals,” etc.) posted by our erstwhile friend Jack. We’ve seen the kind of “medical” sources that those spreading this kind of nonsense cite – the only ones they have – and they do not merit refutation point-by-point. In fact, to engage in the exercise of dueling citations gives these pseudo-science outfits unearned credibility, something I won’t do. I’m sorry, but ideologically driven think tanks like NARTH, IMAPP, et al, are not the equivalent of the AMA, APA, or American Academy of Pediatrics, which take evidence-based positions. So after explaining why I was not going to play that game, I told Jack this:

The truth is that you would like for medical science to support your religion-based prejudices, and are angry that you can’t make it so.

You are lucky enough to live in a part of the world where you have religious liberty, and no one is trying to take away your right to have your religion-based prejudices. Just be grateful that you have that, and stop demanding that everyone celebrate your prejudice with you.

To which he responded with this. Please be warned that the first link goes to a graphic photo of the execution of two 16 year old human beings.

You are lucky to live in a part of the world that does not hang you or drop you from a high-dive platform into a dry pool.


Be grateful for that, and stop demanding that everyone endorse your depravity.

So, to recap: I said that Jack should be grateful that we have religious liberty, that he is free to believe whatever he likes about human sexuality as a matter of faith, but should not expect or demand that medical science provide empirical support for his belief.

He retorted by saying that I should be grateful that the Christian Nationalists who share his beliefs about human sexuality do not have enough power to demand my execution. Isn’t that nice?

Was it too harsh of me to remind Jack that no one is trying to take away his religious liberty, something that I assume we all value? Perhaps I was too snarky, and my essential point was missed as a result. In any case, matters of faith will have to be resolved within faith communities. These painful schisms are being driven by the same apparent conflict many people are experiencing between orthodoxy and the reality they can see with their own eyes. For some people, it’s easier to name that reality “Satan.”

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Well, isn’t that special

  1. Jack says:

    “We’ve seen the kind of “medical” sources that those spreading this kind of nonsense cite – the only ones they have – and they do not merit refutation point-by-point.”

    Translation — you have no sources to support your points.

    “He retorted by saying that I should be grateful that the Christian Nationalists who share his beliefs about human sexuality do not have enough power to demand my execution. Isn’t that nice?”

    No, it is that you live in a nation based on Judeo-Christianity, and we do not advocate such punishments for your homosexual acts. For that, you should be thankful — the Islamists (which many liberals support for some reason) would kill you.

  2. Dave says:


    Au contraire. It’s the United States that doesn’t advocate killing gays. The “Judeo-Christian” religion certainly does. Note Leviticus 20:13 among others.

    The fear from some quarters is that if we become truly a Judeo-Christian nation (by government policy, which we are not, not by majority, which we are), then people that read the bible literally would have no choice but to advocate execution of practicing homosexuals.

    Few people do that today because, being a secular nation, we can choose, ourselves, what laws to pass and policies to practice. Killing people for same-gender sex is considered extreme in western nations. The Judeo-Christian religion, at least as espoused by the Religious Right, leaves little choice of what, and how, to believe.

  3. David says:


    We’ve seen the Christian Nationalists in action, of course. They had, and used, that kind of power…oh, about in 1050. These are the folks who think it’s a real neat idea to send the “Left Behind” video game to our troops serving in Islamic countries. Score points!! Eviscerate the non-believers for Jesus!! Not really helpful to diplomacy, is it?


    “..no sources..” Heh. I think we’ve been in this movie before. Here’s the deal: If you don’t accept the AMA, the APA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc, etc, etc, as authoritative sources of medical information – which you don’t, per our many discussions of the Montgomery County sexuality curriculum – then there is no point in documenting citations for you. From what I can gather, you believe that Satan is speaking through these scientific organizations, so I suspect that your demand for citation after citation is disingenuous. No citation will ever be good enough when you’ve already decided that you disagree with the information, and I have more important things to do with my time than play fetch with you.

    I’m going to have a nice glass of wine and do some Bible reading now. Night.

  4. Jack says:

    Dave — as I have mentioned on another blog, some “uncleanliness” could not be cured, such a leprosy and the stains of adultery, inc3$t, b3$tiality, and homosexuality. The lepers were not killed, because they were not responsible for their uncleanliness. The priests were powerless in these situations. Jesus, our High Priest, is not — and He showed that by curing lepers. As such, Christians do not advocate killing homosexuals, because where there is life there is hope, and Jesus can wash away their sins.

    David — If, as you say, no citation will be good enough for me, then I should be satisfied already, because you have given me exactly no citations! Our discussion concerned the propensity of homosexuals to engage in sex with those who are underage. I gave many sources, incuding FBI data on child molestation, indicating that homosexuals are much more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are. You provided exactly ZERO citations of contradictory data.

    However, your idea does sound grand. I have a box of Cabernet Sauvignon on top of my fridge. However, I am in the mood to read Luther’s version tonight — Die Heilige Schrift. Gute Nacht!

  5. Dave says:

    So, Jack, then you’re against the death penalty? “Where there’s life there is hope!”

  6. David says:

    Box o’ wine? Jack, you surprise me. We enjoyed some delightful screw kappa napa.

    Here is a representative quote from an Anti-Gay Industry mouthpiece, in this case Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Jack, your statement was taken from this almost word-for-word:

    “While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys.”

    The problem with your assertions (which are no less irresponsible or libelous than any other version of this old smear) is that your premise is wrong. You have tried to redefine sexual orientation. You want to define abusers of male children as “homosexual,” when that is, by definition, not the case. There is no relationship between healthy adult sexuality and pedophilia, by definition. They are two entirely different categories, by definition. (Are you getting the ‘by definition’ part?) Hetero-, homo- and bisexuality by definition are orientations defined by attraction to other adults, and are all normal variations along the continuum of human sexuality. That is agreed upon by all legitimate professional associations, as cited here numerous times.

    I can’t provide you with a “citation” that speaks to a definition that someone (not really fair to say it was you) made up.

    To be fair, you did ask for documentation of the claim that the vast majority of child sexual abusers are heterosexually married men. This general statement is well established – what I said was that IIRC the figure is 95+%, something that I recall from a conference of service providers. Normally, I would provide the most recent citation, but in this case I will direct you to a study from 1978 published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. You can read an abstract online here, and you can get the full article through any University interlibrary loan system if you have such privileges.

    Again, to be fair, the situation is clinically a little more complicated than what I have outlined above. This study explains the classification of child sexual abusers into two basic types: Those who have never developed sexual attractions for other adults, and those who regress from adult relationships to the abuse of children. As the authors explain, the “fixated” type can’t be considered either hetero- or homosexual because they do not have an orientation toward adults. As for the “regressed” type, the authors had this to say:

    In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult relationships is heterosexual.

    That doesn’t mean that it never happens, but from all accounts is very rare. The vast majority of these victims, both male and female, are abused by a male family member, most often the partner of the mother.

    I hope this helps to clarify things. I don’t recommend just repeating things you read in the anti-gay media.

  7. Jack says:

    “There is no relationship between healthy adult sexuality and pedophilia, by definition.”
    “I can’t provide you with a “citation” that speaks to a definition that someone… made up.”

    Fine — then provide a citation for your own definition.

    I find your citation quite interesting indeed, and I will try to get the full article. (If you have it, could you email it to me?)

    Some of the links on that page, however, counter your definition of pedophilia as being an exclusive attraction to children. (And as I pointed out on NovaTownHall, the DSM does not require such exclusivity for a diagnosis, either.) This one clearly shows that the pedophiles in their study were equally attracted to children and adults:

    As a group, [paedophilic child sex offenders] showed undifferentiated CNV responses to adult and child stimuli, unlike non-paedophilic child sex offenders and [the non-offender control men], who showed larger CNVs to adult than to child stimuli.

    Following other links on the same page, I found this article.

    [The] ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

    Furthermore, we are NOT talking merely about child molestation, but about adults’ having sex with adolescents, too, which is not pedophilia.

  8. David says:

    ..counter your definition of pedophilia as being an exclusive attraction to children.

    If you read more carefully, I say that the exclusive attraction to children is restricted to the fixated type. In the regressed type, individuals whose primary attraction is to adults regress to the use of children as a response to stressors, often in those adult relationships. They are almost always heterosexual men, in terms of both self-identification and behavior. They are attracted to the “feminine” attributes of either male or female prepubertal children.

    You’re correct, sex between adults and adolescents (who have developed secondary sex characteristics) is not pedophilia, and is an entirely different subject with its own body of research. We can talk about it, but we haven’t been talking about it here, so far.

    Getting back to your discussion of “uncleanness,” it’s important to point out the difference between cure and healing. The healing that Jesus performed was in the inclusiveness practiced toward those (like lepers) that the religious authorities excluded as “unclean,” using “the law” as their weapon. We see this kind of healing over and over.