Ugh

| | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

So twisted and horrible. Please keep this disturbed and deviant man's victims in your thoughts and prayers.

From On High has some commentary along with a challenge.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ugh.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/507

28 Comments

Jack said:

"Prosecutors said he could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted."

And quite a life it will be for him, I'm sure.

Jonathan said:

I've been in the midst of a discussion with another conservative about the difference between anti-gay and gay-bashing. The blogfromonhigh post *is* gay-bashing. Thanks Sophrosyne. It's no wonder we have punks running around terrorizing our community.

TerryM said:

Sophie,

Certainly we all agree that this is a horrible case of child abuse in its worst form. And that the monster involved has been dealt with by the law.

But I don't buy the connection that On High is trying to make to same sex partners and the marriage amendment. In fact his attempt to link this case with us is really, really offensive and over the line. I'm so sick of this constant tactic of calling all gay people pedophiles and a danger to kids. I would hope you would be above all that Sophie.

Jonathan said:

Now I'm disappointed. You missed Guy Adams slurs (any relation to Dr Mike Adams?) which are much more colorful than blogfromonhigh

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=70234

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

as a liberal, and a prograssive, I believe that sex with autistic children is good for America

David said:

You have failed to distance yourself from his "commentary." Yes, it is unequivocally gay bashing to attempt to connect this sort of monster to our community. It is openly inviting violence.

What is wrong with you?

Once in a while the term "bigot" is appropriate, and this is one of those times.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Soph,

I must say that I agree with David and Jonathan on this issue. There is absolutely no evidence that being gay lends itself to being a pedophile. Heterosexuals can and are just a sick and willing to harm children as homosexuals. To perpetuate this myth ask and encourages small minded people to do physical harm to people in the homosexual community.

For the record I am against gay marriage, but these two issues have nothing to do with one another.

Finally, I must say that praying for the victims of this sick individual is easy. The hard thing to do is to pray for Distasio, but it is what God requires of Christians, so tonight I will willingly pray for these poor children and FORCE myself to pray for Distasio.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

this is just silly, deamonizing people who you don't agree with. people don't seriously believe this stuff, do they? you could make the same absurd argument for anything:

Jim Jones was a crazy bastard, therefore we should be suspicious of anyone who drinks Cool-Aid.

Soph, you are always accusing "anti-marriage" types of pushing their agenda by spreading disinformation. At the same time you feel obliged to draw a connection between some crazy guy and all gays? Interesting.

zimzo said:

Wow, Sophrosyne, you've pretty much discredited all of your already weak defenses as to why Virginia needs to pass an amendment to ban gay and straight civil units. It's just bigotry that's behind it after all. Nothing more than bigotry.

Jonathan,

Ok, I'm here, and maybe the Attorney General is now here as well. The blog in question said:

"Do you truly want morality removed from the discussion?"

Are you missing that point or obscuring that point? Because I see it as a technical matter: Morality, obviously, matters.

One of the arguments the pro-same sex marriage people make is basically "you should not foist your moral beliefs on others."

Another is "you can't legislate morality."

But that's just silly. We don't hardly legislate anything BUT morality.

I guess the legitimate outrage in this thread stems from the notion that people might assume a gay pedophile child molester is representative of the homosexual community as a whole.

I reject that idea, because I've known lots of homosexuals and never considered any of them potential pedophiles.

But hell, there definitely ARE gay pedophiles. Like, uh, NAMBLA and others.

But I don't think that was even the blog from on high's point. I think it was simply to say "morality is not an irrelevant concept after all." Defining the terms of the debate.

I think some people on the other side of the same-sex marriage debate are thin-skinned.

Please, by all means, invite the Attorney General here to hear us out. I'm guessing he has figured out this "bigotry" defense is the last resort of those who have run out of rational arguments.

Zimzo, you can do better. But I realize it's late.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"run out of rational arguments"

HA!

As if this has ever been about rational arguments. I've been following this ongoing discussion on this particular blog for 4 months now and no one has ever made a rational argument about the potential negative effects of gay marriage. there are lots of pseudo-arguments, but somehow they always end up boiling down to from-on-high-esque jokes.

Remember the "sleep-over dilemma"? it's all great entertainment, but it's rarely been rational.

Sophie in particular has been wonderfully skillful at spouting opinion and than refusing to respond to anyone who points out the gaping holes in her logic.

Let's not remove morality, let's address the question which has been asked repeatedly by the folks Sophie likes to call, "anti-marriage" : WHAT'S IMMORAL ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE?

but really, this isn't about morality, it's about beliefs. ...Why are gays immoral? Something about Sodom and Gomorrah? Some unnamed passages from the new testament? Something St. Paul jotted down 1700 years ago, perhaps? Don't tell me that this notion of gay immorality doesn't stem from a holy book.

We all have our beliefs. A diversity of beliefs are America's strength, but they aren't the proper bases of legislation. If our legal code was based purely on biblical notions of morality, we wouldn't need a legal code at all, we already have Deuteronomy.

"but our country and our culture is founded on judeo-christian morals"

maybe, but our founding fathers were philosophers and revolutionaries, not religious zealots, and this country was also founded on an idea of individual freedom and responsibility, and a healthy skepticism in the government's ability to legislate the way people live their lives.

Don't support the amendment!!

Jerry Fuhrman said:

I have no problem with your readers calling my post gay bashing.

At no time though did I call them pedophiles. That's a different category of sexual deviance. But both are deviant from the norm.

And before your commenters get their undies in a bunch - again - I invite them to look up the word deviance.

Jerry

David said:

Of course we legislate based on moral values.

At its root, the argument against the Marshall-Newman amendment is that it harms people, and it is intended to harm people. That is immoral.

Jonathan said:

Joe, you miss the context of Jerry's post. It's titled "On Deviant Sexual Relationships" and begins with

For all you who believe (on the left and the right) that we should keep our morality out of the gay marriage debate, make an argument in opposition to Phillip Distasio's demand that his sexual deviance be condoned without resorting to doing the very same thing:

There is one factual and one logical error in Jerry's reasoning.

The factual error is the erroneous claim that same-sex orientation is "deviant". In the context of Jerry's post, this definition fits:

adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert, deviate, degenerate]

Jerry Seinfeld settled this question 13 years ago with the "not that there's anything wrong with that" episode. Ten years after that, the Supreme Court again settled the question with the Lawrence decision. Just a few months back, we saw MD Governor Ehrlich fire a political appointee for using the phrase "sexual deviant" to describe gay people.

This is settled territory, and folks who continue to rehash it are either "stuck on stupid", or "stuck on bigoted". It would be more accurate to say that people who want to revisit/overturn Lawrence (like our friend Eve and Justice Scalia, and the AG) hold outdated victorian puritanical views which deviate from the mainstream.

The fact of the matter is that healthy and normal human sexuality falls under a very broad bell curve which includes homosexuality and bisexuality and [ugh] an attraction to venemous anorexic blonds in short black dresses (http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/images/coulter-thumb.gif).

The logical error is to compare apples to road apples. If you don't understand the difference between an adult consensual relationship and a power imbalance between adult and child, your moral compass is broken and there is no possibility of engaging in a good faith dialogue.

Bigot Hater said:

It looks like I have a new person to put on my list!

Sophrosyne said:

Wow! I put up a very short post encouraging thoughts and prayers for this twisted man’s victims (and M 5-19 rightly points out that this man needs our prayers as well)… and I also link to another blogger’s post merely asking those who deny morality has a place in our system of government to explain how this tragedy falls into their framework and how they can then condemn this man’s actions.

BAM… the usual anti-Marriage Amendment crowd becomes furious and somehow argue that From On High claimed that being gay lends itself to being an evil pedophile (he didn’t say any such thing—he simply challenged those who want “morality” removed from government to explain how they oppose this man’s actions)… and then go on to say that because I linked to From On High, I too made such an argument and was thus a “bigot.” Wonderful logic! Attack something someone didn’t say and then attribute an endorsement of that non-existent statement to me and thus claim to discredit all arguments for the Marriage Amendment because they clearky are just bigot-speak. Talk about gaping holes in logic! But who needs logic or reason when you can just slander your opponents as "bigots"... right?

Is it any wonder people don’t trust these same people when they claim the Marriage Amendment will invalidate Living Wills, Powers of Attorney, etc without providing ONE single sustained example where this has occurred in the 20 states that have passed similar Marriage Amendments?

I’d love to hear some rational responses to what was actually said on From On High…

Jonathan:

Ok, I understand what you are talking about but I still think the blog from on high post was about the unavoidable relevance of "morality" and I still think he made a good point. I will grant he used an inflammatory title and example, but that's what bloggers often do.

To make his point about morality, he would have done better to leave the whole "deviance" concept out because it definitely has sparked a discussion extending into completely different areas...

...like what constitutes normal or diviant sexual behavior? I think we just moved from civics class to the biology lab. Sorry but that will have to wait until some time when I am off my employer's clock.

Bigot Hater: I hope you are talking about me; if not, please reconsider and do add me to your list when you get a chance. I'm starting to get this whole "bigot" thing figured out.

Bigot Hater said:

Joe:

I was actually talking about Jerry but as long as you keep an obvious hatred of gays going I'll definitely keep you in mind for the list.

You remind me of "whites" in the 50s and 60s. You want your hatred and discrimination masked behind a veneer of "saving" something. For whites, it was making sure the race was kept pure and to ensure that blacks couldn't vote.

Now, it's bashing the civil liberties of gays and lesbians to protect the "sanctity" of marriage. If you really wanted to do that, you would work on "no-fault" divorce. But bashing gays is easier and the more politcally expedient thing for you to do.

Is there anyone else from the NovaTownHall Blog that would like to be put on my Bigot list?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

well, the assumption seems to be that if you aren't opposed to gay marriage, you must therefore have no concept of morality. This assumption is incorrect.

OK, one cannot call something immoral without referring to morality. F. on H. says, "To proscribe sex with children and to forbid sex with non-consenting partners gets you real close to where my morality is based."
...that's nice, I think it's pretty close to where all of our moral ideas lie. Who wants to explain how it follows that gay marriage is a bad idea?

does the logic go like this:

1: in order to say that pedophilia is wrong, one must have a moral code.
2: If one has a moral code, they will come to the conclusion that gay is wrong.

This seems like an oversimplification, but I guess we're all making straw man arguments at this point.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Bigot Hater,

So, now you have forced me to come to Joe's defense.

Conservative yes, strong in his belief yes, to the right of me on many issues, yes; but a bigot he is not.

Calling names rather then trying to understand the opinions and views of others who we may not agree with is a cop out. It's too easy and not productive. It may not be easy but I have found that talking to and trying to understand the beliefs of others makes me a better more well rounded person, and although there are times Joe and I have had to "agree to disagree" never have I felt the need to label him with the term bigot.

Lets save this term for the people who really deserve it, they are still out their!

Bigot Hater: My hatred and gay bashing, huh?

Right.

Here's the deal: It's just name calling. At the first sign of direct resistance you guys go right into ad hominem attack mode. Bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc. are meaningless in conversation with people like you. The truth is, a bigot is someone who disagrees with you.

But the whole class of epithets are such that people tend to hesitate to challenge. Instead of saying, "you are a moron for employing such a simplistic, dishonest tactic," we fall all over each other trying to prove we are not bigots or racists or whatever.

We hear it on this issue and on the immigration issue. At first, being called a bigot stings. But I got over the sting some time ago when I realized the people who were calling me that were disingenuous lamers who happened to stumble on an effective debate technique. In short, I realized those issuing the "bigot" cry are full of crap.

Hey, as long as we're calling names, right?

So frankly, your blog concept is truly underwhelming and a waste of time if I ever saw one, except for the entertainment value of course. It's based on a lie, and just like your comment above, it is pure nonsense.

While nonsense does not merit a response, I plan to hammer on this theme a while longer because more people need to be made aware of how truly lame this name-calling tactic is. Bright light needs to be turned on the name callers themselves.

M 5-19: Thanks. You are a very kind and decent person. You should start a blog called "good sense" where people like me can go after a hard day of trench warfare.

Stay Puft: Maybe Jerry will stop in again since all the discussion is really about his post and his blog doesn't have comments turned on.

Sophrosyne said:

Well said Joe... wasn't this whole bigot/civility issue a question some liberal asked at the Townhall with the AG this week?

yes, out of the mouths of babes....

Jonathan said:

Wonderful logic! Attack something someone didn’t say and then attribute an endorsement of that non-existent statement to me and thus claim to discredit all arguments for the Marriage Amendment because they clearky are just bigot-speak.

I’d love to hear some rational responses to what was actually said on From On High…

Please reread the posts from David and I from around 7:00 AM this morning. Here is the short version.

Of course this is a moral discussion.A person's sexual orientation is morally neutral.

The morality of marriage equality centers on the right to marry the person of your choice. Equating the choice of a lifelong partnership with a pathology that leads to coercive and deviant sex practices is an apples to road apples comparison and a thinly veiled homophobic slur.


btw Joe, the use of NAMBLA in the context of this discussion is just a shortcut to the slur described above. M 5-19, do you understand what I'm talking about?

wasn't this whole bigot/civility issue a question some liberal asked at the Townhall with the AG this week?

Yes, it was the cute guy standing next to Eugene. He's too radical to hang in my circle. He claimed to have lots of gay and ex-gay friends, and he's from Cleveland where men are known to hold religious ceremonies that involve marijuana and the rape of young disabled boys.

Jonathan said:

Is it any wonder people don’t trust these same people when they claim the Marriage Amendment will invalidate Living Wills, Powers of Attorney, etc without providing ONE single sustained example where this has occurred in the 20 states that have passed similar Marriage Amendments?

Sophrosyne, this discussion is moving forward and you seem to be stuck on this mischaracterization. First of all, you probably know that Virginia invalidated parental rights in the Miller-Jenkins case (and this was HB751, not the more broadly worded amendment). Vermont just ruled in favor of family values and parental rights. You can find the Equality Virginia press release and the ruling here:

http://www.equalityvirginia.org

The AG explained that judges in VA will rule on the words in the constitution. We have to do our best to interpret Virginia's language as a judge would. Other state's amendments that use different language are not as useful as thought experiments with the language in the anti-gay Marshall-Newman amendment.

David posed the question over on our blog:

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=345

It's the first blockquote: the question about aggregation, i.e. at what point does a collection of contracts "approximate" marriage. If you have a legal mind, you will notice that there is a second issue which may be tightly, loosely or entirely decoupled from the concept of aggregation. Maybe thinking about this will get you out of your rut. If your stuck (and I hope you aren't because I know you are a smart girl), drop me a line and I'll explain.

David said:

Soph - Poor John. You called him a liberal. I don't think he's going to like that.

I still can't find any basis for this argument you and Jerry seem to want to have. Whoever said that we shouldn't care about morality? Read my post at 7:19, and Stay Puft's. You are attributing arguments to people who are not, in fact, making those arguments. It's rather difficult to discuss anything in good faith under those circumstances.

This discussion has gone in a thousand different directions. I think Jerry's post has something of a rorschach test quality to it. Good for promoting debate but not for getting people of disparate views to agree on anything.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM