In Defense of Obama’s Safe School Czar (Sort Of) – or I Was A Teenage ‘Lolito’
by Charles WinecoffWhen I was 17 and desperate to get out of the house (and away from my parents), I wrote a crafty, fawning letter to a teacher whom I had admired from afar (a gay man 20 years my senior, who looked like a teddy bear), then sat back and waited. It didn’t take long to get a response, a phone number, and then a meeting that I managed to turn into a date. He thought I was very “mature” for my age. I thought so too.

As soon as I turned 18, I moved in with him. (Note: he was not my first target; I had a terrible crush on my American History teacher in high school – another gay man – but he was partnered and I scared him off.) Needless to say, we did not live happily ever after.
Married life brought out my true immaturity. He was set in his ways, I had no discipline. He liked dinner parties and lectures, I liked wearing silver lame’ pants to discos. He had plenty of friends, gay and straight, some of whom he’d known since I was an infant. They were very nice to me – but I was jealous of them all. I threw tantrums. “You love them more than you love me!”
Finally, he made me move back home. It was the most humiliating day of my young life.
The relationship dragged on for a couple of years after that. Then I started to take an interest in people my own age. He went on to marry someone his own age. He was not a pedophile; he was a vulnerable man I happened to zero in on (at the peak of my adolescent invincibility) at the right time. Of course, looking back, he should have known better. What did he think he was getting involved with? It was a very foolish – and potentially self-destructive – choice for a grown-up to make.
Then again, when writer Christopher Isherwood fell for the youthful Don Bachardy, they ended up staying together for thirty years. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I’m not saying pedophiles don’t exist – they certainly do (and most of them are straight). But these things happen. At least I didn’t meet “Teach” in a rest stop.
Which brings me to the fracas over Obama czar number five hundred and… well, who’s counting. The conservative blogosphere has been in an uproar because Kevin Jennings – the (deep breath) Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, or “Safe School Czar” - failed, in 1988, while still a mere teacher, to advise a 15-year-old boy (according to some reports, he might have been older) to stop having sex with adult men (in particular one man the teenager had met in a public restroom). Instead, Jennings reminded the boy to “play safe,” and use condoms.
To be honest, I don’t see what the big deal is. Based on his own experience, Jennings probably figured it was no use trying to convince the boy to stop seeing the man – take it from me, that would have had the exact opposite effect – so the more practical tack was to urge the kid to at least protect himself, ASAP, as Jennings did. Let’s not forget the high suicide rate among gay youth; twenty years ago, that teenager surely needed somebody to talk to.
Don’t get me wrong: I am no fan of NAMBLA, and I don’t care if the ancient Greeks thought it was a-okay to sleep with young boys. If I had been that kid’s father, I probably would have grabbed the nearest shotgun and gone after the offending adult myself. That’s a natural reaction - for a parent. Not for a teacher. A teacher has to walk a fine line between entering into his students’ world in order to gain their trust – something most parents fail at, miserably (and kids don’t want) - while at the same time watching them like a hawk (no pun intended).
My question is: where were this boy’s parents while he was picking up men in bus station lavatories? If Jennings should have alerted anyone, it was the teen’s family. But, of course, then ”Lolito” would have felt deeply betrayed by the “role model” he had confided in. So it’s a lose-lose situation.
Of more concern to me is Jennings’ s CV (as posted on KevinJennings.com). Talk about an over-achiever: Jennings graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, won a Klingenstein Fellowship at Columbia University, holds an MBA from NYU, founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was the LGBT Finance Co-Chair for Obama for America – and to top it all off, he’s published five books!
Not bad for a guy from a North Carolina trailer park. Clearly, Jennings is no slouch – he’s Super Gay! So where’s the red flag?
Call me cynical, but I’ve noticed too often that homosexuals who find monetary and social success in activism – “career gays” - often start to manifest the same intolerance towards others that motivated them to fight homophobia in the first place. In other words, they become so invested in battling bigotry that they begin to view almost anyone who isn’t gay as a potential enemy, losing sight of what (one hopes) was their original intent: to bridge gaps, promote understanding between disparate groups, and enhance Americans’ freedom to enjoy love relationships with whomever they want without suffering any unfair or negative repercussions.
You know, the same thing Dick Cheney wants.

Jonathan Crutchley
But, as evidenced in the outings, threats, and blacklisting of California’s Proposition 8 supporters last fall, there’s a tendency in the LGBT community to go overboard, and confuse “approval” with “diversity,” and ”equality” with “freedom.” As one grown man I know rejoiced when openly gay McCain supporter Jonathan Crutchley was forced to resign as chairman of the gay pickup site Manhunt – because of his politics – ”It’s democracy in action!”
No, it’s not – it’s McCarthyism, plain and simple (and ugly). But in the gay ghetto, it’s easy to forget that your fellow countrymen exist – so get used to it! (To their credit, gay groups in California have since toned down the rhetoric and seem to have realized that a new approach is needed re: gay marriage.) Meanwhile, blind adoration 0f a President who adamantly opposes same-sex marriage and bows and cow-tows to the worst anti-gay despots on earth has also become a litmus test of one’s gayness. But hey, he’s got a “D” after his name – so who am I to ask questions?
That said, Jennings’s now-famous anti-Christian rant, part of a speech he gave at (of all places) Manhattan’s Marble Collegiate Church, nine years ago – “We have to quit being afraid of the religious right… I’m trying not to say, ‘[F-] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” – well, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s typical gay knee-jerk stuff. Tired, and uninspired.
You can bet money Mr. Jennings would never dare make the same statement in a mosque.
Christians, like Mormons, continue to be easy punching bags – they don’t go in for strap-on explosives – and putting them down gives everyone a cheap and easy thrill. But Christians and Mormons don’t have a dangerously homophobic, 57-state voting bloc in that international club of creeps called the UN that our fearless leader has been quivering to be a part of.
I wonder when Jennings and his ilk will realize that “Christianophobia” is, well, just so forever ago.
Much has also been made of the fact that Jennings contributed to a book of essays entitled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Cultures, and (Homo)Sexualities). Far more dangerous than a possible dialogue about homosexuality – in an era when any eight-year-old can turn on a re-run of Will and Grace - is the tricky, academic gobbledeegook that presumes to pass as English in the “product description” on Amazon:
Queer elementary classrooms are those where parents and educators care enough about their children to trust the human capacity for understanding and their educative abilities to foster insight into the human condition… Queer teachers are those who develop curriculum and pedagogy that afford every child dignity rooted in self-worth and esteem for others. In short, queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and view childhood from the inside out… explore taken-for-granted assumptions about diversity, identities, childhood, and prejudice.
Gee, whatever happened to milk and cookies? Do politically-correct, post-modern nuggets of Romper Room moral relativism prevent childhood obesity? The use of the word “queer” is certainly troublesome here. Would black activists use the “N-word” in such classrooms? Why does elementary education need to be “queered” anyway? Grade school isn’t supposed to be some sort of experimental, off-Broadway art project. Would the gay community please just call itself “gay” and be done with it already?
But I digress.
Which brings us to the infamous “Fistgate” scandal of 2000 (not Jennings’s best year). At a conference called “Teach-Out,” sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education and Jennings’s GLSEN, students were invited to participate in “dialogues” (don’t you just love that word) about some usually unspoken (at least in polite society) aspects of homosexuality. One workshop, “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class: A Workshop for Youth Only, Ages 14-21,” encouraged students to ask questions about gay sex.
Not gay history, or literature, or art. Gay sex.
So when a curious female student asked what “fisting” was, Margot Abels, Coordinator of the HIV/AIDS Program for the Massachusetts Department of Education, replied that the practice, well-known in S&M clubs – and to anyone who saw the movie Cruising - was simply “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Then, when a 16-year-old stated the unthinkable – that “fisting” didn’t sound too appealing – Abels quickly pointed out that it “often gets a really bad rap” and that it usually wasn’t about pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” (Seinfeld, eat your heart out.)
Maybe it’s just me, but whatever happened to love?
Most young people realize they’re gay because of crushes, romantic feelings that crop up for another person of the same sex - not because of kinky fetishes. (Those come later.) Kids aren’t born little Roman Polanskis. Why not focus on the similarities we all share rather than the differences? Wouldn’t that be the best defense for gay marriage (now passed by legislative vote, as opposed to judicial decree, in at least three states)?

Harry Hay
But back to the Safe School Czar. Much has also been made of his glowing praise for gay rights pioneer Harry Hay. The right-wing blogosphere has its panties in a wad because Hay was a supporter of NAMBLA. Hay was also a Communist – as a gay man, he really should have known better – and a militant hippie who founded the “Radical Faerie” movement, a group that rejected Western sex roles in favor of pseudo-Native American spirituality and paganism, with a little cross-dressing thrown in (that would have gone over real well in Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, or Cuba).
The gay couple on Desperate Housewives these guys ain’t. No sports jerseys, football games, or suburban barbecues for them – that would be just too bourgeois.
To be blunt, the Radical Faeries were a bunch of back-to-nature, communal, moonbat kooks for whom everyday was Halloween. So it’s not surprising that Harry Hay lent his name to NAMBLA – anything to challenge the status quo, and mock traditional sex roles (even for gay men!). None of that who’s-the-husband /who’s-the-wife / let’s adopt a baby stuff for him. He would have supported the San Francisco Transgendered (and Questioning) Higher Primates-Gerbil Brotherhood (SFTQHPGB) if there’d been one.
But Hay also founded the first American gay rights organization – in 1950 – way ahead of his time. That took cojones. Hence, he remains a hero to today’s LGBT community, a figure gays and lesbians are tacitly expected to admire. The fact is most of us had no clue he had anything to do with NAMBLA – until now.
I had the pleasure of meeting Hay once at a party. Getting on in years, he was polite, soft-spoken, and rather sweet – a harmless old man who had stirred up enough trouble in his day. That said, I think Kevin Jennings would be wise to clarify which of Hay’s accomplishments he admires, and to denounce NAMBLA outright. After all, Jennings may be a radical flack, but a Radical Faerie he definitely is not. (In fact, he wouldn’t look so out of place on Wysteria Lane.) Radical Faeries don’t bother working the system.
After everything he’s accomplished in his 46 years – all the power and prestige - Kevin Jennings should be done rebelling against his Southern Baptist upbringing. Yet I fear that he, like legions of emotionally-stunted Bush bashers, may be just another gay man who can’t let go of his anger at mommy and daddy – and God - yet can’t stop stubbornly yearning for their absolute approval.
Newsflash: 100% of the world is never going to love you. Isn’t it enough that some people do – and that the entire mainstream media’s got your back? Sooner or later, you have to fess up to the fact that Utopian notions of ”equality” don’t mesh with actual human capability. Nor do they bring happiness. Rather, it’s our differences that make us interesting - and our ability to accept them that make us strong.
In four fast decades, gay and lesbian Americans have gone from being shadow people afraid to speak out to the absolute monarchs of the popular culture. If you don’t believe me, just look at Rachel Maddow. (And we wonder why the rest of the world still hates us.) What worked for the gay vanguard of the 1970s doesn’t work anymore, not in colorful, mixed-up, religious/progressive America - where most companies now offer same-sex benefits and law enforcement workers must undergo extensive, mandatory sensitivity training.
Did we learn nothing from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
It’s high time that gays changed their strategy and started thinking of themselves not as some kind of LGBT Special Victims Unit, but first and foremost as Americans. We’ve been given so much, the ball’s in our court to reach across the proverbial aisle (as The One is so fond of saying), and not just demand our worth – but prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It’s called give and take (as opposed to just take).
Yes, there are still old-time anti-sodomy laws on the books in many states - making America, in theory, the bigoted backwater of intolerance that the grievance-mongers (D) love (because it keeps them in power). But in day-to-day reality, gay life in the USA is full of possibility, and palpable hope.
With our failing dollar, our PC-handicapped President – and a globe full of ruthless, homophobic, homicidal totalitarian enemies - now more than ever, we who live in this massive melting pot of honest-to-God diversity need to stick together. As the Democrats like to say, do it “for the children” – so that future generations of Lolitas and Lolitos can live, freely, without having to look for love in bus station toilets.
Oh, one last thing: why do we need a “Safe School Czar” again?




Subscribe via RSS
205 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: In Defense of Obama’s Safe School Czar (Sort Of) – or I Was A Teenage ‘Lolito’ http://bit.ly/GoXLk [...]
This was a very refreshing, well written article. If more people could put their fanaticism aside, be it religious, gay rights or otherwise; there would be a chance to find consensus and have a viable third party. Mr. Winecoff, I look forward to reading more of your material in the future.
And that, people, is how the typical gay person thinks.
Now just sit back and read more comments about how "refreshing" it is.
I'm guessing this author was paid by the word (LOL – just kidding, but it did seem to go on and on). There was a pantload (HA!) of information there. I hope the readers can discard the useless without overlooking the truly important.____The conservative majority (and it IS the majority) needs every genuine believer it can get. Whether you're gay, black or a Lebanese cross-dresser, I certainly welcome you to the fray. Fight well.____On the other hand, please don't distract from our concerns about the grave difficulties at hand. (Hint: Learning about fisting isn't a concern for lots of people.) Those difficulties affect all Americans, and the consequences for our failure MIGHT BE fatal for many of us. It could get that bad
I do agree with much of what Charles says, but, to believe that the "soft spoken and rather sweet" man lent his name to NAMBLA only to "challenge the status quo, and mock traditional sex roles" is at best naive, or maybe self deception. If Hay didn't know what NAMBLA is about, then he was a moron. It seems more likely that he knew who they are and what they do and by lending his name also lent his support to their mission.
If Hay is a hero to todays gay community then lets not pretend that a man as smart and educated, and as active in the Gay community as Jennings was not aware of Hay's association with NAMBLA ,and, that NAMBLA is not a criminal organization.
2548 words to get to the 13 that really matter.
"Oh, one last thing: why do we need a “Safe School Czar” again?"
RACIST!
There are more heterosexual pedophiles because heterosexuals are 95% of the population. The percentage of homosexuals who are pedophiles is far greater. Why is that?
guillermo, guillermo, guillermo…
LOL – You're incorrigible!
One line here is right on the money (even if it does end in a preposition):
"…international club of creeps called the UN that our fearless leader has been quivering to be a part of."
I'd say the endless promotion of homosexuality on conservative websites is incorrigible.
Alexander
This "Czar" started an organization to build "Homosexual Awareness" to school-children in public schools. (GLSEN…grotesque organization) This is disgusting. It is NOT the schools job to educate children about homosexuality or sexuality period. Looks like Napoleon and his homosexual brownshirts are figuring out new and innovative ways to take the pups away from Jessie and Bluebell at an early age. Guess what? What you do with your genitals doesn't need to be taught to school children…pre-pubescent through post-pubescent. Got it? You sick &*&#s!
And your evidence for this is …?
It is one of those irregular nouns.
Q: What is a man who has sex with prepubescent girls?
A: A paedophile
Q: What is a man who has sex with prepubescent boys?
A: A homosexual
The gender of the victims of paedophiles says nothing about the (adult) sexual preferences of the paedophile. Indeed, male paedophiles who are heterosexual in their adult attachments tend to prey on younger boys than homosexual male paedophiles, since they have fewer of the adult masculine traits they are not attracted to.
When I was 15 I dated a man who was 21 and my parents thought it was inappropriate and guess what? it was. In the state I lived in it was considered statutory rape for an adult to sleep with a minor. Luckily the guy I dated recognized this and the relationship fizzled.
There used to be a time when adults acted responsibly and followed the rule of law. I don't give a cr*p how horny your are. The laws are there for a reason.
You know this is all very nice, but to put this man (Jennings) in a position of leadership dedicated to the safety of our children? No. Repeat: no.
You like him enough, fine. Put him in as homo-czar.
Just keep him 900 miles away from our children.
Charles, what a wonderful article to start my day with. You are a true gem here on BH!
Charles, what a wonderful article to start my day with. You are a true gem here on BH!
Um, dude. Maybe you should watch this?. I mean this Jennings mutt wrote a blurb that was included in this book?
No. The guy has to be toast. Fire his pedophile, hateful disgusting ass now.
So do adolescent boys not count as pedophilia?
Endless? You just show up out of the woodwork when someone like Mr. Winecoff writes an article. And if you don't like it, then tough s*#t.
Also, where does Mr. Winecoff promote homosexuality? Even if sexuality were a choice this story isn't a glowing endorsement of homosexuality at all, nor is it even an endorsement. This leads me to believe you didn't even read the article.
WOW! Charles, this is a really very complex and fabulous article. It's unfortunate that a few posters are focused on certain themes without seeing it as a cogent argument. I could not stop reading it. Bravo to you and BH.
"why need safe school czar"?
To keep our kids from Jennings and the other child molestors.
Thanks for the insight Charles. I still don't understand the teaching of sex education in elementary schools, gay or straight. That is just my hang up though.
Are we just supposed to pass over those themes when they are presented as fact?
No – it is not your hang up. Have a stiffer spine than that.
Some good points here but what Jennings did vis a vis the student is not something to brush off. If an authority figure learns of possible illegal/inappropriate sexual activity involving a minor/student, he is obligated to report it. Read Byron York's column today at Examiner.com.
Also, being gay is not about love. Homosexuality is defined by sexual activity with people of the same gender, just as heterosexuality is defined by sexual activity with people of the opposite gender. All said activity can occur exclusive of love.
Anyone that is going to be in a power position should be vetted and scrutinized extensively because they always come with their agenda and mental baggage.I really don't have a problem with any one of any ethnicity,sexual preference, or religious background being in power so long as they do not have a track record of radicalism,hatred,ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION,and have the MAJORITY of the people's best interest at heart.
Many of the people in power today got their because of political correctness and social justice.Hatred is labeled as "enthusiasm and energy".Rant spews are disguised as "educational or enlightenment speeches". A rap sheet as "experience or street credit" and so on.
When I hear the terms political correctness and social justice invented by activists for agenda leverage I think of stupidity and anger.You cannot give people power that have axes to grind.It's a shame that some minorities (race,sexuality,religion) were discriminated and/or taunted at some point in their past,but no matter how much they may whine it's not an epidemic like they want us to believe.Most of us have been there at some point or soon will be.There is no other country as tolerable as we are towards these individuals.
The tables have turned dramatically.Instead of being on a level playing field with as little bigotry as possible the pendulum has swung far past center(level field) to the other side.Now Whites,Christians,and Heterosexuals are the new victims and no matter how hard we protest we are ignored.We're paying for that btw.There is no such thing as hate crimes against whites.It's ok to choose an unqualified minority over a highly qualified white for the sake of quotas and so on.Often gays and minorities aren't be held accountable for their actions no matter how poorly they perform. 2 poor kids want college,yet race is a factor for financial aid.Diversity training is a mandatory prerequisite before you can even get to the classes you really want.Muslims can take 5 breaks from work a day while I get nothing.I am against abortion and homosexual education in schools yet I have to help fund it.This is .01% of the insanity I speak of.I am after no favoritism only.
This does not help to calm tensions between races,gays,and straights.It only adds fuel to the fire.Part of the goal is to keep us fighting amongst each other.Divide and Conquer.If most of us were all on the same page Washington would be terrified at the fact that they would be forced to listen and do for the people or pay the price.
Why can't people just keep their sexuality to themselves?Why do so many gays when introducing themselves have to add their sexual preference into their title."Hi.My name is Bill.I am gay" I mean why the hell do I care?Next time u introduce yourself to a person add the heterosexual comment in there and see how stupidly look at you.I don't care if "You're out of closet".Don't give me the Gay,Proud,and Loud bs either.I just hear
weird,weak,and annoying.
Think of this for a minute for all u haters.At some point in time we could be sharing a cage together.It's not people vs people.It's people vs the government.We are being played but unfortunately the number of lazy,hateful,and misinformed have grown ten fold.
Another quick question for anyone?Why do so many gays walk and talk abnormal purposely?Seriously.I mean they didn't walk and talk that way before they were gay?I phrase that question based on my personal experiences in the areas I have visited or lived in.I'm sure I have unknowingly interacted with many nice and intelligent gay people that seemed everyday normal,which is exactly how it should be btw.Not meant to offend,just an honest and curious question.
The cogent argument is that a teenager is naturally going to experiment with older men. Kevin Jennings was only trying to befriend the youth. Right wingers are too uptight about that. But hey I am a conservative because I have a beef with the idea of a school czar? Does that sum it up? Mr. Winecoff writes fine – but he skims over the fact that homosexual men go after adolescents at a very high rate. Are we supposed to ignore that so we can marvel over his complexity?
He was criticizing Jennings for not informing the parents.
Ugh, just looking at that picture of that old reprobate makes me want to vomit.
Excellent article as always Charles. Keep them coming.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with silver lame pants.
"the fact that homosexual men go after adolescents at a very high rate"
citations, please.
Wow! This guy — and this post — rocks my face off!
Sorry not buying it. If he did revere this old (sorry excuse for a) man then he should have found out all that there was to know about him. SEICUS exists to assist NAMBLA to get into the schools where they can get to children. There is no other purpose for them and to pretend that there is not a vital connection between paedophiles and SADs is just plain foolishness. No SAD group will ever denounce paedophiles.
There cannot ever be any place for any person who would rape children or agree with those who do.
The stat for paedophiles is interesting. We will use the current lie of 10% of paeds are SAD. The problem is that that 10% accounts for 39.+ % of cases. So just let this sleeping dog lie and get that man away from any children. He is not to be trusted.
Adults are free to make their own choices. I happily concede that you can choose your own life path. However, you cannot choose the path for the little ones that are defiled by these rapes. The abused become abusers and they are even taught that they (as 3 and 4 yr olds) seduced these old men. Yeah, sure, right! (it seems that you bought into the I seduced an old man storyline)
Well, unless you buy them in a 42 Extra Long…
Well, unless you have to buy them in a 42 Extra Long…
Here's a couple … if you include adolescents it goes much higher.
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-...
http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
True…That would be kind of gross.
While I can agree with many of the author's points, the fact is a child is a child, an adult is an adult, and any sexual interaction between them is not only wrong, it's illegal. Because of a child's age, by statute they are incapable of consenting.
If Jennings can't understand that, it makes the rest of his resume moot.
"male paedophiles who are heterosexual in their adult attachments tend to prey on younger boys than homosexual male paedophiles"….AND YOUR EVIDENCE IS. …?
Thanks for the links. I do not intend to argue this but I'd like to point out a couple of things having just read your first link.
(1) The headline "Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases" is exactly opposite to what is represented in the facts cited. The heterosexual paedophiles outnumber the homosexual paedophiles 20 to 1. The fact that one-third of the molested children where boys does not mean that one-third of the molesters where homosexuals themselves, as admitted, but not highlighted in the article.
(2) There is no discussion of the sex of the molesters given. That is, where they all men or where women included?
(3) In general, beware of footnotes that rely on ellipses for this is a sign of cherry picking.
(4) Beware of meta-analyses, which the appear to be. The so-called global warming issue is based on meta-analyses of scientific data.
About to read your second citation. Again, thank you, and I am not intending to pick a fight.
Well said…
Excellent article, Charles. Thanks for your candor.
I have been around a lot of gay folks most of my life…some of my friends are gay and some of my relatives are gay. And most of them…when i was with them…talked so much about being "gay" that they were continuously trashing straight people to the point that "I" almost felt bad for being STRAIGHT! But let me make another point…i actually have the privilege of knowing people who are "gay" that loves the Lord Jesus that they do not "act" upon their feelings because they believe it is an unpleasing act upon Christ. So what's so bad about that? What if you were a drug addict or an alcoholic? When some of these people clean up their act (which is not an easy task) and they let Christ help them through each day to stay clean…most of the time…not all the time…but most of the time they can live one day without drugs or alcohol. But it is definitely a "taking one day at a time" which these friends of mine that are "gay" do….it is a constant struggle for them not to act upon their desires…..just like it would for a married person not to act upon their desires. Can gay people truly live a happy life without acting upon their sexual desires. ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Because anyone who has ever been born on the face of this earth can be consumed with happiness if they truly follow Jesus Christ. It is only through Jesus that we find our happiness…peace..love..joy…self-control..kindness…patience…gentleness…and positive thinking. I sometimes think about past wrongs that I myself have committed….i made bad choices….but when i wake up in the morning today and any other day….I know Christ is with me and it will be another day living with Him in my heart. And i get through it. One of the best Bible stories in the New Testament is there is a Jewish woman who committed a great sin with a married man. The Law of the Jewish people that it (the sin) is punishable by stoning to death. Jesus walked up to the group of men who had the stones in their hands ready to stone this woman to death. Jesus told them.."the first one who is without sin throw the first stone.." and then He waited. The group started throwing their stones to the ground and walked away until no one was left. Jesus asked the woman.."where are those who condemn you?" in which she replied "no one Lord"…and Jesus took her hand and say unto her "than I don't condemn you either…AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART…..did Jesus say hey..ok…go and party with your friends and commit some more sins….or why don't you become gay….or why don't you become a prostitute…or better yet…why don't you go around abusing children! NO he didn't say that….He said to her…"go in peace and sin no more." I am not a perfect person and I make mistakes….so do you. But if Christ saved my life from an angry mob…i think i am going to listen to Him. If you know the Bible pretty well…then you know about the book of Daniel and Revelations…there is no doubt we are living in the last years. I know one thing clearly…the President in Iran is definitely the False Prophet (i can't ever say his name)…and if the False Prophet has showed up…..the Antichrist is also here. If the world experiences the destruction shown in the upcoming film "2012"…i am not afraid..you know why? Because i'm not going to be here…Praise God. It's already becoming a bad situation already. Let me see if I get this right….Our country is more worried about Health Care Reform than some country blowing us off the face of the earth? What i want to know is who will be left to survive to receive the free health care? Michael Moore?
I thought Charles' article was great, but I will never accept the concept that same-sex pedophilia can ever be characterized as apart from homosexuality. Even if the "adults" in many cases do not self-identify as being gay their actions give the lie to that.
A conservative party only gives Dems morepower, further destroying our freedoms.
The only choice conservatives have is to take back the Republican infrastructure.
No your just cherry picking a fight. Homosexuals are much more represented than their general numbers would indicate. Adolescents and children are not the only fetish where this would be the case. Do you think homosexual serial killers are only 5% of the serial killer community? Common sense tells you that is not the case. I lived as a homosexual for many years and I know what is going on in that scene (albeit not with seriel killer). There are many nice, interesting, productive people but that is not the point. They are trying to normalize their neurosis on the rest of society by sexualizing everything. We all have problems but they are trying to deny theirs is one. I do not agree with that and I do wish to pick a fight about it.
Sorry, but the association with NAMBLA is just beyond the pale for anyone who has anything to do with children — and "safe schools czar?" That would be risible if it weren't tragic. He has to go. And he should never be permitted to work anywhere near anyone under 18.
There was an article on FOXNews this morning about jennings and NAMBLA. They had on an FBI agent that went undercover into NAMBLA. he stated that NAMBLA's existence is to go after young boys for sex, nothing more.
The fact that Hay is one of Jennings' idols should send up the warning flags that this person has no business having ANYTHING to do with children.
The Whoopi cushion was mitigating Polanski's actions, meaning that he didn't stalk a woman he saw in a bar, drag her to the back of an alley, beat her (Robert DiNiro Cape Fear style) and then slice her neck near her jugular to prove that he meant business just befor insertng himself.
The question then is does the girl's age mean that the crime perpetuated on her was possibly worse?
Hay's agenda is beyond securing gay rights, but replacing to the extent possible heterosexuality. For instance he has complained that teaching Romeo and Juliet should be eliminated because it is heterosexual propaganda.
'Jennings also has high praise for Harry Hay. If NAMBLA had a Hall of Fame, Hay would be a member. Hay fought for NAMBLA’s inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA Walks With Me.” Although Hay died before I was invited to attend any of NAMBLA’s secret, underground meetings, Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love. When members of the Administration admit to admiring a NAMBLA icon it gives me cause for concern and is at the very least a reason for further inquiry.'
Did you even bother to read J.R. Head's interview with Bob Hamer about Harry Hay's and Nambla?
Fisting? Yuck!
This whole article is about making EXCUSES.
Sorry, I'm not buying them.
I agree the article was great. I quibble with you though on the idea that paedophilia is about sex, per se. Like rape, it is about power. And in the citation, the paedophiles self-identified as heterosexual 20:1. I just reported what was in the citation.
Some parents stick their heads in the sand or are afraid to confront their kids about behaviors and lies because they don't want to be "the mean parents".
Never underestimate the power of denial.
You mean this FBI Agent?
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jrhead/2009/10/...
Pederasty results from an inablity or unwillingness to control one's pedophilia.
At which point the pederast should be placed against a wall and shot dead.
I think you undermine the idea that a gay relationship is the same as a straight one, 'cause we all know nobody defends an older man who preys on a 15-year-old girl. So what if it turned out well for you? It's a violation of the law for a reason. Keep in mind this kid went to his teacher and said the older man made him feel uncomfortable.
I can guarantee you if a young girl went to a teacher and said an older man was hitting on her and she felt uneasy, a teacher would not respond with, "Wear a condom," and if he or she did, they'd be fired. That alone is "sexual harassment," is it not? Fine. Couldn't this relationship have as easily ended in a sexually transmitted disease or violence? Of course it could. And the reason there are statutory rape laws is because 15-year-olds don't have the mental faculties or judgment to deal with their raging emotions and we must protect them as a society. We could give them drivers licenses, too, and many would drive safely. But that doesn't mean it's good for them when they're not mature enough.
I'm glad you have wistful memories of a statutory rape experience, but you're not a "czar" who's put in charge of a large government program and who we're asked to invest with powers over our children — powers unchecked by Congress or anyone else. It was a poor judgment and poor advice.
Yup, that's the one.
Having read the 32 pages of your second citation I can say that it doesn't support your original assertion, "the fact that homosexual men go after adolescents at a very high rate."
As I said, I'm not fighting with you. I just gave you my impression of your citations and now I'm walking away from this.
Isn't the issue that pedophiles, when caught, are allowed to self-identify their sexual label?
If a man seduces a boy, that is homosexuality because both are of the same sex. If a woman seduces a girl, same thing.
I don't understand how an alleged man who claims to be heterosexual has any sort of attraction to children at all. Self-identifying as "heterosexual" even while preying on children of the same sex has to be some sort of defense mechanism.
It is odd how men who find some sort of disgust with homosexual behavior are labeled as being "homophobes" (a completely made up word that exists only to shut down debate) by the gay community because said homophobes are "latent homosexuals" but men who self-identify as heterosexuals while preying on young boys are considered by the gay community to be heterosexuals.
I think Whoopi was saying there are differing degrees of rape. Although much more perverse and violent, the DeNiro allusion (as far as rape is concerned) is as bad as Polanski's.
Funny!!
Not wanting to participate in the homosexual agenda is not a phobia, but instinct.
The idea of sticking myself into a man where the sun don't shine offends, for openers, my genetically determined sense of smell, not my perverted fetish involving enjoyment of the missionary position with female.
What happens, then, if someone is genetically only 40% gay? That person is not driven by only DNA. Hence the psychological/propaganda fight that the homosexuals are perpetuating is aimed at recruiting those who are not 100% homosexual.
This is what the real fight is over. Probably 2% of gay men are genetically determined. The rest can make their own choices. Homosexuals want to contribute to forming our personalities while we are too young to understand what we are accepting or rejecting.
Although very long winded, another great column Mr. Winecoff, it's refreshing to see that at least one member of the gay "community" thinks that Christians & Mormons are easy punching bags considering other external threats.
Why don't heterosexuals keep their sexuality to themselves and stop introducing their spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends to everyone? Because it would be ridiculous, that's why. I agree that it's a little, "um…okay" when people tell you they're gay the second you meet them, but saying that gay people should keep their sexuality to themselves is pretty nonsensical.
Brilliant observation. The logic is a house of mirrors once you accept their original premise.
I should probably read the entire article before posting, but I've gotta comment on this part:
"To be honest, I don’t see what the big deal is. Based on his own experience, Jennings probably figured it was no use trying to convince the boy to stop seeing the man – take it from me, that would have had the exact opposite effect – so the more practical tack was to urge the kid to at least protect himself, ASAP, as Jennings did."
Okay, c0ndoms are not designed for @nal sex and have a much higher rate of failure. Furthermore, human bodies actually aren't designed for it, either. It's not safe.
You may be right that the teenager would have gone and done it anyway, despite what Jennings might have told him. But we don't need a "Safe Schools" czar who thinks condoms provide adequate protection against disease. His response to the teenager IS a big deal. For more information, check out Dr. Miriam Grossman's You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child – http://www.amazon.com/Youre-Teaching-Child-What-P...
I agree that Jennings was put in a difficult position when this student came and talked to him – if Jennings had told anyone, the student would have been forced out of the closet and has life could have gotten a hell of a lot worse – and I agree that men who are interested in guys in their late teens aren't pedophiles. I also agree that gay people insulting Christians has gotten really old. WIth Harry Hay and NAMBLA, though, how did you not know that? I knew that when I was fifteen and curious as to who the guy was and Googled him. I'm sure he seemed "harmless" when he was old and on his best behavior at a party, but pedophilia is pedophilia. I once witnessed the sentencing of a man for producing child pornography and he had a very mild demeanor. He also molested kids. NAMBLA was never just about men having relationships with boys in their late teens, boys who were all the way through puberty. It always included adult men having sex with little boys.
America has to make a choice. Either we are a Christian nation with decency and good judgement or we are a homosexuality accepting pig sty. There is NEVER going to be ANY way a country who believes and respects the God of the Holy Bible is going to be able to sit down with a homosexual and the two see eye to eye. It's like black and white – Good and Evil shaking hands? I don't care what anyone calls me for defending what I believe. I don't care if they KILL ME because ofit! I will NEVER accept this homosexual lie. Homosexuality is the last thing a country accepts before total destruction. America will do it. They are walking away from God in droves, The Great Falling Away is progressing. America, this once great nation Is Finished as a super power. We are an empty shell now. We have been eaten away like the inside of a giant redwood and it's happened because we have rejected the God of The Holy Bible!
I thought it was the law that a teacher was required to report knowledge of inappropriate sexual behavior between a minor student and an adult. This is for the minor's protection. In the Kevin Jennings case, the student was 15.
The fact that the author of this essay was attracted to older men when he was a teenager is mildly interesting, but beside the point. It is against the law, statutory rape, for an adult to have sex with a minor.
P.S. This is a very long and rambling essay.
[...] Car czar Steven “Chooch” Rattner is leaving; probes intensify Charles Winecoff, Big Hollywood: In Defense of Obama’s Safe School Czar (Sort Of) – or I Was A Teenage ‘Lolito’ Citizen Wells: Cass Sunstein, Obama Czar, Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House office, [...]
Dude! I'm a Right Wing Fundie Christian and I actually LIKED this piece. Can I say "piece" when referring to gays? It doesn't change my opinion about this issue, but this guy uses his brain, unlike most lefties and righties. Can I say "lefties" and "righties" when referring to gays? We need fewer czars and more Mars bars. The candy bar kind, not the gay bar kind.
Thank you for that. I couldn't agree more. I turned my life around some years back and now I have a beautiful wife who loves me and I thank God for it.
In agreement…
News flash: there is a God and he detests those most who would actively seek to corrupt our children. Parents: Will you abdicate your duty to your kids and allow these radical gays (now in the highest places of power in our government) to sexualize your young innocent children? We must completely eject all of them from government at the mid-term elections in 2010, and remove their false messiah from the White House on November 2012. These Nut-Jobs had better start considering the notion of "Eternity…" There are 2 eternities – and I know which one they're headed towards…
Agreed, Kipling.
This isn't even about homosexuality. What if the 15-year-old in question were a female student having sex with an older male in a restroom? I see no difference in the "yuck" factor, nor in the teacher's responsibility to report.
"What happens, then, if someone is genetically only 40% gay?"
They watch "Dancing with the Stars" with their wife instead of their boyfriend?
You are correct. if I were cranky i might quibble with the 2% being genetically determined. – I would say genetically predisposed. Getting young people to constantly think about it or consider it is the agenda. Great post. I may borrow this angle later on…
A good article. The most practical thing Jennings could and should have done was to alert law enforcement rather than to merely suggest protection. The boy was 15, which makes any sexual contact with an adult a crime. As someone in a position of authority, he (Jennings), had an absolute duty to first ensure no more harm came to the boy. He should have called law enforcement, the parents, or maybe he should have met with the perp and told him to back off and leave his student alone.
It's never a justification for school age kids to have sex with adults by saying, "Well I did it and I'm ok." Teachers have a responsibility to advise kids to steer clear of potentially "very foolish – and potentially self-destructive" acts such as getting sexually involved with adults 2or 3 times their age. Whether the kid takes the advice or not is up to the kid. But a teacher (who is supposedly older, wiser and looking out for the kids' best interest) to advise him to wear a condom when having sex with a much older man is missing the point to say the least, don't you think? The kid, like yourself, may be having problems at home that are driving him away from home and toward a potentially unsafe (physically or emotionally) relationship. THAT is what the teacher should be addressing. Our safe school czar failed and I'm surprised that as an adult you don't see what could have happened to you in that relationship. It could have turned out much much worse.
I bet there is no more a typical gay person than there is a typical white person or typical black person or typical anything. There are just people who have all sorts of views and predispositions no matter how odd they might be.
Okay that was funny – except I bet that guy would end up much happier.
88% of the "Pedophile Priests" were in actually, as reported by a third party organization which investigated the scandals, were done by, "Homosexuals". They were men with same-sex compulsions preying on Post-Pubscent Boys…age 11 and up. THAT IS 88%…. They were "Homosexuals" because they were attracted to the secondary sex charateristics that arise after puberty in male children. Homosexuality is Men who cannot control their compulsions and do not know the proper place to address their compulsions. This is why the Jews gave the world "Marriage". Because the ancient world was drilling everything that wasn't nailed down. The Jews…and then the Christians said…"NOPE Sex will be restricted for GOOD REASON…between man and woman in marriage". That is THE FACT. SO…..This is what "Homosexuality" is…..A "Compulsion", as is "Heterosexual Impulses". The difference is one form of sexual expression whose equipment appears to be uniquely designed for the "Genders"…think "Male & Female" genitalia…and one "DOES NOT". In fact, objectively scientifically speaking certain body fluids who introduce immuno-suppresent chemicals are put into certain body cavities contribute to wide-spread disease because they were not "DESIGNED" for that act. Between men and women these immuno-suppresents chemicals (Otherwise known as Semen) introduced into a woman's body during the "Act" fights off her "Natural Defense Systems" in order to create the possibility for "Life" to occur. (I.E The little swimmer gets to where he needs to go without being terminated)
In the other act…the same Immuno-suppresents put into the other "Orafice" actually makes it harder for people to fight off disease in the part of the body where it is most needs it…where we eliminate "Waste". (Keep in mind this is a place that body is desperately trying to void its contents of because the microbes here can kill a human being…why would we inject an immuno-suppresent into an area that is already hostile to the health of a human being…..1. From an Atheist point of view it doesn't appear to fall in line with the tenants of natural selection. 2. From a Theist point of view it doesn't appear the designer intended for this act to occur
We worship "DEATH" in this culture…DEATH. I have compassion for people with compulsions…I have compulsions…not the kind in question here but compulsions that need to be "Reigned In". What separates us from the animals people? WE CONTROL OUR COMPULSIONS.
Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay,…..everything is about. Gay! I'm sick of it…we have more important things to accomplish in this world than what we do with our genitals idiots
Agreed, Old Tom.
I think many want to obscure the issue so they can hide behind the smoke screen.
It is about homosexuality because people are more willing to accept it or look the other way , or be charmed by a wistful article. Homosexuality lowers the bar for behavior.
What a bunch of crap……get me out of here!
Sorry for the bad SP/Grammar…trying to comment in the middle of work
Replying to Charles Winecoff:
"A teacher has to walk a fine line between entering into his students’ world in order to gain their trust…"
The fact that this "Czar/former Teacher" Kevin Jennings didn't report this to the proper authorities in a crime! If he knowingly withheld information of a child (15 or 16) having sexually intercourse with anyone (male or female/straight or gay) he has an obligation to report it under most sexual abuse statutes! RAPE IS A CRIME, PERIOD! By not reporting a crime against a minor we all should be appalled. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BEING "GAY RAPE". THIS IS ALL ABOUT RAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suppose this was a person beating a child, and the child told the teacher about it…(no sexual information, no gender information)…would this not still be a crime? Should this teacher keep this in confidence? If your child was being beaten by another adult and you later found out that your child told his teacher…but the teacher did nothing, what would you do Charles? I think the old shotgun would be pointed at both the teacher and the perp.!
God bless you. You are truly a saint. Thank you for your thoughtful and heart felt post. We don't just hate the sin and love the sinner, we hate the sin BECAUSE we love the sinner.
Don't be sorry for anything. You made my day.
Yeah, cause you can't even get through RushLimbaugh.com, Michelle Malkin or Free Republic with out being hit over the head with 30 articles on how you should be a homosexual. Are you serious Guillermo????
Lorenzo, that was pure bullshit, top to bottom.
According to a study done by a gay group, they accidentally let something slip. They wanted to show that more heterosexuals were pedophiles than were gay people. So reviewing their numbers, it turned out that per capita, an individual gay person was two hundred to three hundred percent more like to be a pedophile than an individual straight person. The fact that Nambla is self avowed gay people (100 percent) and that their goal is to have legal gay sex with underaged boys is quite sufficient evidence of who is what in our society.
Well, that was a mouthful ! The 2000 Mass conference enraged alot of people (and us parents) because they were adamant about keeping the parents out of the meeting. When someone did a video, they freaked and tried very hard to suppress it's release, I think that they made have succeeded. The "light myself on fire" squad and ACT UP haven't gotten much accomplished. The democrats have, with the help of the Frank twins, and it has definitely fogged their vision with th One. The nonexistent position on the muslim question is comparable to the NOW position on same, so I guess that the axiom "a country is as good as it treats its women" probably correlates to gays. With Pim Fortuyn dead, and Bjorn Lomborg being criticized, Europe is it's usual hypocritical self.
Great article, everyone in the country should read it. Jennings is a squall, not a storm.
Ditto – good one!
You don't know how right you are. I can't tell you how I had to swallow my tongue when I over heard my daughter on the phone with her friends, all them describing how they thought they were part bi-sexual.
At her age, she shouldn't have even know what bi-sexual is.
But I must say, her and her friends seem to have out grown that stage successfully enough.
I don't agree with that at all. I attend Church almost every week, dragging my wife and daughter along, she attends a Catholic high school, and I do the Church's website. And I have no problem sitting down and being civil with any one who's civil. I don't care if they are black/white/yellow/green (but not red!). I don't care about sexual orientation, or gender, or what religion they are either. What matters to me is who a person is, and what they think, as an individual, not as a stereotype.
And this one will probably get me shot in the foot, I'm not sure organized religion has this thing all worked out right any way. Remember who the Bible lumps into the same category as homosexuals, murderers, thieves, adulterers, scoundrels, and other dregs of society.
And the sodomites weren't just homosexual, they were crazed killers who demanded Abraham turn over his guests so they could screw them to death. That's not a couple of same sex people, bothering no one, and just living their lives, that's cold blooded, premeditated murderers.
Y'know, with some mock-frustrated back and forth pacing, a bad jacket and loud tie, that right there could basically work as a bad mid-1980s standup routine…
Y'know, with some mock-frustrated back and forth pacing, a bad jacket and loud tie, that right there could basically work as a bad mid-1980s standup routine… ("And hey, amItheonlyone who thought Scooby Doo was totally on weed?? And what's the deal with airline food!?")
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 7:12.
You can say lefties and righties but you can't say innes and outies.
Are you differentiating between homosexuals and radicals? If so, I agree, radical homosexuals need to be removed from power.
But not because they are homosexual, but because they are radical anything.
The only radicals I go for are the founding fathers.
"We don't just hate the sin and love the sinner, we hate the sin BECAUSE we love the sinner."
If you define something that is a massive, nearly all-encompassing part of someone's very existance – something that is not "learned," something that is not a "disorder" – as a sin, then you DO hate the sinner. And it DOES make you a lousy excuse for a human being.
"We have been eaten away like the inside of a giant redwood and it's happened because we have rejected the God of The Holy Bible!"
If treating those who are different as equal human beings under the law… if throwing out outdated, archaic superstitions because it no longer does anything but harm in the modern world… if looking to logic and reason rather than mysticism… if choosing freedom and thought over subserviance and belief… if all THAT is "rejecting the God of The Holy Bible"… then America did that the moment it decided to BE America.
"Bible says a lot of things"
Wiggum 3:16
I'm guessing this author was paid by the word (LOL – just kidding, but it did seem to go on and on). There was a pantload (HA!) of information there. I hope the readers can discard the useless without overlooking the truly important.
The conservative majority (and it IS the majority) needs every genuine believer it can get. Whether you're gay, black or a Lebanese cross-dresser, I certainly welcome you to the fray. Fight well.
On the other hand, please don't distract from our concerns about the grave difficulties at hand. (Hint: Learning about fisting isn't a concern for lots of people.) Those difficulties affect all Americans, and the consequences for our failure MIGHT BE fatal for many of us. Continued below…
It could get that bad; don't kid yourself. Don't take anyone's eye off the ball by showing up with the moral equivalent of feathers in your hair.
A friend of mine asked me (I thought), "Do you like annual sex?" When I responded affirmatively, he asked, "Well, isn't it painful?"
I replied, "Yeah, a bit, but luckily it's only once a year." (Homemade joke from a straight white guy)
Here here!
The Bible that I read (and am currently reading, up to Kings II) doesn't tell me to judge others, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in there is specifically says not to.
Its teaches me to love my fellow man, and treat them as I would want to be treated.
Here here!
The Bible that I read (and am currently reading, up to Kings II) doesn't tell me to judge others, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in there it specifically says not to.
Its teaches me to love my fellow man, and treat them as I would want to be treated.
Hi EdSki,
Where do you get that the men of Sodom wanted to screw the messengers "to death" and that they were "murderers"?
Also, I think the concern being raised by many is that we keep finding out that purportedly normal homosexuals turn out to advocate for man-boy sex. Even now Charles Winecoff, the author of this essay posted here.
Hi MovieBob,
The problem with what write is that we keep finding out that what we were told were "outdated, archaic superstitions" turn out to have been right. I don't mean creationism vs. evolution, but I mean how human society is best organized, the ways the people should behave towards each other.
To provide a paycheck and platform for advocating for and protecting pedophilia in our schools, I guess.
The Bible is a lot more complicated than many people realize. Before I sat down to start reading, I spent several years trying to learn just what it was I had in front of me. At Church, following the readings, we all respond "The word of the Lord."
Well dang it, if that's the word of the Lord, then some human decided what was not the word of the Lord, and I wanted to know who exactly made that decision, to help me figure out what I was reading.
And it is a very fascinating history. The history of the Bible that we have today, pretty much mirrors the history of western civilization. The Bible is the most read, the most translated, the most published book in the history of human civilization. Up until a couple of hundred years ago, if people even saw, much less read a book, it was probably the Bible.
It contains some of the oldest ideas about early humans concepts of life, death, creation. It's pretty amazing, in my opinion, that we even have these remnants of the original ideas.
I agree with guillermo. Please don't say it is your "hang up". It is your legitimate position on the issue.
Back in the '70's, child abuse (in any form) deservedly began to get more legal and media attention. As a state social worker during that period, we were made clearly aware of the following: If we even suspected child abuse in any form, and did not immediately report it to the authorities, we could be held legally liable.
Somehow, I doubt that teachers and school administrators, who were in direct daily contact with children and adolescents, escaped that information.
Best 2 words in the article and posts – "Hay died"
Back in the '70's, child abuse (in any form) deservedly began to get more legal and media attention. As a state social worker during that period, we were made clearly aware of the following: If we even suspected child abuse in any form, and did not immediately report it to the authorities, we could be held legally liable.
Somehow, I doubt that teachers and school administrators, who were in direct daily contact with children and adolescents, escaped that information.
Another point: The author asks where were the parents of this kid who was given rotten advice by the Safe Schools Czar. They were most likely sitting at home, secure in the knowledge that Little Johnny was at a friend's house, engaged in some perfectly innocuous activity.
Attention all idiots: I was once a kid, so I know this to be a fact. Kids lie to their parents so they can do what their parents would never allow. Parents are just ordinary people, not psychics, not prison wardens. They can only do what they can do.
Perpetua,
Which by the way is a great name, one of the Church's early martyrs. A touching story.
Genesis 19:1-9. These people were not looking for a date at the malt shop.
I don't have any problem with adults who choose homosexual life styles, I simply demand they keep their hands off children – as with heterosexuals too, and they don't shove their life styles down my throat.
4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."
9 But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
Very good article. The anger and intolerance that many homosexuals express is so confusing. There is such a double standard that many of us that are straight are sick of the anything but "gay" attitude. I do not think it will ever be resolved because heterosexuals cannot make homosexuals come to an acceptance of who they for them. My brother is gay. No matter how much we love him, he has a chip on his shoulder that seems to dare anyone to knock it off. Its an eggshell walk .
I sense a serious disease is at the root of these problems.
The problem I have with Kevin Jenning is that while serving as a teacher in a public school he knowingly violated the law. If any teacher learns of such activity be it heterosexual or homosexual or any other situation that may be harmful to a child it is the teacher’s responsibility to report it. This is the same for child abuse.
With the rational used in this situation, would Mr. Jennings have said well a child is being abused by his parents but I will not say anything because it might embarrass him or her and I would lose their trust?
As a former teacher in a public high school, who did have situations where I had to report the possibility of child abuse to authorities, the last thing on my mind was losing the trust of the student. It was for the students well being. Isn’t that the concept of it takes a village to raise a child? Is not that why the law is there in the first place?
Mr. Jennings violated the law that teachers are to abide by and demonstrates by his action that student safety may not be his highest priority. He is supposed to be the “czar for school safety”.
I really appreciate your politeness when discussing issues that many Americans disagree on, it's very refreshing. I have to say though, that your story does concern me. I would be shocked if I heard of a 17 year old girl writing that letter, and then moving in with a teacher 20 years her senior when she turned 18. I definately would not encourage such a relationship. Similarly, I was shocked to think of an 18 year old boy doing the same thing. It doesn't seem wise or emotionally safe. The adult should know better, and parents should be looking out for their children (who, in this case, is a young adult, and should at least have the beginnings of common sense).
Psst. Don't tell anyone but I think the author is gay.
p.s. Good article.
"The right-wing blogosphere has its panties in a wad because Hay was a supporter of NAMBLA. "
This is indefensible. Rape is rape, there is no such thing as "rape, rape". One does not get a pass because of sexual preference.
I hate to be the one to go against the chorus of praise so far but I found the piece to be long, meandering, and full of moral relativism. For the sake of brevity, let me just speak on the issue with Mr. Jennings. Twenty-one years ago, a 15 yr old male student confided in Mr. Jennings that he was having sex in a restroom with an adult male. Mr. Jenning's only counsel was to wear a condom. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Jennings violated the law and probably numerous school codes in not reporting the incident. He did not report it because he wanted to encourage such behavior in youth.
Mr. Winecoff rationalizes the incident by saying that Mr. Jennings probably did not want to say anything because it would 1) only encourage the youth to continue the relationship, and 2) it would undermine Mr. Jennings status as a role model. If we adopt pt. 1 then we must abandon all programs designed to help teens navigate away from dangers such as drugs, alcohol, Brad Pitt movies, etc. Regarding pt. 2, what is the point of being a role model if you do not use the status to influence others for good.
I really don't think your first partner was any sort of pedophile. I guess I draw the line when a person is sixteen.
And, of course adults should know better, but then again, we are all just human beings who occasionally do stupid things. However, some things are more stupid than others and deserve punishment. If one thinks it's okay to force someone to have sex with them, they've naturally deviated from the common rules of socializing with others.
Being gay is something I'd like to understand, why some people are gays and why some are straight and some even pedophiles. To be completely honest, I've been thinking that gayness might be a sort of device evolutionary forces use to diminish human population..? That's just my thinking. Heterosexuality will always remain as the status quo, no matter what happens.
OK that was a nice story but I have to say something that's been on my mind for awhile. This ridiculous notion that most pedophiles are "straight" has to stop. It's nearly impossible to find true unbiased statistics on this so there is no way to tell the sexual orientation of a pedphile. Easily 2/3's of the stories you read about, the victims were male, as were the offenders. Not to mention the complete embarrassment a young boy would go through, would more than likely prevent him from reporting these crimes, to save himself the humiliation. More than 90% of ALL sexual abuse goes unreported.
I'm just not buying the "pedophiles are straight" rhetoric. Pedophiles are sexual deviants and highly prone to homosexual and bi-sexual behaviors. I have seen several of them and had the displeasure of actually knowing a couple personally, before they were caught touching neighborhood boys. All males. Not the first one limited themselves to females only. It just insnae to believe these perverts limit themselves to one sex or the other…they don't care how they get their rocks off…
So nothing in my experience leads me to believe that nonsense. It's highly speculative based on the fact that more REPORTED cases showed the victim to be female. That is simply because it's alot harder to hide for those poor young girls.
Kids do not need sexualizing. Allowing a group to co-opt accepted Sex Education programs intended for children with Sexual Orientation Awareness is predating on natural hormonal development. Kids that are "initiated" via gay sex will tend to stay that way. Its simple opportunism.
Read this article by Dennis Prager….Facts & Wisdom about Human Nature and Early Civilization….the reasons why human sexuality was put in a bottle called "Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage" by the Jews and quite a bottle of integrity and wisdom it is…..despite what "Gay-Agenda" twits from Harvard have to say about it
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHom...
You know its good when it starts off like this……."When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible."
Besides preaching "Non-Violence" the next thing Ghandi spoke about especially as he got older in his life was "Sexual Morality and Purity"……
1. Non-Violence….then
2. Sexual Purity and Morality…….
Ghandi concentrated on these issues…why? Must be because he had little to say about humanity and he was against gays and "Free Love" and all that enlightened stuff..we religious types…Just….Don't….Get…..I guess
So, according to this writer, if a 15 year old girl has a crush on an older teacher, the only problem is that the girl will probably pursue the relationship no matter what you do so tell her to make sure the teacher uses a condom. I like the majority of the people on big hollywood but this guy is a real problem. He essentially supports the actions of an educator who looks the other way while an adult has sex with a willing child. The key point is that no matter how eager the "child" may be to be involved with the older adult and no matter how eager the adult is to have sex with that child it is WRONG. The other adults have to step in and stop the moron adult and monitor the child. Please Mr. Breitbart, talk to this comentator, send him over to the "I support Roman Polanski" website. He really needs help. He is part of the problem disguised as a moderate voice on gay issues. Please, lets stop the madness.
That was an excellent comment.
I'm gay but most people would never know it unless I outright told them. And I don't because it's not really an issue in most day-to-day dealings.
Thank you for this really, really great piece.
Actually, about a third of all child-rapes are done by self-declared homosexual men, who constitute about 5% of the population or less — given these are the male-identifiers, not the "femme" homosexual males. That means, a homosexual male-identifier is far more likely to offend against a child, than the typical heterosexual male, who by the numbers is rarely doing such a thing.
Fisting is “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with," is it, Margot? That could describe letting a guy I like poke his finger into my spleen. Not happening.
ummmmmmm insofar as I understand it, she said "no." Intercourse following the utterance of that word is taken to be "rape."
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus 20:13
Charles,
As always, so wonderful to see you writing and supporting the cause of patriotism and keeping America free. Though I don't agree with some of your points in this piece, I commend you for having the courage to stand up and support our country. Your voice is very valuable in our mutual efforts to keep our nation from becoming a socialist, self-hating mass of people following the every whim of Hollywood. Thank you and you have my support.
Not dead, but repeatedly. Pedophiles should be publicly humiliated, ridiculed, and then punshed repeatedly to allow for vengeance of the victims and their families.
Trying to give you a thumbs up, darn thing not working. So, thumbs up.
"And this one will probably get me shot in the foot, I'm not sure organized religion has this thing all worked out right any way."
Well, the Church whose website you do does not hesitate to say that the matter is settled and that homosexuality is inherently disordered and those with exclusively homosexual tendencies are called to celibacy. And you know better because . . .?
That still doesn't answer Perpetua's question. Nowhere does this show the men of Sodom as crazed killers, unless we are to understand them to have some nasty diseases to spread. They started getting violent once they were told no.
Actually, he wasn't. You've garnered the wrong meaning entirely.
He wrote: "My question is: where were this boy’s parents while he was picking up men in bus station lavatories? If Jennings should have alerted anyone, it was the teen’s family. But, of course, then 'Lolito' would have felt deeply betrayed by the 'role model' he had confided in. So it’s a lose-lose situation."
The first sentence indicts the boy's parents, because they (apparently, in the author's view) failed to keep close enough tabs on little Johnny.
The second sentence blames the teacher for failing to notify the boy's parents.
The third sentence absolves the teacher for his failure to notify the parents.
The Bible does not take an "I'm okay, you're okay" approach to anything. It teaches to love the sinner and hate the sin. But now we know from the great philosopher and moral leader MovieBob that that is an outdated, archaic superstition, and from EdSki that the sin and the sinner are one and the same such that to judge one is to judge the other.
If it is an outdated, archaic superstition to oppose normalizing such things as fisting and sex between mature adults and confused kids in their formative years, or to oppose the legal recognition of the lower digestive tract as a sex organ, then call me superstitious.
Everybody knows that one and only the willfully blind are persuaded that it supports your position. Of course if you read this passage in isolation, without regard either to its context or to what the rest of the Bible says, you'd have to not only give wrongdoers a pass, you'd have to aid and abet them just as you would like to be aided and abetted in getting away with something. So when someone breaks into your house, by all means, start helping them haul your TV away. After all, as Jeremiah Wright would say, "That's in the Bible!"
[...] the original post: In Defense of Obama’s Safe School Czar (Sort Of) – or I Was A Teenage ‘Lolito’ Share and [...]
EdSki – The word sodomy came from the the sodomites. If I were you I'd get out of the catholic church. They've twisted your mind to accept homosexuality. Because? Because the catholic church hides sodomites and child molesters within it's own ranks. Have you Not heard?
Nice article. Not sure I agree with everything you covered in it but then you covered a lot. One thing I did like, and related to, is at the end when you suggested it was time for gays to start identifying as just Americans rather than as "gay". Here I'm going to pat myself on the back. I did just that way back in the 90's, I just divorced myself from the "gay" universe entirely and just started seeing myself as a person. In case anybody asked, and at my age not many do, I just say I'm homosexual and merrily move on to the next subject. In all honesty it was the most liberating moment of my life when I let the "gay" go, no more professional victim. You ARE right, more gays should do it. Free at last, free at last, than God Almighty, I'm free at last!
"Under-aged boys" does not really demonstrate the truth of nambla. Their motto is "Sex before 8 or it's too late." That tells you the real target of their EVIL. There is no place for nambla in this world let alone government.-
I didn't say I knew better, I said I don't think its interpreted correctly by modern Christianity. And the Church calls every one to be pretty much celibate. They teach sex is for procreation only, not for getting your rocks off.
I'm entitled to my own opinion. I've read the Bible, I'm still reading, and I've studied the evolution of of the book. There's an entire academic discipline called textual criticism that studies determining what's been changed from the original versions, by detailing what's the form of the text. And let me tell you, the Bible in its present format is considerably different from the earliest copies.
Genesis is composed from three separate sources. Mark's Gospel has an entire chapter tacked on that wasn't originally there. And the story in John about let he is with out sin cast the first stone was added at a later date, because its not in the earliest copies from the first century. And in the earliest copies of Acts, Paul addresses certain women as deacons, equal to their male counter parts.
So there has already been a ton of distortions in it. My opinion is this could be one of them.
"The Bible does not take an 'I'm okay, you're okay' approach to anything."
Correct, and by the way voluntarily, I am not compelled to comply, I choose too. How ever, the US Constitution does.
And if you read my other posts here, you will see that I am 100% dead set against adult sex with minors. I don't care who the adult is, or who the minor is, it's wrong, its a crime, and they should be prosecuted and punished.
When I read the Gospels, I don't interpret it to hate people who are different. And that's my opinion.
Yes it does. Gen 19:4 specifically states there are all the men, from every quarter of the city demanding to have the strangers turned over to them. Doesn't specifically state how many, but its a pretty good indication of a lot of them. Let's just take 100 for an example, because its a nice round number, although I think the number would be significantly higher.
There are two strangers. That means each one would be sodomized a minimum of 50 times each in one night. And you don't think that's not going to kill them?
It happens again in Judges, when one of the Judges stops in a village in the tribal region of the Benjamites. And they do rape and sodomize his concubine till she's dead. Judges 19:22 on.
Then don't support my position. I can agree to disagree with agreeable people. And if that's not good enough, feel free to ignore me.
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
If you need more context the entire thing is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matth...
And when some one breaks into my house, they can play with my 90 lb. German Shepherd, Wolfgang. And he's only seven months old.
EdSki, I'm not going it address every aside in your response, as we could keep chasing rabbits all day. Suffice it to say taht your Church declared what books are canonical, i.e. what books make up the Bible, not based on when they were written but based on their consistency with what was already well understood. You are not entitled to an opinion that conflicts with the doctrine of your Church if you want to claim to be a member of it. The Church compiled a Bible that agrees with its teachings. It obviously knows how to interpret it. Not a single jot of scripture conflicts with Catholic doctrine, because if it did, it would not have made it into the canon. It would not be the Bible. Before the New Testament and Old Testament books were canonized, and before any of them was even written, it was well understood that homosexuality is gravely disordered. It is one thing to be civil to homosexuals, as we all must be in living the gospel, and quite another to refuse to acknowledge that homosexual behavior is immoral and destructive.
Shel, the Church does not accept homosexuality, even if some bad priests and bishops are guilty of committing it or of abetting it willfully or negligently. The statistics EdSki cites are correct about the instance of depredations in other professions. The lesson that Catholic bashers want you to take is that the Catholic Church is 100% evil. The real lesson is that anywhere there are vulnerable people, there will be predators masking themselves as trustworthy helpers to take advantage of them. We must be ever vigilant, whether it be with clergy, shrinks, teachers, social workers or whatever else. And whenever possible we should simply not be vulnerable, whether on a personal level or as a nation. The waters are full of sharks, always sniffing for blood.
"Correct, and by the way voluntarily, I am not compelled to comply, I choose too. How ever, the US Constitution does."
Your syntax is a bit unclear, but if you are trying to say that the Constitution requires that society must give the same recognition to homosexual relationships as to heterosexual ones, no it does not. Not even today's counterfeit Constitution promulgated by the robed old geezers and geezerettes sitting in DC requires it.
"When I read the Gospels, I don't interpret it to hate people who are different. And that's my opinion."
Do you interpret it to allow you to change the subject whenever confronted to evaluate the correctness of a given behavior? That is, do you interpret it to allow you to call someone a hater of people when that someone merely points out that certain behavior is objectively wrong? If so, I don't know whether to advise to keep reading or to just give it up.
"Then don't support my position."
You know, you really make no sense at all much of the time. Here, for instance.
"And when some one breaks into my house, they can play with my 90 lb. German Shepherd, Wolfgang."
Glad for your sake that you do see the hazards of a literalist reading of your favorite lines.
Sorry, EdSki, not buying it. Lot's offer of his daughters – when fornication and rape are already verboten – puts into stark relief that homosexual activity is gravely disordered and wrong, and that it is that which Lot was most concerned. Your argument seems to imply that had the sodomy been consensual, gentle and "loving," it would have been okay. Nonsense. First of all, who is to say it wouldn't have been just one nice easy circle-jerk had the men consented? (cont. below)
And if common sense isn't enough to convince you, consider that Peter described the sins of the Sodomites as licentiousness (2 Peter 2:7) and Jude explained that the city was destroyed partly because of the inhabitants' indulgence in unnatural lust (Jude 7). And from St. Paul: "Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27) and, "The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:9–10). (cont. below)
In only the most tortured reading of the Bible can anyone tease out an interpretation that homosexual behavior is okay after all. That is because it is not just contrary to the Mosaic law (which does not apply to Christians), but to natural law, which applies to everyone, Christian or not. Everyone knows without a book to tell him that homosexual activity is intrinsically wrong.
To address your slander, it is NOT hate to point any of this out. Whether you want to just look the other way when two guys go at it in private is one thing, but it is sheer folly for a nation to normalize it, to treat it as equal to heterosexual relations and to insulate it from criticism, which is exactly where we're headed.
Bravo. I did the same thing and echo your "Free at last". I just wish I had all the years back I wasted trying to be a "good" gay!
I actually like "homo", "hetero" and "bi" as sexual labels. If you must have labels at least they are accurate.
I cannot stand gay or anything it stands for. Kevin Jennings is the perfect example of a "good gay" or "super gay". You have to say it like this: gggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyye, like they used to say in in 90's sitcoms. The entire notion of "gay" is just so 90's sitcom come to think of it.
I'm a homo and not proud of it, nor am I ashamed of it. It just is what it is. That pretty much sums it up.
That is so great!! I just praise the Lord for turning around your life…He's the only one that can. I will be praying that God will continue to guide you through this life.
Yes it does. Gen 19:4 specifically states there are all the men, from every quarter of the city demanding to have the strangers turned over to them. Doesn't specifically state how many, but its a pretty good indication of a lot of them. Let's just take 100 for an example, because its a nice round number, although I think the number would be significantly higher.
There are two strangers. That means each one would be sodomized a minimum of 50 times each in one night. And you don't think that's not going to kill them?
It happens again in Judges, when one of the Judges stops in a village in the tribal region of the Benjamites. And they do rape and sodomize his concubine till she's dead. Judges 19:22 on. It almost lead to the annihilation of the entire tribe.
I now about the scandals, and I watched the Church very closely to see exactly how the cleared all that crap out, and if I wasn't satisfied I would have left. So far, so good.
95% of the crimes in the American Church were caused by a handful of priests and a few bishops who kept moving them around to hide it. They were and are scum, and I'm glad to see them brought to justice. Statistically, children are far more at risk of abuse by teachers, coaches, police, and even firemen. It does pain me to see so many people involved in the Church, hurt by the actions of a few. My current pastor is Church lawyer, who had to help clean it up. And you can just tell by looking at him, how hard its been.
I am not a homosexual, I do not practice homosexuality, but I am a libertarian, which means I believe in individual liberty and personal freedom. And if two or more consenting ADULTS choose to participate in a practice that does me no harm, or anyone else, I don't believe I have the moral authority to demand the government to use its force to stop them just because I don't happen to agree.
That, in my opinion, is the source of most strife in the world today. People demanding others live according to their dictates. The health care debate raging in DC is a perfect example. Liberals are trying to pass laws to tell me how I will receive my health care regardless of what I want to do. I hate it when others try to that to me, and to be fair, I shouldn't do it to some one else.
I agree that it shouldn't be necessary, but… I think it is necessary just the same. Not from the teachers, but from the parents. When I was ten, kids were already french kissing and "going out." When I was 11, boys were running around telling jokes about erections. By the time I was 12, they were already making out, and the girls were already taking off their shirts for the boys. By the time I was 13, they'd moved onto oral sex, and in a few cases, intercourse. By the time I was 14, sex wasn't surprising anymore. I was ten 19 years ago. I can't even imagine how early kids are getting started these days. Kids need to be taught about sex at an early age, because their peers are already starting down that path, way younger than you think they are. When my mom sat me down to tell me about sex at age 12, I'd already known all about it for three years, but I let her think it was the first time I'd heard it so I wouldn't upset her. Kids are a lot less naive these days than they used to be.
You're missing the point, Bob. It's not the fact that they're gay that we hate. I couldn't care less who somebody is attracted to. It's the ACTIONS that we hate. Thoughts and feelings aren't sins. Actions are. And we dislike promiscuous gay behavior the same way we dislike promiscuous straight behavior. It doesn't mean we hate the person doing it, but we disapprove of the actions.
[...] unions, and let the various churches decide whether to perform “gay marriage.” Then, as Charles Winecoff suggests, once all of these barriers are down, perhaps the radical gay community will stop fixating [...]
sounds like shirking responsibility. "Oh, it's so tough to be a parent." Meh.
If you can't even put yourself in the kid's shoes, why do you even comment?
the gay community invented the word homophobia? Site your source please.
Wow, you sound so official with your figures. Care to cite your source?
"The laws are there for a reason." Does this go for sodomy between consenting adults?
I say keep you 900 miles away from the voting booth.
No, but we are suppose to pass over your posts, because you believe that all gay men are whores and it seasons all of your opinions on here.
You also believe that one can change their sexuality.
Hmmn … how's that going? Must be hard, especially if you only come on this site to express adamant anti-gay thoughts.
If my reply left the impression that I thought you hate people, I apologize, t was not my intention.
I was referring to the rather loud and ruckus fundamentalist Christians that some times boarder on violence. And at times crosses it, in the name of Christianity.
i did not mean to imply you were part of that movement.
Hate to break this to you Buc, but despite what the Bible says I should charge when selling my daughter into slavery, the Church no longer approves of slavery.
And, I can assure you, stoning to death is no longer an acceptable penance for adultery, or not keeping the Sabbath. As a matter of fact, despite what it says in the Old Testament, we do not attend Church on the Sabbath, but rather on Sunday. Sabbath is the seventh day, as in God resting, Sunday is the first day of the week.
Also, despite the time honored tradition of sacrificing animals on the alter from the time of Abraham to Jesus, we don't do that anymore. And forget about the human sacrifice in Judges, that's right off the table.
We stopped building Churches facing Jerusalem at least over 109 years ago (when the one I attend was built), wrecks havoc with city planning. And the priests haven't celebrated Mass with their back to the congregation since Vatican II. Though, if you ask, and probably pay a donation, you might be able to convince a priest to do a Tridentine Mass.
Also the Catholic Bible is not the same as the Protestant Bible, Martin Luther started the reformation while Bishops were still debating the inclusion of some Catholic letters, which were added to the Catholic version, so the Protestant Bible doesn't contain them. And some versions of the Catholic Bible contain an extra book after Revelations, which was considered important enough to include, but not considered Canon.
If you'd like to have a debate on why certain works are in the Bible, while others are not, I'll be happy to, I have several very interesting books I can cite references to. Because if you think it was just a bunch of Bishops sitting behind closed doors saying "I like this one, it's in" and "Don't like that one, it's out" you're in for some surprises.
There are enough contradictions in between the three Gospels alone to fill a week long conference. And there's even more contradictions in the Catholic letters (the rest of the New Testament). Paul's letters address women as equals of Deacons, and Timothy says women should not even be allowed to talk in Church, and have no business doing anything other than being subservient to men.
Speaking of Timothy, his letter contradicts the Gospel, Jesus says no one shall no the time or the date of his second coming (original text states no one, not even the son of man – Jesus – knows when it will occur, which contradicts John's Gospel which states, Jesus is God, which contradicts the original text of Mark, which says after Jesus' baptism God says "This is NOW my son with whom I well pleased – "now" deleted in later revisions), while Timothy says we can tell by escalating violence and war. Who's right? But both statements are in the Bible.
You seem to want to pigeon hole Catholics, which is why I believe you aren't one, and probably haven't been to a Catholic Mass, but if I'm wrong, I apologize.
P.S.
Church Canon is the English translation of the Latin translation, of the Greek translation of of the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew word for a plumb bob, the construction tool used for measuring straight vertical lines, right angles, key word being "right."
I'm not being facetious when I ask if you'd like to continue this debate. It's very hard to find people who want to have this debate. When I bring up the subject for debate, my wife just turns up the TV.
Reading the Bible literally should give enough caution to suggest some one seek psychological help, in my opinion.
Genesis was the earliest tales of the Hebrews about who we are, what we are, why we're here, and what happens after we die. To believe humans 10,000 years ago had all this figured out, 100% correct, is a little flaky, considering, we don't really seem to have a much better grasp than we do today, despite scientific progress. Even science has given up and admitted they have no idea what existed before the big bang.
The Torah was committed to writing around 450 BC following the second exile in Babylonia. 2,500 years ago, the world was flat, the sun hopefully rose in the east, set in the west, and please God please, let it rise in the east tomorrow. No idea what disease was, and if some one got sick – or worse – hit by lightning, they must have done something wrong to piss off God.
But some things haven't changed in the last 2,500 years. The same questions remain, what are we, why are we here, what is the meaning of life, and what comes after? We're still asking these same questions. The Bible offers insights to how the ancient tribes debated and tried to answer those very same questions.
At it's basics premise the Old Testament is a history, of the prophetic political party of ancient Hebrews, Israelites and Judains. They were only one of many different political and religious movements through out the history of Israel. The Old Testament is their version of history. The New Testament is the version of history written by the new struggling Christian Church.
I may be religious, and I may be Catholic, but I'm not nuts. Which brings me back to my original point. Just because ancient Hebrews decided to use the term sodomy to describe totally corrupt and morally bankrupt people, who happen to be homosexual, I see no reason to shun people who happen to be homosexual, who are consenting adults, and are harming neither me nor anyone else.
Let me try to put it this way, in America we have a legal definition of sodomy, I don't believe that's the same definition the authors of the Torah had in mind. I think it encompasses a lot more than homosexuality.
I didn't say homosexuality okay, I said I'm not judging. You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't say you're wrong for it, it's your opinion. But I don't see how any other interpretation can be pulled from that section of Genesis. The entire male population of Sodom turned out, banging on Lot's door, saying bring out the strangers or we'll brake down your doors, and take them ourselves. That is not a friendly circle jerk. I don't see how that can be interpreted in any way other than they intend to sodomize them till they are dead, and then keep going till no one wants to play with the dead bodies anymore.
The strangers were actually angels, sent by God, knowing that the inhabitants of Sodom would seek to kill them, and when that happened, they would instead destroy Sodom. It's a prelude to what's coming. It's only through Lot's goodness they didn't scrub the place then and there. Rather God waits for Lot to escape with his family before leveling it.
The same practice occurs a second time in Judges with the concubines, where the Benjaminites get the target, and do in fact rape and sodomize her till dead. There is a difference between consensual sex between consenting adults, and oh – by the way – as you're killing them anyway, lets have sodomy in the process.
There is no doubt there was an aversion to homosexuality, as hunter/gather tribes moved from roaming to cities. It did not provide for the next generation. Later, it was a social norm for Greek (Phoenicians and possibly philistines) and Romans who eventually destroyed Juda. The Hebrews and Jews differentiated themselves from the surrounding nations, and homosexuality was one of the defining themes.
My opinion is what the ancient Hebrews considered sodomites is not the same as our modern day definition of homosexuality. I believe it included much, much, much worse atrocities. And I see evidence in Genesis and Judges which causes me to question the normaly assumption.
With all due respect, you spend a lot of text addressing viewpoints not represented in the posts to which you respond. Glad you acknowledge that I didn't advocate hate of anyone. I submit that Shel did not either but merely expressed quite forcefully that homosexuality should not be regarded as just another respectable, but merely different, lifestyle.
First, how did you get your post so long? This site makes me break mine up if they are more than five words.
Second, if you can't tell from my posts that I'm Catholic (apart from Luther himself, have you ever encountered a Protestant acknowledgment of the Church's role in formation of the Canon?), I'm not sure why I should have confidence in your interpretations of any text.
Third, as I've noted elsewhere, the Mosaic law does not apply to Christians. Thus we eat pork and worship on Sunday, with the sacrifice of the Mass replacing animal sacrifice. This is what Paul referred to when he said that a man is justified by faith and not by works of the law — the Mosaic law and all its motions it puts one through are nolonger applicable, and Christianity is not just a sect of Judaism. But natural law continues to apply as it always has. While certain penalties may not apply to us, all prohibitions against violations of natural law do. Thus sodomy remains prohibited, even if it is no longer the case that everybody must get stoned (but see Rainy Day Women 12:35).
Fourth, whatever slavery has to do with this, not only does the Church "no longer approve" of slavery, it is a serious misconception to believe that it ever did. See e.g. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
Fifth, you won't confuse me by equating disciplines like the priest and congretation facing the same direction (traditionally toward the east) or abstaining from meat, and doctrine, which is unchanging. That Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist is doctrine. Whether the Eucharist is received kneeling at a rail, on the tongue, or standing up, in the hand, is discipline. It is the principal hallmark of a dissident with an agenda to confuse the two. The argument always follows the same pattern: "It used to be forbidden to (fill in Catholic discipline or Mosaic prohibition, i.e. eat meat on Friday or eat a ham sandwich, respectively). Therefore, there is no reason not to embrace sodomy as acceptable." The intellectual bankruptcy of such an argument unfortunately does not rob it of persuasiveness to many who like to think of themselves as enlightened – enlightened because they are going with the flow.
Sixth, nothing was added to the Catholic Canon after Luther. Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, stated the canon of Scripture, and listed the exact same books we have today. The Canon was then officially adopted for the entire church as the Synod of Hippo (c. 393) and was reiterated at various councils over the next 30 years or so. Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon in the face of Luther's removal of the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation to a mere appendix, regarding them as unscriptural. (Can you imagine contemporary Protestantism without Revelation?) His lieutenants prevailed on him to restore the New Testament books to their proper place.
Seventh, as for apparent inconsistencies in scripture, this only highlights the need of a final authority to interpret it. That authority has spoken on what scripture means about homosexual relations, and on that topic scripture is remarkably clear. While some people struggle to neuter the meaning of those passages, it is noteworthy that no one can produce any affirmatively pro-sodomy passages anywhere in scripture. All they can do is try to convince the gullible that the Bible doesn't really say you can't do it, even though nowhere does it even come close to saying that you can.
Eighth, as for "Church Canon is the English translation . . . " Huh?? The official language of the Church is Latin. Scripture is the subject of scholarly study, with efforts directed at creating the clearest and most accurate modern vernacular translations of the oldest texts. But reading those texts in isolation, without the authoritative interpretation of the Church, is often like reading a statute without also reading the case law interpreting it. You may think you know what the statute means, only to be shocked by how it is actually understood by the judge who can "bind and loose" you. (Although the passages concerning sodomy really require no gloss at all.) The Church's interpretation of scripture and of natural law on the matter of homosexuality is not subject to nuance and loopholes. The cafeteria is closed.
Actually, neither Genesis nor any other book of the Pentateuch deals with what happens after we die, which is why those who regard only those books as scriptural, like the Sadducees in Christ's day, do not believe in a afterlife.
As for shunning people who aren't hurting you, no one is talking about shunning people. Homosexuals are in acute need of compassion and help. Self-destructive behavior, on the other hand, should be dissuaded, not simply regarded as "different strokes for different folks." As for whether they are hurting you or not, no man is an island. The more public the behavior, the more potential for harm in corrupting others to believe that if something feels good it's okay. The next step in that chain of logic is, hey, don't worry about that abortion you're going to need to keep rubbing your nerve endings on each other without consequence, we'll make sure you get it! "No harm" indeed.
The original target in Judges, as in Genesis at Sodom, was men by men.
As for the Greeks, it is incorrect to believe that homosexuality was universally accepted. It was society's elites who thought homosexuality, esp. between men and boys, had its up side. The everyday citizen, with no desire to show how clever his unique insights were, was disgusted by it. And contrary to vulgar legend, Plato did not take the side of the elites and was not a homosexual or pederast. Thus in Plato's "Laws:" "[W]e must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure." (Laws I 636).
Also, in the Republic Plato portrays Socrates as opposed to male on male "love":
(Socrates:) Do you know of greater or keener pleasure than that associated with Aphrodite?
(Glaucon:) I don't, he said, nor yet of any more insane.
S: But is not the right love a sober and harmonious love of the orderly and the beautiful?
G: It is indeed, said he.
S: Then nothing of madness, nothing akin to license, must be allowed to come nigh the right love?
G: No.
S: Then this kind of pleasure may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it?
G: No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them.
S: Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him. But otherwise he must so associate with the objects of his care that there should never be any suspicion of anything further, on penalty of being stigmatized for want of taste and true musical culture. (Republic III 403).
Romans regarded homosexuality as a vice, indeed, the "Greek vice" is a term found in Horace. Such a term is hardly an endorsement or an indicator of universal acceptance.
Be gay, be a cross dresser, be whatever you are, but leave my kids alone! It was no more excusable for the "safe school czar" to turn a blind eye to a young man in need of help, than it is for someone to turn away a young woman in need of help.
Yes, we all have our own "preferences", but that does not forgive this man from not only ignoring a minor in need, but "educating" him on how to continue his illegal relationship. Again, just keep your sex life to yourself and leave my kids alone!
I am a Christian, and I am pretty conservative. I really respected the tone of this article. It was long, but I read every word. He had something to say and said it well. I don't know who Charles Winecoff is, but truly respected this author after reading this. And respect Breitbart even more for giving this writer a space here on Big Hollywood.
If you are Catholic, then you should realize better than most people, that to paraphrase a line from the movie Sneakers, don't kid yourself, it ain't all that organized.
My experience is Catholics tend to agree, as a group, on pretty much nothing. I know priests who can barely tolerate other priests, there are Catholics who think Mass is just the greatest place to stage a demonstration. Just yesterday my sister told me at her Church the priest called four infamous anti-war protesters the new prophets.
Talk to one Catholic and they'll tell you Canon means one thing, talk to another, they'll tell you it means something else, talk to a third and who knows what they'll agree with.
Directly question a priest (as I have on many occasions) and you'd be surprised how vague Canon becomes. Yes, its all written down, nice and orderly, and it sits on a shelf ion the Vatican library. In practice its much more complicated and convoluted. In upstate NY, near Buffalo, there was a Bishop who was ordaining women priests. In Latin America Pope John Paul II excommunicated clergy who were practicing liberation theology, while at Catholic colleges in NY still offer courses on it.
My point is, despite the appearance of organized front, with all Catholics on the same page, it ain't so, and suggesting it is, is wrong.
When it comes to homosexuals, I don't participate, but as I stated before, I'm also a libertarian, which is the only political ideology I find truly compatible with Christianity. You leave me alone and let me live my life the way I want to, and in return I will leave you alone and let you live your life the way you want, and all I will do is try convince you that it's to your benefit to agree with me.
If people choose to practice homosexuality, that's their business, and they can take it up at the final judgment.
I disagree, by affirming their is an all powerful God, it implicitly states that what happens in the after life, is up to God.
The Sadducees did not believe in an after life, because in general Judaism doesn't. Heaven and hell are not the same concepts as with Christianity. After death, a closeness to the concept of God is considered heaven, while hells is considered a distance from God. Which is strange considering Elijah was whisked to "heaven" on a chariot. Christians turned the concept of heaven and hell into precise physical dimensions of existence, which is why we have the concepts of purgatory and limbo – lame attempts to logically plug the theological holes.
As for abortion, it's been around since the beginning of civilization, and it will be around till the end. Outlawing it will be no more successful than state sponsored forced abortions in China have been.
The key is to not force people to live the way you think proper, but rather to convince them. When Jesus sent his disciples out, he said preach, try to convert, and if they won't, shake the dust off their sandals and move on to the next village. No where does Jesus teach his followers to use the implied threat of government force to make people follow his teachings.
Golly Charlie, You've really turned me around. Since NAMBLA members' preferred age for the "boy" in the "man/boy" love association is eleven (as was reported in the federal prosecution of its members), I can hardly wait to sign my sixth grade son up for "Fudge Packing for Dummies", "First Time Fisters", and that oldy but goody, "Swallowing, not as distasteful as you think" curriculum, as provided by our "School Safety Czar".
Here is the statement from the young man involved in the incident with Jennings, he didn't turn a blind eye to him at all.
"Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today."
- Brewster
You're still far from explaining why you need to "hate" or declare "evil" an activity that harms no one, does not effect you, and in fact has nothing to do with you. Isn't "hate" better saved for more worthwhile endeavors?
I'm well familiar with the relativistic rot infecting the Church. Heterdox screwballs have always been there in one form or another and I've long maintained that the Church's greatest enemies come from within. To recognize the heterodoxy of, say, rogue bishops who ordain women is to recognize the orthodoxy of the prohibition of such ordinations. The dissent and bad behavior of others does not justify you or me just picking and choosing what we want, all the while winking an nodding that after all, the truth can't really be known. Surely you know that one of the five non-negotiables for the Catholic voter is opposition to gay "marriage." To shout "here! here!" when MovieBob calls prohibitions on homosexuality "superstition" is not merely waiting to let God sort it out, but is usurping the primacy of God by declaring you know better than His Church.
P.S. I can picture your sister's priest. Balding former hippie with a gut, telling lame jokes at the homily. Thank heavens the younger priests tend to be actually orthodox. And yeah, those two sorts really don't much like each other.
The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Old Testament, which do not deal with ideas of the afterlife (as you seem to acknowledge in your next sentence). It would be a mistake to state broadly that Jews do not believe in an afterlife. Jesus did. The Pharisees did.
Purgatory is a state of being and is doctrinal, not a lame attempt to plug a theological hole and not somehow tied to a physical conceptualization of the afterlife (why it would be necessary for that I have no idea). It is alluded to in 2 Maccabees where Judas prays for the dead and makes atonement that they might be delivered from sin. And as St. Paul observes, "the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 1 Corinthians 13-15. Limbo is a hypothesis. Maybe you can call that an attempt to plug a hole, but it isn't lame.
Outlawing behavior reduces its prevalence, and abortion is no exception. To take your position to its logical conclusion, we should just legalize everything and hope to reason with society's predators.
The concept of limbo was created in order to cover gaps in St. Augustine's theology concerning original sin.
In order to explain how new born infants, free of sin, could be born deformed, disabled, horribly mutated,despite a living God, he reasoned original sin was transferred from generation to generation through semen.
This fit well with the concept of Immaculate Conception, and how Jesus could be born with out sin. But what it failed to cover were infants who died before baptism. They still suffered from original sin, and according to Augustine's theory, unable to enter heaven.
Enter limbo.
Thank God Pope John Paul II put end to it. I can't imagine how many parents of still borns through out the last 2,000 years, living in agony, thinking their dead child would never be allowed into heaven. For no other reason, than they died before they were baptized. I consider that lame.
Is there no end to your inconsistencies? Above you say that limbo and purgatory were "lame attempts to plug theological holes" supposedly necessary because according to you, "Christians turned the concept of heaven and hell into precise physical dimensions of existence."
Yes, I know what limbo is and why it was hypothesized, but whatever idiot you are reading does not. He doesn't – and you don't, apparenty – even know what the Immaculate Conception is, which is Mary's conception without the stain of Original Sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus' conception.
Limbo was hypothesized as a state of being – short of heaven but nevertheless of complete happiness – for those who die without having committed actual sin before being baptized. And JPII did not "end" it. He and his successor merely disfavor it, but there has been no ex cathedra statement from either condemning it. "Lameness" is not measured by whether it offends your sensibilities, and since you don't even grasp it, you don't even merit the luxury of having an opinion on it.
Charles, glad you and I discussed this a bit and your words were spot on here, if not a bit hard to write I'm sure. Let me say that I was and have been a supporter of GLSEN from its very early days for a reason. Like your story and many others, I have noticed that it and groups like the Trevor Project (gay suicide hotline) are very important examples of charities at their finest. They are not government organizations but are certainly providing value to a community that deals with much higher levels of both abuse and suicide. Kevin Jennings is a guy I have known for a while and know him to be sincere in his efforts and a solid leader. Certainly I have not been in agreement with everything he or GLSEN stand for but have been a supporter of the basic goal of educating our schools and teachers as to how best to work with the gay youth.
As we've discussed, it's not just a religious right (or religious left) in this country that are our problems but a bigger, and more dangerous group that actually want to kill us. No matter how much we may find ourselves disapproved of in this country as gays there are other forces in the world that prefer to kill us. I value the uncomfortable efforts to educate those among us to the point where they don't fear us and simply allow us to be equal citizens here. Many of us don't want to infringe on any religious covenants but do want the legal rights to be together as a couple and to speak for one another in case of hospitalization. I dont even find that many of the least gay friendly really deep down argue with that.
So, Kevin Jennings is not the problem here and I think Sean Hannity should rethink making him into a wedge issue. There are plenty of other targets in the Obama circle that are truly scary to our freedoms as Americans and our way of life as a capitalist society.
To Hannity, I say that there are plenty of gay activist out there that have taken the position that being gay lets them become untouchable as militant liberals actually hiding behind gay much as a the Taliban use school kids as shields. Gay rage is not helpful to us as a gay community and neither is vilifying the gay community helpful to us as Republicans or conservatives.
Its guys like you and I that may be Barney Frank to our conservative friends and Newt to our liberal friends that need to have the courage to voice to our own communities the damage each side is doing when we really have other enemies that we should be joined together in protecting against. It's Ok to not agree on everything. Don't take it too far Sean…for what ever reason. Kevin Jennings is not perfect, and not always the best with his judgment but he has helped make some valuable strides for those of us who grew up scared to be ourselves, to be gay.
I'll have what ever damn opinion I damn well please. You don't like it, then don't pay attention.
Limbo was "invented" for the sole purpose of explaining what happens to infants who did not sin in their short lives, but had not lived long enough to be baptized.
I don't really care what official documents come out of the Vatican, it is what it is.
Conversation over.
If you are going to make a judgment about something, it better be an informed one or you just come across as a fool. Finally you get the idea of limbo more or less correct after reading my explanation of it. It has nothing to do with your initial bizarre assertion about a need to "plug holes" created by conceptualizing heaven and hell as physical locations. It has nothing to do with the immaculate conception or Jesus' conception. It is a hypothesis rooted in the recognition of the necessity of baptism to remove original sin, which requirement is Church doctrine. To criticize it as "lame" is to catigate as fools the Church fathers who posited it. In John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 Jesus says "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." Take up yor complaint with Him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.