From Right Wing Watch comes a double-contender for today’s Fail Quote segment, both with ridiculous levels of abject anti-gay bigotry from individuals so dense as to be at risk of collapsing into miniature black holes any day now.
Firstly, we have Peter LaBarbera of the contradictorily named Americans For Truth (About Homosexuality) seizing the worsening Penn State child molestation scandal to – how’d you ever guess? – blame it all on teh gheys:
[H]ow many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual ("gay") is "who they are"? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to "accept being gay" as "who they are" because they were "born that way"?
Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of "gay" identity -- including pederastic molestation. CNN's Lemon is a case in point: he is now an "out gay" celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity.
There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case.
Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-"gay" liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky's rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, "gay" activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve "straight, married men." However, behavior is what matters -- not a person's marital status or self-described "sexual orientation." Sandusky was married but was he really "straight" (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas -- probably in his own youth -- caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys.
If “pro-‘gay’ liberals” keep denying the notion that homosexuality leads to pedophilia and/or child molestation, that’s because they, unlike blind bigots like LaBarbera (and countless others like him who repeat this disgusting canard), understand the fact that, for starters, there is no logical tie between the sexual attraction towards others of the same gender, and the sexual attraction towards minors. This isn’t even so much “apples and oranges” as “apples and bowling balls”. Add the facts that A) not all pedophiles are child molesters (and vice-versa); B) child molestation is, as with any form of rape, primarily an act of domination, not sexual lust; C) most pedophiles don’t show any particular preference towards male or female minors; and D) reputable experts and researchers have long since refuted and condemned any idea that pedophilia and/or child molestation are connected to (much less a direct result of) same-sex attraction, and you’re just left spouting nothing but tired and debunked old falsehoods. This alone readily identifies you as being nothing more than a run-of-the-mill angry bigot.
I will admit, though – and not as any sort of concession, but as a mere question of curiosity – that I don’t know why reports of sexually abused children are more often concerning male victims. I suspect this either has something to do with the manner in which these incidents are reported, or is a result of various socio-cultural forces or customs (such as how the fact that most children abused by priests are boys is readily explainable by a much greater access to boys than girls). But it would be unwise to make any judgment either way until such issues are clarified empirically.
Our second contestant in today’s edition of “Who’s the Biggest Anti-Gay Jackass?” is perennial nominee Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who somehow manages to take a story about an Ontario zoo separating two apparently gay male penguins in an attempt to get them to breed with females and actually turn it into a bizarre attack on evolutionists:
In truth, evolutionists should be even more ardent opponents of homosexual behavior than evangelical Christians, for one simple reason: homosexuals cannot propagate.
And evolution is supposed to be all about the survival of the species. For a true believer in evolution, homosexuality represents an evolutionary degrade, an lunge backward, an evolutionary nightmare, evidence of a species that is de-evolving and headed toward extinction.
For true Darwinists, homosexual behavior must be stopped its tracks so the great cosmic dance of life can continue in its inexorable climb toward evolutionary perfection.
So unless a Darwinist is a raving, irrational, self-contradictory hypocrite, he will oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior with every fiber of his being.
Of course, Fischer’s squawks of outrage might make a bit more sense if it weren’t for the facts (yes, those annoying things again) that A) homosexuality, as with all physical or psychological traits, is forcibly a result of evolution, which thus makes it weird for anyone to be angry at gayness for inhibiting the natural process that actually created it, and B) homosexual behavior is only present in a tiny fraction of any given animal populace, even amongst species known to exhibit it, which means that every gay individual in the animal kingdom could shack up exclusively with a same-sex partner for life and still not pose any threat to the species’ survival, given the remaining 80-90% who remain quite straight and able (if not more than eager) to breed.
The only reason the Toronto Zoo saw fit to separate Pedro and Buddy the penguins is because of that specific species’s dwindling population numbers. The same logic really cannot be reasonably applied to the rest of the animal kingdom at large. But, then again, “reason” and “Bryan Fischer” are not words that should ever be used in the same sentence (unless you throw an “anti-” in there somewhere).
So, polls are open. Who’s the bigger flaming idiot? Submit your votes before midnight. Winner gets a cookie. (Not really.)
(via Right Wing Watch)