I try to give myself some political and emotional distance from the arguments in the Prop. 8 trial (I'm not always successful) so I can better assess what the other side's best case could be, in order to figure out how to respond appropriately. Good lawyers have to know the strength of the other side's case, not to mention the weaknesses of their own.
But sometimes life gets the better of you. As I was posting about Dr. Tam's testimony, a not unrelated drama was playing out closer to home. One of my cousins told her father he could have only supervised visits with her very young children. He is gay, and she believes he might molest them.
Many years ago, my uncle married a woman, though it was reasonably clear to most of us (even back then) that he was gay. My grandmother knew, and she was born in 1907. We nevertheless supported the marriage, and the two great kids it produced, and when the inevitable happened and my uncle met a partner more suited to his natural homosexual orientation, everyone hunkered down for that transition, as solid families do. I can't pretend it was easy, particularly for the kids. That's why I am such a strong proponent of eliminating social and religious pressure on lesbians and gay men to deny their sexual orientation, which so often results in wrong marriages - the best evidence (for those who want to believe it) of heterosexuality. Kids should have two parents who have the same sexual orientation. If you honestly don't want homosexuals to marry each other, and want to avoid them marrying heterosexuals, come right out and say you'd just rather they be single.
My cousin eventually got married, and my uncle adores the grandchildren, whose photos he prominently featured on the Christmas card he sent out last year. But his daughter has been drifting deeper into an evangelical sect, and they have now helped her convince herself that there is too much of a risk her father will molest her children.
The most amazing thing is her belief that her father would accept her low opinion of him. She told him he is free to see his grandchildren, as long as the visits are supervised, and she was nonplussed to learn that he wasn't taking that well.
This is the divide we face. People like my cousin view the assumption that gay men will probably molest children as eminently reasonable, even uncontroversial. They expect us - everyone - to accept that fact. That is why they view themselves as compassionate when they fail to prohibit gay relatives (even fathers) from having any contact whatsoever with their children. Supervised visits seem like a reasonable compromise.
Similarly, Dr. Tam believes he is being more than fair in supporting the political compromise of domestic partnership. Of course homosexuals shouldn't have access to marriage - everyone believes that. They get their due (maybe even more than their due) under the law. Why are they complaining?
This is how our willingness to compromise is used against us. If my uncle were to accept the insulting offer his daughter has put on the table, she will be confirmed in her unreasonable beliefs about gay men. For my uncle's part, his self-respect is being pitted against his love of his grandchildren. His daughter can't imagine he would have self-respect.
This morning, the dilemma was resolved. My cousin, based on her religion-based-on-love has cut off all contact with her father. Once again, offhand comments in Leviticus, which are decidedly not about pedophilia, trump a specific demand in the Ten Commandments that says in no uncertain terms (and I believe I am quoting here) "Honor thy father and thy mother."
This pedophilic spin on homosexuality is our own contribution to the theology of sexual orientation. At the very least, it is highly arguable that Leviticus or Genesis, or even St. Paul, were primarily concerned about pedophilic homosexuals. It took a lot of time and effort to figure out how to turn the one into the other.
27 Comments for “The Political Is Personal”
posted by T. BUNKER on
The sad irony is that her children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be molested by their “straight” grandfather than their gay one. Even factoring-in the portion of gays to straights in the general population, statistically it’s more-likely the straight male-relative who’s likely to sexually-molest a family-member than a gay-one.
posted by David in Houston on
Very sad story. Obviously the daughter didn’t love or trust her father to begin with. To put her religious beliefs over her own family is sickening and offensive. Yet one more reason to avoid organized religion… it destroys families.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
David in Houston is right. The anti gay see no sad irony in the break up of unnecessary marriages, isolation and interference in the relationships this family could have.
None of these entities ask which families are missing the gay one, and COULD AFFORD TO.
They aren’t asking which gay young person died unnecessarily from being abandoned by their own family so vital to them?
Do they ask if crisis occurs, how will that family cope without EACH member there to help, comfort or support them?
The church is VERY active in estranging gay people FROM their loved ones, but never question what that impact has on that family.
The church isn’t blood, it’s not family and I’d abandon the church before I let it get between me and a loved on who has been NOTHING BUT A GOOD AND LOVING FAMILY MEMBER.
These churches must think people can’t live without them and wouldn’t be happy without them.
Which in itself is a horribly arrogant thing.
This is a terrible problem. My father died when I was 15, after a three year battle with bone marrow cancer.
And this woman lets her church convince her to throw her father away.
And behind prejudice and assumptions that aren’t even true of her father.
What a weak woman, how very, very weak of her.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The sad irony is that her children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be molested by their “straight” grandfather than their gay one.
Depends on the sex of the children, doesn’t it?
As far as I know, the basis for the statistical claim that most molesters are “straight,” not “gay,” are the observations that
(a) nearly all molesters are men, and
(b) the VICTIMS of molestation are more often girls than boys.
However, if one considers ONLY male children who are molested by adult males, is there any evidence that “straight men” (i.e., those in heterosexual adult relationships, or otherwise “outwardly hetero”) are in fact still more likely to molest boys than “gay men” (i.e., those in homosexual adult relationships, or otherwise “outwardly homo”)?
posted by Throbert McGee on
But his daughter has been drifting deeper into an evangelical sect, and they have now helped her convince herself that there is too much of a risk her father will molest her children.
“Drifting”? All by herself, or because of a strong wind?
I find it weird that the potential influence of the young woman’s husband is totally omitted from Link’s analysis — he frames the dispute as being one between gay father and straight Evangelical daughter (and by proxy, Evangelicalism generally), when the true root of the problem might actually be tension between gay father-in-law and straight son-in-law.
If the husband has a prejudice against against gays, then the cousin might be siding with her husband against her father because she believes it’s a wife’s Biblical duty to do so, and not necessarily because she shares the anti-gay prejudice.
It may be, in fact, that the husband has nothing against Link’s uncle, and that it truly is the prejudices of the cousin that are the root of the problem. But for Link to not mention even in passing that “by the way, my uncle’s son-in-law isn’t a influencing factor here, as some might wonder,” suggests an excessive haste to pin the blame on the cousin’s religiosity.
posted by Nick in Pasadena on
Yes, there is evidence that straight men are more likely to molest boys than are gay men — take a look at this excellent video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY
posted by BobN on
Jesus, Throbert, what planet are you on?
However, if one considers ONLY male children who are molested by adult males, is there any evidence that “straight men” (i.e., those in heterosexual adult relationships, or otherwise “outwardly hetero”) are in fact still more likely to molest boys than “gay men” (i.e., those in homosexual adult relationships, or otherwise “outwardly homo”)?
You’re kidding, right? The number of children abused by OUT gay men is miniscule. Pedophiles — people, mostly men, who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children — are experts at passing. They’re not stupid. They marry, pursue careers in teaching, medicine, counseling, etc. in order to have access to children. They are often “church-going” and appear to be “really nice people”.
posted by BobN on
A word of advice for your uncle, David.
He and his partner should get their affairs in order, if they haven’t already. The kind of evil that has insinuated itself into your uncle’s relationship with his daughter is the same evil that would lead her to take over his life, should he become incapacitated. It’s the same evil that would give her cause to try to take everything away from his partner, should something happen to him. He won’t want to think of his daughter that way, but he should prepare for the possibility.
posted by Hue-Man on
If the “sanctity of marriage” crowd were serious about encouraging long-term hetero marriages, they would actively campaign for young people (13+?) to receive instruction on homosexuality. The objective would be to avoid the type of sham marriage that you describe and the broken families that result. It would also likely reduce the incidence of one of the worst tragedies that can befall any family – teen suicide.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If my uncle were to accept the insulting offer his daughter has put on the table, she will be confirmed in her unreasonable beliefs about gay men.
Or he will be able to see his grandchildren AND demonstrate that he is able to function perfectly fine around them without molesting them.
As it stands now, he has neither. I fail to see where that’s a better outcome.
And if you want to know why this persists, Link, it is because of the deafening silence, if not outright denial, coming from the gay and lesbian community when its members and leaders insist that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair constitutes an “educational experience”, claim that it is normal and “common” for gays and lesbians to have sex with underage children, demand that children as young as five years old be taught the pleasures of gay sex, and pass resolutions ordering gays and lesbians to lobby their government to abolish age-of-consent laws.
Contrast that with the sheer fury, public outcry, demonstrations, and attempts to publicly shame and humiliate other gays and lesbians that the gay and lesbian community shows over a $100 political donation, and it becomes rather obvious that having sex with children and claiming that it’s natural based on your sexual orientation isn’t even on the radar of the gay and lesbian community for response.
posted by Amicus on
David,
Thank you for sharing this and so sorry to hear of this kind of loss.
FWIW, I concur with your context of this inside the marriage debate.
The notion that gay men, in particular, cannot control their sexual impulses is rooted in a deep cultural hostility toward gays, one that is not even limited to religion(s). It’s suggestive of a *socially defined* role akin to prostitute, i.e. ‘once a prostitute always a prostitute’, unable to truly be anything but wanton.
This is why writings like David Blankenhorn’s infuriate me, when he fails to realize that the inability to articulate a full-and-fair social institutions for gay couples *is* part of the problem.
In fact, I’m waiting to calm down, even now, on the matter.
posted by Amicus on
ND30, You are lost. The second article just has a sensational title by The Mail, nothing more.
The problem is the many who are silent, who know better or _should_ know better, who fail to swat this kind of ignorance propagate, because it serves their political goals or otherwise.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The number of children abused by OUT gay men is miniscule.
And relative to the general population, the number of “OUT gay men” is itself minuscule, Brainiac.
That in itself doesn’t preclude the possibility of OUT gay men being “disproportionately more likely” to molest children compared to “putatively straight men” (i.e., closeted gay or bi men leading outwardly hetero lives) and “genuinely straight men” (i.e., those whose preference in adult partners is exclusively for women, not men — apart from whatever pedophilic interests they might have.
Obviously, there are definitional problems here, because the “No True Scotsman” defense is rampant on both sides. That is, if an adult man who’s married to a woman molests an eight-year-old boy, a lot of anti-gay partisans will say “He’s not REALLY heterosexual, although married to a woman — at heart, he’s gay.”
But if an adult man in marriage or CU with another adult man molests an eight-year-old boy, a lot of pro-gay partisans will say “He’s not REALLY homosexual, although married to a man — at heart, he’s a pedophile, which is like an orientation unto itself.”
posted by BobN on
And relative to the general population, the number of “OUT gay men” is itself minuscule, Brainiac.
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word “miniscule”.
A very good summation of the issue can be found here: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
Well, to give the “brainiac” perspective, I would say both men are pedophiles, one living life in an adult heterosexual marriage and one living life in an adult homosexual CU. I can see where a non-brainiac would see some sort of parallel between the two situations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The second article just has a sensational title by The Mail, nothing more.
Actually, it has a lot more than that.
However, at a seminar at Exeter University tomorrow, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss ‘pleasure and desire in educational contexts’.
A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: ‘The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children’s bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.
‘The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies.
‘Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.’
During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have ‘challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice’.
The seminar will ‘question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom’ and examine ‘the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research’.
And finally:
The problem is the many who are silent, who know better or _should_ know better, who fail to swat this kind of ignorance propagate, because it serves their political goals or otherwise.
If you’re referring to the gay and lesbian community’s unwillingness and failure to condemn those who molest children and claim their sexual orientation makes them do it, you’re right.
If you’re referring to those who you apparently expect to ignore what the gay and lesbian community is saying in plain sight without a peep of criticism, you couldn’t be more wrong.
posted by Amicus on
ND30,
No those who are silent, I suggest, are those nongays who know these molestation charges to be a libel.
On the issue of adult-child sex, the organized gay community has probably had its most uniform and univocal, “No!”. If some kid wants to testify that he had relationships with adults at a young age, that’s free speech. It’s his truth. There is NO evidence that such viewpoints are any part of serious-going policy, efforts, however….
As for what to teach the kids, I’m unaware that the conservative-leaning folks have weighed in on what it age appropriate and why. Perhaps you could take the lead? It’s a topic that could use some consensus.
Here’s one stab that I found just by googling:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/12/05/thoughts-on-kevin-jennings-the-glsen-reading-list/
posted by Amicus on
“what it age appropriate” s/b “what is age appropriate”
posted by David Link on
Amicus, ND30 is much more familiar with the Organized Gay Community and its official positions than we are. He seems to get communications from them directly, while the rest of us have to read about it in the press. When it comes to the position of the OGC, no one speaks more authoritatively then ND30. I think I read that somewhere.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Incidentally, has the cousin herself voiced these concerns of “high molestation risk” as the reason she is cutting off contact with her gay father, or is this simply a diagnosis that Mr. Link’s uncle has provided to explain the rift? (As in, “It must be that those people at her church have brainwashed her into thinking that gay men are all closet pedophiles — there can’t possibly be any other reason, can there?”)
But of course, there might be other other reasons — just because the uncle is innocent of any unwholesome attraction to children doesn’t mean he’s altogether blameless.
Maybe he had the lamentably poor taste to get a vanity license plate that says BOIKRAZY and his daughter takes the “boi” part much too literally. Or maybe the uncle is one of those maintenance-alcoholics who occasionally turns into a full-blown Embarrassing Drunk, and his daughter fears he’ll do this in front of the grandchildren if left unsupervised. Or maybe he’s a politically hotheaded Olbermann-junkie who tends to pick fights with his conservative son-in-law “Meathead,” who’s a Beck junkie. Or maybe he’s one of those in-your-face atheists who likes to go around comparing Jesus to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this offends his daughter’s religious sensibilities. Or maybe the uncle and his partner are simply big nelly queens and the daughter and son-in-law believe in role-modeling traditional gender roles.
(None of these many and varied scenarios excludes the possibility that the daughter is ALSO being influenced by “gays like to fuck children” crap at her church, but if she already sees her father’s presence in the household as a general source of tsuris for whatever reason, that creates a disincentive for her to question the anti-gay stuff from the church.)
posted by Jorge on
Hey, Throbert McGee, how about you read and respond a little more directly to Nick in Pasadena’s post first, okay? You’re still sprawling on the floor from that one.
It’s very simple. Compare the population of child molesters to the general population to see if they are similar. Here we go:
http://georgiacenterforchildadvocacy.org/?page_id=27
It cites a statistic in 2003 that 91% of child molesters are heterosexual. Gee, that’s almost exactly the same as the general population. More, in fact.
Soanyway. I would like to see someday our community decide not to tolerate this slander and be merciless in going after people who repeat it. It is hard to appreciate how scary the fear that someone will molest your children is. People panic. They are not rational about it.
I think churches that spread this fear are traitors and should be burned to the ground. After being struck by lightning, that is. There is something a little off about people who place religion above God.
posted by BobN on
I came across an excellent explanation of how wrong-headed it is to consider OUT gay men as a threat to children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY&
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
He seems to get communications from them directly, while the rest of us have to read about it in the press.
Actually, Link, what I cited was from the press.
Including this, in response to Amicus.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
This is a leader of a gay and lesbian “rights” organization stating this, not some kid. And on top of that, he is stating that this is “common” among gay people — in the process of testifying before a major governmental body specifically charged with policymaking.
That excuse needs work.
posted by Lymis on
North Dallas Thirty
You are honestly trying to present NAMBLA as representative of the gay community and expect ANY of your arguments to be taken seriously?
What is this BS about NAMBLA not being swatted down? I have never heard, in person, in print, or on video, any time when the opinions of NAMBLA were expressed (ALWAYS by anti-gay people trying for a “gotcha”) and not roundly condemned in no uncertain terms. Outside of NAMBLA, which, despite having a nice long acronym, is a very small, very sad thing, nobody supports their idea – because gay relationships are based on adult consent.
You may well hear gay people saying it is wrong to harass young LGBT people who are coming into their sexuality, and that they should be allowed the same freedom as straight kids to date, fall in love, etc. You will also, validly, hear people saying that the age of consent for gay and lesbian relationships should be the same as for straight ones.
That is hardly the same thing and saying that 40 year olds should be legally allowed to have sexual relationships with children.
posted by CPT_Doom on
So, ND30 gives us links to three articles that are not from the US and references one gay couples incredibly stupid decision to bring their kids to Folsom to play alongside all the kids of the straight gawkers who come – it’s a major reason I don’t attend Folsom any more, too many damn tourists. These, of course, all define the “gay community” in the US because, as we all know, every faggot is like every other one. So if a 19-year-old in Canada wants to change the age of consent in his country, that is part of the gay cabal that is secretly working behind the scenes to make Jesus cry, destroy families, etc. etc. etc.
I happen to be a gay man whose family, thankfully, has accepted me entirely. That means I even get to watch my nephews once a year so my sister and brother-in-law can take an anniversary trip (see, I’m actually supporting a straight marriage – shocking!). I have never had the least desire to molest a child, and by that I mean anyone below the age of 30 (Ok, there was that one incident in high school when I actually messed around with another 15-year-old). To accuse me, or any other individual who happens to be gay, of being some kind of Manchurian-candidate molester, just waiting to unleash our inner monster, would be laughable if it weren’t serious.
I bet the parents of Mary-Kay Letourneau’s rape victim, whom she latter “married,” thought it was totally fine for him to be with his female teacher – at least he wasn’t with some child molester.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You are honestly trying to present NAMBLA as representative of the gay community and expect ANY of your arguments to be taken seriously?
You did read the link I provided, right?
NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.
One would think that, if you disliked them so much, you wouldn’t have had them as part of the ILGA, which represents the gay and lesbian community, for a decade.
So if a 19-year-old in Canada wants to change the age of consent in his country, that is part of the gay cabal that is secretly working behind the scenes to make Jesus cry, destroy families, etc. etc. etc.
Problem was, it wasn’t the 19-year-old; it was the adult leaders of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights.
Now once again; why is opposing the age of consent a gay-rights issue?
To accuse me, or any other individual who happens to be gay, of being some kind of Manchurian-candidate molester, just waiting to unleash our inner monster, would be laughable if it weren’t serious.
Again, talk to the gay and lesbian rights organizations.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
posted by Carlos on
How very sad. My heart breaks and it makes me emotional reading this because it makes me recall what certain members of my family said would happen to me when I came out. I desperately hope a more meaningful resolution can be found…
posted by Eric Whitney on
What a dreadful situation. (Though watching this discussion devolve into an argument about whether gays themselves are responsible for the pedophile label is pretty dreadful too.) The good news about your uncle’s situation is that father/daughter bonds are very primal. Just because she feels that way today, doesn’t mean she’ll still feel that way in five years. People have a way of falling out of love with those nightmare churches. He may have to rise to the level of Jesus to overcome his hurt feelings and keep a loving posture to his daughter, but that’s the road he’s going to have to take. Oy – fatherhood was supposed to get easier once they went off to college.