Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOP
David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, looks at the current state of affairs and wants a divorce, or at least a trial separation:
“Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the (belief that government is the problem) has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It’s smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It’s smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
The second GOP … would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute anti-government story of the current GOP.
Would a coastal and Midwestern GOP sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have.
The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”
I don’t have an answer for him. Maybe Chris Christie? Somehow, though, I have a feeling this is all going to end up being Barack Obama’s fault.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
563 comments Add your comment
willie lynch
January 29th, 2013
5:07 pm
Working with and knowing openly gay and lesbian people I find it rather funny when I talk to people who have no idea what it’s like to associate with people outside their own closed group and they have the idea that every lesbian woman wants them if they are female and every gay man wants every man.
Like everyone else Gay/Lesbian people prefer who they prefer, some won’t date outside their race, some prefer blonds, some like large people and some like petite people. They seem to have the same idiosyncrasies as everyone else. Why? Because they’re human plain and simple. They’re just neater than the rest of us.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:07 pm
“whether they were formerly gay,”
LOL!
barking frog
January 29th, 2013
5:07 pm
Towncrier
I believe it is a fact that half or more of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
any numbers for heterosexual men
Ronald Reagan
January 29th, 2013
5:09 pm
He’s a Journalist & he’s from the North that’s two strikes right there!
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:09 pm
TC
It is known that there are abused children that are heterosexual, what is the exact scientific link that says if a child is sexually abused they will become homosexual?
in for a short g@-@nder
January 29th, 2013
5:09 pm
Uh Huh….It is the South and Rural West To Blame:
What are your “psychological roots”….the place where your beliefs began,
where did it spring into being?
I KNOW……The SOUTH.
WRONG!
San Joaquin Valley, California.
A young David Brooks (Social Democrat) engages in a discussion with Milton Friedman.
Tyranny of the Status Quo – Part 1 – Bureaucrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXEk7su62w
Tyranny of the Status Quo – Part 2 – Bureaucrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tL3GMgR_w
Lenthy and interesting.
skipper
January 29th, 2013
5:10 pm
rightwing;
Learn what sarcasm is……..
josef……..I reckon’ I’m tellin’ my age a little bit. I remember being taught in school how evil “those people” (and I quote) were. Yes, in our public schools the day opened with a prayer each morning and things like homosexuality were the most dispicable things imaginable; many boomers can remember this. Right or wrong, it was ingrained into folks at an early age. If someone was even suspected of being qu$$r (using “gay” was unheard of back then), they were ostracized to say the least. There were even films shown to the older kids! Its kind of like teaching a new language……….a small kid taught two languages from an early age usually can speak either w/o a bad accent. An older person who learns a language will have more of an accent towards their original language. The few child molesters from around here were MOSTLY (not always, but mostly) men abusing young boys.
To all of a sudden being expected to totally abandon this is a tall order…….one can certainly be independent w/o voting for gay marriage.
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:11 pm
ALEX
Yes, That was the point. That’s why I put it in quotes. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and is just as likely to come from one corner as the other…
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:12 pm
josef 5:04
Thanks for the post. Insights like that are one reason I read this blog.
indigo
January 29th, 2013
5:12 pm
Jay – 4:33
I would not want a man to be the scoutmaster for 11 year old girls on a camping trip.
Would you?
And no, I’m not saying all gay men are pedofiles.
However, I would not take a chance on a gay scoutmaster,where children are concerned, in the name of political correctness.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:12 pm
josef @ 5:11
Bingo.
td
January 29th, 2013
5:13 pm
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:47 pm
“Check out NAMBLA.”
And check out what gay-rights groups have to say about NAMBLA.
Again, extremeright, I take it that since you’re hetero, you would abuse little girls if given the chance?
It’s the identical argument that you’re making.
I take it you have not sat in a hotly contested divorce case. At least 80% of women will accuse the man of molesting the daughter to gain custody.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:13 pm
“Some straights are pedophiles. Why take a chance? No adult should ever have contact with any child, ESPECIALLY those children to whom you are related, because some 70 to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by relatives. :
A fallacious “argument”. Observable “contact” is NOT the same as unsupervised or individual contact. And we really don’t know what the percentages of sexual abuse are. I was sexually abused as a child and never reported it. And it was not perpetrated by relative. I am telling you, I know a number of people who were sexually abused and who never reported it. It is a shameful thing to experience and many people (as I did) sweep it under the rug in their minds and pretend it never happened until it really starts to affect them in some unpredictable fashion.
indigo
January 29th, 2013
5:14 pm
David Brooks is an old school conservative.
That many here don’t think he’s even a conservative just goes to show how far to the lunatic right The Republican Party has gone.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
5:14 pm
Paul — “Televangelists and Republicans call for Olympics boycott in 3…2….1……”
There’s a hilarious recorded National Lampoon skit involving male and female commentators at a women’s gymnastic competition. The male commentator gets more and more worked up (along with more and more suggestive language) during one competitor’s routine, and you can imagine how it ends up.
Also, Robin Williams does a hilarious bit about interviewing Olympic gold-medal gymnast Nadia Comaneci (of course he does all the voices); you can’t understand what the coach/translator and “Nadia” are saying in faux-Russian or whatever, but you can easily gather from “Nadia’s” tone of voice and body language that she’s more interested in drinking, smoking and BOYS than in any silly Olympic competition.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:15 pm
“I take it you have not sat in a hotly contested divorce case. At least 80% of women will accuse the man of molesting the daughter to gain custody.”
Are these numbers like the 20 million or something you can substantiate? It occurs without a doubt, but 80% of the time?
Thanks in advance for posting the information
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:16 pm
Jay – Your argument is WAY PAST LAME. Common sense over rules political correctness. Go ahead and put your child at risk – I hope your judgement is correct – if not you are guilty of not protecting your child. I would say that 98 % would agree with me in their hearts though some would not have the courage to say so. There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE. With a “gay” scout master that is not true because SOME, as you just pointed out, are pedophiles. We cannot eliminate the “closet” pedophiles but background checks on ALL Scout Masters and anyone else left in charge of children should be done on a routine basis. That includes day care, school teachers, etc.
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:16 pm
skipper
That’s why I said, with respect, that you are in the process of evolving. We are probably much the same age, so I grew up with all that, too. Luckily I had a family background which provided me with the information and support I needed to make my way through “all that” with a minimum of angst. As a gay person, the straight person(s) I respect the most are those who are willing to recognize (I almost wrote “admit,” and that’s a bad choice of verbs) the origins of and personal subscriptions to the entrenched view, and, most importantly, have challenged them.
LUCIFER
January 29th, 2013
5:16 pm
I agree with David Brooks 50 percent of the time. I believe he is showing his frustration with the current GOP because a large section has become inflexible, dogmatic and will not listen to reason. Of course, this is going to upset people such as Jindal, Hannity, Rove and Brooks because they mostly live in the real world, and recognize the glaring reality that American demographics and attitudes have changed. The so-called intellectuals speaking and writing about the failings of the GOP are hoping their party doesn’t go the way of the Whigs. But Brooks brings up a good point: who will finally exert some leadership within the GOP to turn things around. Of course I hope they don’t. I would like to see the Dems capture the House in 2014 so we can start getting things done in this country. I still fume over McConnell’s remark that the GOP’s only purpose was to make Obama a one-term president. Well Mitch, how’d that work out for you. I hope you get thrown out on your butt in the next election.
Aquagirl
January 29th, 2013
5:17 pm
I don’t know how “representative” they are, but I am convinced that the sexual abuse of children is greatly under-reported (as I suppose is rape and similar crimes).
What does you listening to adult gay men describe how they were molested as children have to do with anything, period?
I don’t know exactly what goes on in these groups, but it would seem strange for a gay man to stand up and talk about how he HADN’T been molested. Like they’d read their grocery list or something instead.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:18 pm
“Are these numbers like the 20 million or something you can substantiate? It occurs without a doubt, but 80% of the time?”
I’m with TBS, thanks in advance for posting the information, Towncrier.
More data from utternonsense.com coming our way.
Goodie, more right wing science!
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:20 pm
“It is known that there are abused children that are heterosexual, what is the exact scientific link that says if a child is sexually abused they will become homosexual?”
Do some research and see what you find many studies say. Google “homosexuality+sexual+abuse” and look for articles that cite and summarize studies.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:21 pm
I wouldn’t do it in the name of political correctness, Indigo.
I would do it because it’s stupid to think that a person is a pedophile based merely on his or her sexual orientation.
In fact, it would be just as stupid to think a person ISN’T a pedophile based on sexual orientation.
As someone pointed out earlier, Sandusky was married, and had been for a long time. I have seen no indication that he was gay. But he sure was a predator.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:22 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
Guess I’m doomed to spend loads of time on Google and youtube……
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:22 pm
One way to cut down on repeat pedophiles is to reduce the number of pedophiles if you know what I mean? Three months to a fair trial, three months to a possible appeal and SIX months more to let those in the prison system “work” on them. Then get the needle ready and bye bye!
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:23 pm
“There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE.
Jerry Sandusky says “What?”
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:23 pm
“What does you listening to adult gay men describe how they were molested as children have to do with anything, period? ”
Huh? It is anecdotal evidence that 1) there is a correlation between homosexuality in men and having been sexually abused as children and 2) childhood sexual abuse is under-reported. Come on, smarten up. I shouldn’t have to spell out things like this for someone like you, AG.
saywhat?
January 29th, 2013
5:24 pm
I now understand why Obama is seen as an extreme socialist by the right wing brethren. They couldn’t find the “center” if it were stapled to an epileptic porcupine and shoved up their “Ann Coulter”. Benito Mussolini might pass as “Conservative” in their minds if he had just coddled those communists a little less.
GT
January 29th, 2013
5:24 pm
There is no place to bury the tainted south and its mental illness in the operations of a legit party. Democrats found this out years ago and cut their losses and gave the disease to the Republicans gladly. The old guard GOP now realize that supporting these Nuevo southern illiterate lunatics is going to lower the standard of living in the northeast to the same level as the south. Since Richard Nixon it was cool to have an affair with this red lighted district, to get easy votes, but you never identified with them. Somehow in the last decade of Bushes the whole party, not just a branch of Dixiecans, but a party of them have showed how country, country can get. The right have an apathetic constituency anyway, who follow politics only if it is mixed into their gospel and social life, never straight up. One day the old guard Republicans woke up from a drunk and realized they had married the whore, the family had cut them off from the inheritance and now they want to kick her out and beg for forgiveness. This tea party gang is like junk bonds, it is junk politics and it explains why it was never tried before. It invites bums to a low bar of qualification for a business that actually demands some acumen.
The real challenge is when the south realizes it is its own worse enemy and it too decides to join the union instead of causing all of us such difficulty.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:24 pm
““There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE. ”
By definition. Bi-sexual men, however, are another story…
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:24 pm
AQUAGIRL
Interesting thing, at least to me, that. Just my own experience, but, yes there are a lot of conversations among gay men about NOT being molested. The gist of them is how we avoided it. Some of my gay colleagues and I are currently toying with the idea of putting together a “guide” for young gay people on how to avoid it and what to do when targeted.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:26 pm
Paul – Don’t waste your time googling garbage…. some take delight in sending you on a wild goose chase.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:26 pm
TC
Again, how do you account for abused children who are heterosexual?
I’m sure you have that scientific unbiased data at hand.
There are adults who are homosexual who have been abused and those who have not. Same as heterosexual.
How do you account for non abused homosexuals?
To say you do not have scientific data to back up your claim or at least not unbiased data would be a slight understatement.
You will need better data than those rabbit holes that td and yourself got lost in regarding that oversampling by the “left wing” pollsters to make it look as if Obama was leading when he wasn’t. Just saying
Logical Dude
January 29th, 2013
5:26 pm
I see many so-called conservatives berate Brooks for not being a real conservative (or similar wording).
What about Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie? Would you blast them for being “not real conservatives” when THEY blast their own party for being stupid?
I mean. . . can’t you think of ANYTHING that your own party does that makes you feel like they’re doing themselves in?
If you can’t, then you are the “stupid” that Jindal is talking about.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jindal-gop-stupid-party-rnc-2013-1
LUCIFER
January 29th, 2013
5:27 pm
On the subject of the Boy Scouts, I would never allow my son to go overnight camping with a gay Scout master. NEVER. While I support same-sex marriages because of the equality issue, this joint relationship from afar is distant and safe and doesn’t directly impact me. However, a homosexual male adult having an authority position in the Boy Scouts and control over my child’s welfare and safety even for short periods, is a risk that I am not willing to take. Let it be said, it hits too close to home. Go ahead and label me a homophobe, but if something were to happen to my son I wouldn’t be able to live with myself when I could have prevented it.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:28 pm
“As someone pointed out earlier, Sandusky was married, and had been for a long time. I have seen no indication that he was gay. But he sure was a predator.”
He was clearly bi-sexual. And “gay” men sometimes get married to women and, instead of dealing with their homosexual “orientation” and overcoming it, they hide it in various ways. But many “act out” in some fashion or another, behind their “wife’s” back.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
5:28 pm
Paul — “Guess I’m doomed to spend loads of time on Google and youtube……”
I’m pretty sure that the National Lampoor skit was called “Gymnasty,” and as far as I know, it was only audio.
I saw the Robin Williams routine many times, many years ago, so I imagine there will be some poorly-duped clips of it on Youtube.
td
January 29th, 2013
5:28 pm
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:15 pm
“I take it you have not sat in a hotly contested divorce case. At least 80% of women will accuse the man of molesting the daughter to gain custody.”
Are these numbers like the 20 million or something you can substantiate? It occurs without a doubt, but 80% of the time?
Thanks in advance for posting the information
See I knew this number thing would come up again (BTW you Dem supporters did not disagree with the thesis just them numbers and that says a lot) so I used more vague wording and a % instead of hard numbers. Probably should have said plus or minus to be on the safer side.
I have sat in many divorce cases and can say that in what I have seen in hotly contested divorce cases when a minor daughter in involved that plus or minus 80% of the time the wife accuses the husband of molesting the daughter. Is that better?
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:29 pm
Will come back later to check TC’s scientific data and answers to the other questions as well as td’s substantiated 80% number? Can’t wait to read the spin or see there is no “verifiable answers”
peace……..
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:29 pm
Jay – SANDUSKY is B I S E X U A L …… heterosexual means you don’t get excited about getting it own within your own sex. thought you would know that Jay. Ah you did know didn’t you. Try to throw some more crap on the wall and see if it will stick Jay.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:30 pm
“But he sure was a predator.”
I was wondering when this point would be made. Such predators seek targets. Easy targets. Where they don’t raise suspicion.
But that makes things begin to get a big complicated and that upsets some peoples’ nice, neat, orderly, “I can control things because I have the tidy answers” view of life.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:30 pm
JHM, I remember the spoof well but I had the album.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwIyzrlOMQ
indigo
January 29th, 2013
5:30 pm
Jay
Are you honestly saying you’d send your 11 or 12 year son on a Boy Scout camping trip with an openly gay scoutmaster?
Sorry, but with so many pedofile horror stories in the news, that WOULD be political correctness.
Madmax
January 29th, 2013
5:31 pm
the conservative columnist for the New York Times – Uh Jay, we have a contradiction here.
td
January 29th, 2013
5:33 pm
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:23 pm
“There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE.
Jerry Sandusky says “What?”
There is a greatly less probability of it happening. Bottom line is would you feel your male son are safer camping with a heterosexual or homosexual? Would you feel safer with your daughter camping with a heterosexual man or a woman?
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:33 pm
Yes, Indigo, I would. Just as I would, and have, entrusted my daughters to the care of “known lesbians.”
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
5:33 pm
KUTGF — “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwIyzrlOMQ”
I can’t see Youtubes here; is that the NatLamp bit or the Robin Williams?
td
January 29th, 2013
5:34 pm
I can not wait until Trump buys the NY Times and cleans house.
saywhat?
January 29th, 2013
5:34 pm
80% plus or minus? 20% plus or minus?
Why not just say “Whatever number I pulled from my butt, plus or minus.” The number wouldn’t be any more accurate, but it would be amazingly and consistently precise.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
5:34 pm
td
The number issue keeps coming up because you have a bad habit of skewing numbers, guessing incorrectly or maybe just lying? It would be one thing if the numbers didn’t by mere coincidence always bolster your case, but that is what always happens. If you just threw out random numbers that at any time were correct, bolstered your case or showed what you say to be untrue than the “randomness” would be more believable.
You know that statistics thing. I’m sure you took a class or two in college that involved statistics, random sampling, etc.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:34 pm
“How do you account for non abused homosexuals?”
I do not believe homosexuality is genetic. One of the theories offered to explain, the one to which I subscribe, is that people are imprinted with a “sexual” orientation in childhood by one or more experiences. Sexual abuse would be a kind of imprinting, under that theory. But it is not the only way people are imprinted. It is true that some people as adults simply “choose” to experiment with homosexuality and then pursue those kind of relationships. But the vast majority of gays point to childhood as the time they first felt attracted to members of the same sex.
Aquagirl
January 29th, 2013
5:35 pm
It is anecdotal evidence that 1) there is a correlation between homosexuality in men and having been sexually abused as children
The plural of anecdotes is not data. That goes double for anecdotes only gathered in groups where it’s not acceptable to be gay. (That last part is an assumption based on your stated religious beliefs, I can’t picture you attending a group that would accept homosexuality.)
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:36 pm
JHM, the Natl Lampoon version dubbed with Nadia video.
yuzeyurbrane
January 29th, 2013
5:36 pm
Poor David Brooks. He is a decent and smart fellow. Which means he has no cred with the new GOP. The moderates there really lost out when Goldwater was nominated and they will never regain leadership. More likely that the GOP will devolve into a regional party and go the way of the Whigs until something like the old GOP arises from the ashes.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:37 pm
Towncrier, I don’t think that search you suggested will yield the results you think.
I’m sure however you can find a link to some crazy made up Christian study.
“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so.
“”"”And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”"”"”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:38 pm
Jay – are you really that ignorant? Heterosexuals have NO interest in SEXUALLY abusing someone of their own sex, I said sexually abusing because there are other forms of child abuse for sure. In the same line a homosexual would have no interest in SEXUALLY a child of the opposite sex. No charge for the education Jay – consider it community service.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:39 pm
“I can not wait until Trump buys the NY Times and cleans house.”
Yeah. That’ll happen right after he exposes Obama’s birth certificate as a fraud.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:39 pm
“And check out what gay-rights groups have to say about NAMBLA.”
Legalized gay marriage PLUS legalized polygamy PLUS the consent of parents of 13 year old boys EQUALS a dream come true for members of NAMBLA.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:39 pm
JHM, off topic but they also have the Humpback Whale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxuT24Bm3w
I would direct it in the general direction of someone but Jay may put me in time out.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:40 pm
“I do not believe homosexuality is genetic.”
Because any evidence it is would upset the whole misrepresented view of free will and then thinking about “God doesn’t make mistakes so maybe He did make them just like he made me” and what if it is something like eye color for some people and… and…. aaaugghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:40 pm
No charge, morality? Put another way, you’re charging what it’s worth?
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:41 pm
Indigo – it appears that Jay is very NAIVE. Predators don’t come stamped with a “P” on their forehead.
LUCIFER
January 29th, 2013
5:42 pm
Jay; You’ve got more brass than I do when it comes to “trust.”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:42 pm
Towncrier, since you are soooo in the know, what are the dreams of NAMGLA?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 29th, 2013
5:42 pm
Just back from meeting with comrades.
How’s rubeland?
GT
January 29th, 2013
5:43 pm
I think the Democrats breaking point was George Wallace running for president as a Democrat. George Wallace became the poster child of the Democratic Party. Now the Republican Party is at its breaking point but unlike the Democrats they have no leadership, to recognize their fate and change things. Wallace was an aberration in the Democratic Party but he would be main stream in the new Republican Party. No one on the right sees a need for correction. Imagine this party leading this nation with this kind of blindness.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:43 pm
Towncrier
Funny thing, but the vast majority of straights point to childhood as the time they first felt attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Got any peer-reviewed studies (not from the Bachman Cure-All Institute) supporting that? Else, who is it putting forth with this ‘imprinting’s the answer” theory?
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:43 pm
BIG DADDY
“Yes, Indigo, I would. Just as I would, and have, entrusted my daughters to the care of “known lesbians.”
You know what I’m thinking…wouldn’t you love to see the look on indigo’s face if they ever met face to face…
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:44 pm
Come on Towncrier, show us what you got. You are the one that suggested Google!
http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html
The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8% (Fay et al, 1989). However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimates given for child sexual abuse to be 16% for males and 27% for females in the USA (NRCCSA, 1994).
“Therefore, if there is a causal link between childhood sexual abuse and identifying as GLBT later in life, then why aren’t the figures for the number of GLBT people in the population reflected by the abuse statistics? There are significantly more cases of sexual abuse than there are people that identify as GLBT (Macmillan, 1997), and furthermore, the vast majority of persons sexually abused as children are heterosexual (Keith, 1991).”
Orange13
January 29th, 2013
5:44 pm
I hope David Brooks has to pay alimony and child support for Getalife (the child he didn’t want).
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:44 pm
His heart would break, Josef.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 29th, 2013
5:44 pm
Any ilk spottings today?
Alex Colbert
January 29th, 2013
5:45 pm
I agree, Morality? and Indigo, and everyone else with common sense! It is foolish to put your child at risk of abuse by allowing gay boy scout leaders. Let’s say that there are the same % of gay pedophiles as straight ones. A STRAIGHT scoutmaster who is a pedophile is sick, but they are MUCH less likely to abuse a BOY scout (to which they would have abundant access) than a GAY scoutmaster would!!
This is why we REALLY need to get STRAIGHT WOMEN out of boy scout leadership positions! Did you know women are allowed to have leadership positions in boy scouts??? That’s horrifying! As you all know, WOMEN can be pedophiles too, and we really don’t want to take the risk of having our boys abused!!!
As far as I’m concerned, gay men and straight women can be leaders for girl scouts, while lesbians and straight men can be leaders for boy scouts, otherwise, there’s just too much risk for abuse.
I encourage you to think about this when you get babysitters for your children as well. Unfortunately, I have an 11 year old son and a 9 year old daughter. I’m 99% sure they are both straight — I certainly raised them that way. But finding babysitters is a nightmare, because I don’t want to risk abuse. My advice to anyone in a similar situation is to get 2 different babysitters — a straight male or gay female for the boy and a straight female or gay male for the girl. And then restrict both children to separate wings of the house… The real headache though will be in a year or so when my son starts puberty… Since he’s straight, I am gonna have to go to AWESOME lengths to keep him away from his sister! Raising kids in the 21st century is so complicated. Pray for me!
saywhat?
January 29th, 2013
5:46 pm
Is it o.k to leave my dog overnight at a gay veterinarian’s office? Should I be concerned?
(As long as were flinging around baseless stereotypes and all…..)
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:46 pm
Lucifer, you’ve always had more than sufficient brass, as I recall!
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:46 pm
Jay – Knowledge is what you make of it. You now know more than you knew 10 minutes ago. I never charge for public service. If you are not going to wake up to reality it’s worth nothing to you. If you do wake up it could be worth a child’s future.
saywhat?
January 29th, 2013
5:47 pm
“we’re”
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
5:48 pm
W. T. T. Occupation — “Any ilk spottings today?”
The Great Spotted Ilk, noted ungulate of the western Plains states?
No, none today.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:48 pm
“I’m sure however you can find a link to some crazy made up Christian study.”
LOL. Not intended to be an instance of unintended irony. Why don’t you look at who wrote the linked article and observe the use of the word “rainbow” in the URL? Secondly, my principal claim was in regard to the percentage of those men who were sexually abused as children who became homosexual, not how many such people themselves become abusers.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:49 pm
Towncrier
” PLUS legalized polygamy”
WHAT? Let’s just stick with ONE man and ONE woman just like it says in the Bible! ’cause God’s truth never changes. It’s unchanging. He doesn’t adapt His word to society’s changes.
And no concubines for married guys, either –
’cause nowhere does the Bible say either’s okay in God’s sight.
(you know we should ban adoptions for infertile women because the Bible clearly teaches the guys gotta get his wife’s friend pregnant if they want a kid… and none of this fake in vitro petri dish and a syringe stuff, neither – )
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:49 pm
Jay – Let me get this straight (n pun intended). You would have let your male child go in to the shower with Sandusky if you had known he was a “gay” man because you had no knowledge of him being a pedophile?
barking frog
January 29th, 2013
5:49 pm
Alex Colbert
I think your children are in more danger from your paranoia than
babysitter.
td
January 29th, 2013
5:49 pm
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:39 pm
“I can not wait until Trump buys the NY Times and cleans house.”
Yeah. That’ll happen right after he exposes Obama’s birth certificate as a fraud.
You did see the below article? It may not happen but if the TImes keeps losing this much money per quarter it is not out of the realm of possibilities since he is interested.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/23/news/companies/trump-new-york-times/index.html
too little time
January 29th, 2013
5:50 pm
I am not gay, I am a conservative. The professional gay men that I have known are not pedophiles, and would never think of molesting young children.
But scouts go up to about age 16, and represent the same temptation as does a post pubescent male to a female school teacher (or post pubescent females to a male teacher)… and we know how that works out. What I am saying is that not all boy scouts are pre-pubescent, so a hypothetical scout troop leader who has intimate contact with a scout are not necessarily pedophiles. Neither are middle/high school teachers who have intimate contact with their students.
School teachers get into trouble all of the time. That is what happens when you mix sexually active adults with sexually active teenagers (or soon to be sexually active teenagers). The best solution is to remove the temptation.
Gay scout leaders should not be alone with post-pubescent scouts (especially on overnight trips). That is not bigoted or judgmental. That is acknowledging human nature and heading off trouble before it begins. I would say that teachers should, likewise, not be alone with their opposite-sex students. Removing the temptation is usually sufficient to head off trouble.
getalife
January 29th, 2013
5:50 pm
brooks is a con.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:50 pm
“Is it o.k to leave my dog overnight at a gay veterinarian’s office? Should I be concerned?”
It is not ok. 80%-90% of the dogs that I have talked to said they suddenly became gay after an overnight visit to a gay vet!
Take your dog to gay conversion therapy immediately! Michele Bachmann has used that therapy with great success.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:52 pm
“Towncrier, since you are soooo in the know, what are the dreams of NAMGLA?”
I have no idea; I have never heard of that organization. But, if you are instead referring to NAMBLA, why don’t you just visit their site and get it from the proverbial horse’s mouth. They dislike marriage and favor “free” love, but they also like to remain out of prison.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:54 pm
morality, you have a strange way of “getting things straight.”
I would not have let my male or female child go in the shower with Sandusky, period. That’s inappropriate regardless of sexual orientation.
You, on the other hand, might have allowed yourself to be fooled by the fact that here was this clearly straight man, all-star athlete, celebrity football coach, very masculine, a married man and father of several — he was “so not gay,” and so clearly posed no threat at all, right? Because straight men could NEVER….
Oops.
Once you start relying on stereotypes, trouble follows.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:54 pm
Gay vets?
I thought the military had that solved.
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:55 pm
TC
And, pray tell, how did you “become” heterosexual.
Let’s go there for a minute. When I turned 13 my very traditional male relatives took me to the professional who specialized in, uh, educating. Okay, she was a wise woman who knew that I knew what it was I was and no point in trying to alter the nature of things. So, we had a pleasant conversation instead. Now, let’s supposed she had “molested me.” Does that mean that I would have “become” heterosexual?
BTW, in her report to my male role models, she said for them “not to worry. He’s going to be just fine.” She was right. I was.
pogo
January 29th, 2013
5:56 pm
Wow. A NYT’s “conservative” reporter wants a seperation from the Republican party, what a surprise. He is probably afraid he will get fired if he doesn’t. Besides, what todays progressives really want is total annihilation of anyone or any organization that disagrees with them in their march towards toward one party rule. McCarthyism is alive and well today in the US and ironically it is the so-called “free thinking liberals” who are the ones doing it. It thrives in the media (as Jay and Luckovich demonstrate here daily) and it thrives in the Whitehouse. Demonize and destroy anyone or anything that doesn’t believe as you do, that is their mantra. To this day find one mainstream news outlet that has critisized Obama on anything. Just one. Oh, and Fox News doesn’t count because it has deemed as a non-news organization by Media Matters. How does it feel to an official Lockstepper Jay? Do you enjoy wearing those jack boots?
Alex Colbert
January 29th, 2013
5:56 pm
barking frog, I am not paranoid! I just know the depravity of human nature!
The Muslims don’t get much right, but they do get the whole separating the genders right, because otherwise there’s just too much temptation! Come to think of it, that’s probably the only exception I would make to the whole women scoutleaders thing – a straight woman can lead boy scouts as long as she’s a devout muslim with the full hijab and burka and everything. Hmmm, I wonder if I could get a christian burka for my daughter…
Welcome to the Occupation
January 29th, 2013
5:56 pm
Joe Hussein Mama: “The Great Spotted Ilk, noted ungulate of the western Plains states?”
Lol. Alright, well keep looking.
Fred ™
January 29th, 2013
5:56 pm
I can’t be a girl scout leader………
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:56 pm
Saywhat? – I wouldn’t worry to much about leaving my dog a gay vet’s office – unless I know he/her is in to animal sex. In that case your dog may object.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:57 pm
“WHAT? Let’s just stick with ONE man and ONE woman just like it says in the Bible! ’cause God’s truth never changes. It’s unchanging. He doesn’t adapt His word to society’s changes.”
You are probably the LAST person who should be citing the Bible, Paul – even sarcastically (since you put little stock in it).
Legalized polygamy in this country is, I think, a foregone conclusion if and once gay marriage is ruled by the SC to be Constitutional. I simply don’t see how laws prohibiting it can survive a legal challenge. It doesn’t matter much what I think, does it Sherlock?
Aquagirl
January 29th, 2013
5:57 pm
Why don’t you look at who wrote the linked article and observe the use of the word “rainbow” in the URL?
If your implication is “don’t trust them gays” why do you trust the stories you hear from gay guys in your groups?
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:58 pm
“Once you start relying on stereotypes, trouble follows.”
For some, once you start shedding stereotypes, trouble follows.
Hence the repeated insistence that Sandusky was gay. Or bi. Or… something. Just not straight.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
6:00 pm
Even if he wasn’t straight, Paul — and all indications are that he was — he sure SEEMED straight. So this little mental shortcut that people are advocating would have led them right into his little web.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
6:00 pm
“Not intended to be an instance of unintended irony. Why don’t you look at who wrote the linked article and observe the use of the word “rainbow” in the URL?”
Is that all you have, Towncrier? Rainbow in the url? UC Davis is a respected university. Did you even read the link? If you did you will find that it referenced many studies.
Just face it Towncrier, your theories are 100% fraud.
Now where are your links?