« Interesting Questions for the Republican Debate | Main | What We Could Have Done Instead »

Is the Religious Right Obsessed with Sex?

Judge for yourself.

This is a page on the American Family Association website.

Edit to add the original source where I learned about this:


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.7/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (22)

U.P. Man:

Paul, went to your link.

A list of sexual orientations. Then I looked a little further.

This page is not connected to their web site.
Does not follow the pattern of their web pages.
Does not have a working home button. (I checked out about 30 of their web pages all have a home button that works)
Unable to find a link from their site to the page listed.

Are you sure it is genuine or is it another false but accurate web page?

MunDane:

1) Yes, those people who are religious consider sex a rather personal matter and that sex, itself, is a gift from the creator.

2) Those definition are rather clinical in nature and probably came from the DSM or paraphrased from it.

Paul's link: http://www.afa.net/sexualorientations.asp

The AFA web site: http://www.afa.net/

Looks like the same site to me - they're both afa.net. Yes, it also appears to be an orphan that isn't linked.

It looks genuine to me. If you view the html source you can see that the graphic at the top also comes off the afa.net server.

My guess is that it's a reference page intended for internal use only - so that when one of the afa staff needs to look up a term they can do so without having to go out on the internet.

U.P. Man:

Are any of the definitions wrong?

Would you jump all over them if they wrote incorrectly about any of the subjects?

What is your point?

Matt:

This is news?

When hasn't the religious right not been obsessed with sex? When has the non-religious right not been obsessed with sex? When hasn't the religious Left not been obsessed with sex? When has the non-religious Left not been obsessed with sex? When has the non-aligned middle not been obsessed with sex?

Goodness, have you not seen the sexually obsessed advertising, TV programming, Movies, Magazines (porn and non-porn), web sites, etc??

Jeff Blogworthy:

Way to take that list totally out of context Paul, though it is awfully poor webmaster design not to link the page to other sources.

Is the Religious Right obsessed with sex? This is classic projection. The posting of that list is to make a point about proposed legislation; Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592)

This is Orwellian thought policing at its best. The "Act" identifies "sexual orientation" as a protected class without defining the term. Therefore the term includes all the items listed on that page and then some.

The act of crime itself should be punished - not the divination of what may or may not be in a perpetrators heart. Such a law is an extremely dangerous and freedom threatening path to go down. Think man! Think!

Paul Hamilton:

U.P.: My point is that most folks don't go around putting up a webpage of definitions of sexual stuff. That, to me, shows an unhealthy interest in matters of this sort.

Jeff: As someone who is primarily libertarian, I think along the same lines as you, generally. However, if someone spray painted a swastika on a synagogue, that's not the same thing as spray painting your initials on a fence, and the law needs to recognize that there are certain groups who are targeted. It's just acknowledging reality that there are bigots who will seek out blacks, Jews, and gays for abuse just because of who they are. The reason that I believe hate crime legislation is appropriate is because these people are not committing a crime of passion, or even of opportunity. It's very unlikely that a Klansman would be satisfied with burning just ONE cross in the yard of a black family. And for those who are bigoted against gays and lesbians, it's likely to be something that happens until these people are stopped. And the idea that this is somehow granting "special rights," is not correct. What these laws do is to ensure that the same protection and respect exist for members of minority groups as do for the rest of us. It recognizes that hatred is out there, and that a diverse society, which is the American ideal, deserves protection.

U.P. Man:

Paul, it isn't available on their web site.

Show me the path used to get to it?

If it is as Lee says,

"My guess is that it's a reference page intended for internal use only - so that when one of the afa staff needs to look up a term they can do so without having to go out on the internet."

Then it isn't on the web and used for above stated purposes.

Or are you calling Lee a right wing wacko?

Jeff Blogworthy:

Paul,
Did you read the link? The fear is that so-called hate crime legislation will be expanded to criminalize speech and/or dissension. It is almost certainly a fear that will be realized as we already see the handwriting on the wall in other nations with similar laws.

As to your point about spray painting racial epithets or burning crosses - seriously - what should the punishment be in such cases and how should it differ quantitatively from that meted out for pure vandalism or simply hating your neighbor because you dislike him? As far as I know, judges already have the leeway to order counseling, community service, restitution, or other creative sentences as they see fit. So why is such a law necessary?

If enacted, this law will be abused in ways that we can hardly imagine. A petty criminal will unwittingly perpetrate a crime against a gay man and find himself in far more trouble than he bargained for. I guess it will just be an unlucky lottery.

Moreover, the classes of people not specifically mentioned in such legislation (politically motivated in their selection), but specifically targeted by criminals will not receive equal protection under the law.

It is a bad, bad idea.

Paul Hamilton:

Jeff: You are arguing a "slippery slope" line of reasoning and I don't buy that in this case. Burning a cross is not speech, it's a threat. And free speech doesn't not include the right to threaten your neighbors. Furthermore, I think that to qualify as a hate crime, there must be proof of intent. In your example where someone robbed a gay man, if they were to attempt to prosecute a hate crime, they'd have to prove that you knew the victim was gay and that was the primary motivation in the action. I really doubt that would stick...

Paul Hamilton:

Jay Tee:
>>Which leads me to the question of just how Paul found the link.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/05/religious-right-republicans-are-simply.html

>>would you criminalize someone who puts a swastika on the inside of their closet door?

Is it threatening anyone there? No it isn't, so no I wouldn't. And I don't believe I ever claimed that the material on the website was threatening, did I, so that's a strawman.

U.P, Man:

Paul,

Again, I followed you new link to where you got that page. guess what it goes to the same page.

I ask again, how do you get to that page using their site?

Paul Hamilton:

I don't know and I don't care. Lots of sites have locked and/or hidden pages. The point is that it exists.

Jeff Blogworthy:

Paul,
Second paragraph. You never answered my questions.

Paul Hamilton:

Just to be clear on this, I'm not obliged to answer everything that gets posted. I *do* have a life...

But as I did say above, the reason for laws like this is because we are a pluralistic society in which all persons are treated equal under the law. Stuff like swastikas on a synagogue or a burning cross in a yard are an attempt to intimidate people -- or to deprive them of their civil rights, which is the catch-all used to make such things a federal offense back in the days of the civil rights movement. As for what the penalty should be, who knows? I'm not a lawmaker.

Jeff Blogworthy:

Jay Tea,

FYI The AFA broadcast the following email. Anyone on the list would have access to the page:

May 1, 2007



Please help us get
this information into the hands of as many people as possible by
forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.




A message from Chuck
Colson


Dear xxxx,



Please take the time to read the
enclosed article by Chuck Colson. 
Click here.


This law does not define "sexual orientation," leaving open the
definition of the term. To see all the behaviors covered by the term
"sexual orientation," please
click here
Warning!  This listing is offensive.


There is still time to make your voice heard.  Please call your
representative in Washington today.  The vote is scheduled for this
Thursday.  Tell him or her that you strongly oppose the Hate Crimes
Act.  Mr. Colson rightly refers to it as the Thought Control
bill.


You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121.  Please ask your
friends to call also.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Jeff Blogworthy:

Paul,
Fine. Keep the blinders on and ignore the logical arguments. Two incidents have been exploited in the recent past which have far more to do with leftist propaganda than truth. They are illustrative, not speculative of exactly what has happened and it will worsen with the force of this ridiculous, politically motivated law. The assertions of guilt themselves are so much more important than facts.

1. The Matt Shepard murder. It is widely propagandized that Shepard was murdered and tortured specifically because he was homosexual. That is a lie. The two perps were slimeball drug addicts out looking for a victim. Matt Shepard was as good as any. However his special political status as a gay man was just too tempting to resist - there was political hay to be made, a bandwagon on which to jump, and agendas to further. Shepard's death quickly became a rallying symbol for attack on the "religious right" and "hate crime" fodder. The facts be damned - he was gay!

2. The Duke Lacross incident. The stripper was poor and black. These rich white boys are guilty and I don't care what the police say! Something happened in that house that night, I can feel it!

These men escaped political prosecution by the skin of their teeth because of class and race warfare. Strident leftists still insist the men are guilty, regardless of proof. Look for more of the same. I know those white men hated that girl and wanted to deprive her of her civil rights, I can see it in their eyes.

Paul Hamilton:

I already saw the Colson column. I think it was on Townhall, but I saw it. Same "slippery slope" argument based on nothing more than paranoia.

Regarding the Duke case, IMHO, the prosecutor thought he saw the change to get his name up there in lights and leapt before he looked. I'm no lawyer, but I've watched enough crime shows on tv to know that you don't file charges in a case like this unless you've got 'em cold. He didn't and he paid for it.

Regarding Shepard, the problem I have is that the perps told two different stories. Also, if they were just slimeballs out to rob -- or even to rob and kill -- someone, why did they choose this extremely unusual and symbolic means of doing the deed.

No, this was more than an ordinary murder. They were sending a message just like the killer of that black man (Byrd?) did when he dragged him to death in chains behind his pickup. An ordinary shooting or stabbing wouldn't have made the headlines, but these were killers who wanted to send a message by the particularly gruesome means they chose of killing their victims. And yes, I absolutely believe that it was HATE that drove them to use those means and so they were certainly HATE crimes, not just murder.

Jeff Blogworthy:

J said:

"And some of them are downright silly."

I agree with your perspective in part Jay, but in defense of the AFA that is where we are today. All you have to do if find some kind of sexual construct and make it up. Suddenly you too can be a "protested class." It is hard to make this stuff up. I used to just laugh these things off but not anymore. A few years ago, I never heard of "transgendered" [coined in 1987 by Virginia Prince, a transvestite]. It is now easy for me imagine a world where sexual molestation (grabbing, fondling, touching) is excused or at least mitigated because the perp is a "toucherist."

Check out this example of "sexual orientation." If you can figure this out, you are a better man than me:

Intergender - An intergender identity is one which falls somewhere between the endpoints of man and woman. It assumes an acceptance of the construct of a 'Gender Continuum'. Given such a continuum, man and woman become bounding constructs with an infinite number of gendered states in between. One identifies as neither a man nor a woman but as something separate and unique from either extreme.

Like I said. You can't make this stuff up. The RIGHT is obsessed with sex? Puhlease. SOURCE

Jeff Blogworthy:

Paul,
It seems obvious that you are willing to see something codified into law and even support it when you do not understand it. You cannot defend or even describe why the law is needed.

Re again:

What should the punishment be in such cases and how should it differ quantitatively from that meted out for pure vandalism or simply hating your neighbor because you dislike him? As far as I know, judges already have the leeway to order counseling, community service, restitution, or other creative sentences as they see fit. So why is such a law necessary?

Matt Shepard's murderers should be put to death, period. Of course, leftists can't possibly abide the death penalty for such scum so this is the best we can do:

His two assailants, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, were convicted of the crime and imprisoned. Henderson is currently serving two consecutive life sentences and McKinney is serving the same but without the possibility of parole.

How is Shepard's sexual orientation or even the existence of a "hate crime" relevant?

Such a law is convoluted, inconsistent tripe.

Quoting Pat Buchanan:

When one reflects upon how these laws work, the hidden agenda becomes clear. Under a hate-crimes statute, the Texas thugs who tied a black man to a truck and dragged him to his death committed a hate crime.

But if the dead man had been white, or his killers black, that would not qualify as a hate crime.

Under Janet Reno's proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act, teenagers who drive through a gay area yelling taunts would be guilty of a verbal hate crime. But a homosexual who murdered an 8-year-old boy he raped would not.

A conservative congressman who yelled an epithet for gay as he punched Barney Frank in the nose could be charged with a hate crime. But if Barney Frank called a conservative congressman a "fascist" and punched him in the nose, he could not.

Painting a swastika on a wall is a hate crime, but the Terrence McNally play running in New York, in which actors portray Jesus and his apostles in simulated homosexual sex, is avant-garde artistry.

We live today in a strange land where ethnic slurs are federal crimes, but a doctor who takes a hammer and smashes the head of a baby being born is performing a constitutionally protected act.

In back of all this is the ideology of the Hard Left which holds that America is an irredeemably racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, gun-crazed country where bigots must be controlled in the name of decency.

To prove America's wickedness, leftists carefully tweezer out of all U.S. crime statistics the tiny number of outrages that make their point. Then, their publicity organs go into overdrive to exploit the few outrages to propagandize for new laws.

Paul Hamilton:

Jay: Your attack dog style doesn't impress me. Someone asked for the source of the information and I provided it. Don't give yourself credit for what I did.

Jeff: I won't deny that sex is a hot-button issue for both sides, but the fundamental difference is that the right wing expects everyone to march to their standards, the left does not. You might not approve of or like homosexual relationships, but so long as they are adult and consentual, what business are they of yours? Why can't the right realize that stable relationships are good for society -- and that applies to both straights and gays? You can believe what you want, but don't try to give your spirituality the force of law.

Refering to the quote you put up, it simply means that all of us are transgendered to some degree. The vast majority are very strongly one gender or the other, but for a few, the distinction is not so clear. And a person's true sexual identity doesn't always match up with the plumbing. I realize this flies in the face of absolutist thinking, but it's still true. People are not simple in any way.

And regarding your second note:

I understand it just fine. Like I said earlier, I'm a libertarian, but I'm not naive. I know there are people out there who are simply evil and sometimes those folks have specific targets for their hatred. A legal recognition of that fact simply respects the rights of people to exist without fear.

And you can repeat your question from now 'til doomsday, and I still say that I cannot answer it. I don't think the punishment should be as severe for something like hate-based vandalism as I would a physical attack, but since I'm not an expert on the sentences for ordinary attacks, I can't propose punishments for these.

As for capital punishment, I follow the Catholic church's position on the subject -- it's only appropriate in those rare incidences where a person is a grave, immediate threat to innocent people and he cannot be removed from society to eliminate the threat. Killing people for any other reason is simply revenge.

And Pitchfork Pat's little tirade seems to indicate his belief that only those groups perceived to be friends of the left wing would be protected. I say that the law would be written in a neutral fashion -- that a crime against a person based on their race or sexual orientation could be charged as a hate crime if the primary motivation of the action was the race or orientation. But I still say it would be difficult to prove.

Let me ask you this: If a gang of Islamic toughs targeted people wearing crosses around their necks for murder, would you consider that to be a hate crime?

Jeff Blogworthy:

Paul said,

"Let me ask you this: If a gang of Islamic toughs targeted people wearing crosses around their necks for murder, would you consider that to be a hate crime?"

I presume when a person or persons commits a crime, they do not do it out of love for the victim(s). There is most likely some degree of dislike for or jealousy of the victim(s) involved. This may, of course, vary in degree. I consider it beyond my ability to judge the degree of "hate" in a person's heart or mind. Whether one yells "take that dirty Christian" while they are beating me is totally irrelevant. I will experience the same injury regardless.

The emotion/feeling approach of liberals is both ludicrous and dangerous. Justice should always be applied consistently and with an even temper. I remember how mad some people were when a particular murderer flipped off a jury. The fact that he was not "remorseful" made his crime worse, they said. Presumably if he had cried and said "I'm sorry" it would have been all better - as though one cannot pretend at repentance. This is utterly preposterous emotionalism.

The punishment should fit the crime, period. What are you going to do? Give someone 90 days for assault and battery unless they scream "faggot" - then it's two years? Since when is emotion or ideology a crime? The fact is, virtually all violent crime involves hate, but according to leftists apparently some hate is worse and less forgivable than others.

"Pitchfork Pat's little tirade seems to indicate his belief that only those groups perceived to be friends of the left wing would be protected. I say that the law would be written in a neutral fashion..."

What a joke. I'll be kind and say that you are extremely naive. There are wicked ulterior motives at work here.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.