Polycarp:
Actually I feel pretty strongly about gay rights. I also feel pretty strongly about being a conservative, and I also feel pretty strongly that Christianity and conservatism does not necessarily a bigot make.
At the nexus of all these beliefs, I’m watching the battle being fought.
Sometimes those that are arguing for tolerance and equal rights are acting just as hateful (and because of it are just as wrong,) as those seek to cling to their old bigoted ways.
Yep. I tend to agree. But as regards the tone taken by people, I consider the source. Baptists called Kirkland and Homebrew evil for being gay well before either started calling them out for being bigoted.
I know. I was there.
Is married. Identifies as heterosexual. Has had charges filed, but the case hasn’t gone to court. Is he guilty merely by accusations?
Can’t find info on their sexuality.
Three cases, one of which is by a heterosexual and the other two of unknown sexuality hardly proves your point that allowing gay men to mentor boys is, and has been, a dangerous proposition over the last 25 years. I’d say it rather damns your case.
Homebrew:
You jump to conclusions rather quickly.
I am saying that allowing a gay man to mentor a postpubescent boy is as foolish as allowing a straight man to mentor a postpubescent girl.
Do you disagree with that concept?
(yes, I know men don’t mentor girls. I’m asking whether you disagree with the concept)
Polycarp:
I have no disagreement. I do however have little interest in who started it as an excuse to engage in the same kind of behavior.
I don’t.
That’s all I’m saying. It would seem logical to me that a gay man could be an effective and appropriate big brother for a prepubescent boy. If we take Rickjay’s cite to heart, than one could argue that a gay man would be better from the standpoint of limiting the possibility of molestation.
After puberty though, we have the same situation that we would have as with an adult male mentoring a teenage girl, and the same concerns. I don’t think that would be a good idea, and for the same reason I think it would be a bad idea for the gay man.
In both situations there is the potential for an added sexual element best avoided between them. It can lead to misunderstandings and problems when both parties have the best of intentions.
A weak mentor slipping and doing something he shouldn’t would be bad.
Just as bad would be the potential for a false accusation. That can hurt the BB and ruin a man’s life even if he did nothing wrong.
Now, I’m kind of torn as to what the best policy is.
If a gay man mentors a prebuscent boy, what do you do after that boy hits puberty? Do you replace the mentor with a nongay? Here we’ve had this positive relationship of trust and support built up, and we’re just going to cut it off and start over?
Do you let it continue?
If you do, isn’t it as potentially dangerous and irresponsible as sending teenage girls off with full grown men?
How do we resolve this dilemma?
Kirkland:
I don’t know if you’re still reading this, but I was perusing another thread, specifically where you’re talking about Catholicism.
I too am a Catholic.
I’m surprised that you have so much ire for fundamentalism, and people like Pat Roberts, but seemingly none for the Catholic Church, which, by no means can be considered to be progressive on the subject of gay rights.
I’m genuinely curious, so I was wondering if you could comment on this seeming discrepency for me.
Thanks.
Scylla, I can respect what you’re saying from a “don’t put temptation directly in somebody’s path” viewpoint.
However, I’m quite confident that most men and most women can be trusted in most situations not to succumb to temptation and molest even the most willing and attractive teen. (It is, of course, the exceptions that concern you.)
Taking that as a presumption, then, would it not make sense for you that a teenager coming out as gay might be appropriately matched with a gay adult man, who has “been there, done that” and can serve as an effective mentor and role model in what I gather is a most traumatic time for those kids?
I don’t think that anybody, gay or straight, has a right to be a BB/BS – I simply feel that sexual orientation, like a lot of other things, is not an adequate ground to reject a person from that role, but merely a guideline on where he or she might be most effective.
I am no longer Catholic, or Christian. I don’t know what I am anymore. I have been betrayed by the Catholic Church in the last year, with the way they handled the pedophile crisis (Blame the fags!). I haven’t set foot inside a Catholic Church in eight months, and don’t intend to ever do so again.
But I will not let someone lie about Catholicism. There are plenty of reasons to have problems with Catholicism. But I won’t let someone lie about it. I may hate the Church, but dammit, no one’s going to lie about her.
Kirk
**
And I would think that would go doubly for most Doctors, yet it is now the standard of practice that a male Doctor with a femal patient also have a female chaperone in the room.
**
I would think that it would go without saying that a Big Brother relationship like that has a lot to offer that kid.
I am just not sure that it is prudent. These are troubled kids. Risk goes both ways here. A false accusation is as potentially damaging as actual molestation. Plus, personally I think the potential for a sexual element between BB BS needs to be minimized as much as possible. It has a great potential to cloud the air, and get in the way of the mentoring.
It would be very natural in such a situation for the LB to have a crush on the BB. Positing a great BB who would never dream of mishandling the situation, that kid is going to get hurt, maybe have his heartbroken.
While the kind of mentoring you describe seems like a superlative idea, the best place might not be the BB BS program where by it’s very nature a fairly intimate one on one relationship is created, and maybe not one where they go off together and do things by themselves either.
I absolutely agree in principle. In practice I find it difficult to ensure a good experience for the kid, and safeguard the interests of all concerned.
I see no reason why opposite sex mentoring would not provide a good and positive experience for all concerned.
On the other hand, since BB is already using gay men and women, I hope that haven’t done this blindly from a PC standpoint, but are taking into account the different set of risks that face a gay man mentoring a boy, and vice versa.
Frankly, this one is too complex for me. I think it’s a shame that we live in a society where good Doctor’s need a chaperone.
I also think that the day a gay big brother is publically accused of molesting his charge, is going to be a very bad for gay rights and tolerance, and a very bad day for the BB program.
It’s been being done for 25 years, but it’s just PC pandering all along. :rolleyes:
Log Cabin Republicans. Log Cabin Republicans. Log Cabin Republicans.
Well, with the eventual concession of the only Republican that the Democratic platform on gay issues was superior to that of the Republican (which finally came for the first time in about the third page despite protestations that it had been repeatedly answered before), I think we can all conclude that the Democratic platform is better than Republicans for gay rights issues in general. But does that get to our original question on what the heck is going on with Log Cabin Republicans? I still think that they are a front (a beard if you will) of some gay people who happen to be Republican providing some political cover for the Republican party on gay issues when in fact they have almost zero influence on the internal workings of the party on gay issues. They appear to me to be Republican first in their politics, and gay much lower down on their political agenda.
Which is as it should be. The true goal of the progressive and the liberal is such that being gay should have no political connotations whatsoever, any more than being left handed. Race, gender, sexual orientation, all of these should be irrelevent in the eyes of the law, and ultimately, irrelevent to any ones political persuasions.
Comittment to achieving that goal is the whole point of being a Democrat, as the liberal party. As this goal has not been entirely achieved, those persons affected would do well to support the liberal cause. If change is central to your needs, you would be foolish to support the politics of stasis.
One area where the Republicans are more gay-friendly than Democrats is opposition to regimes that happen to be particularly homophobic. Bush is more strongly opposed than Democrats are to Yassar Arafat, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Islamofascism in general. No doubt it’s a coincidence, but these are some of the most homophobic regimes around.
Another area that should be of concern to gays, like everyone else, is national security. How many gay people died horribly on 9/11? No doubt they number in the dozens or hundreds. Even if gay people cared only about other gay people (which is obviously not so), the threat of another 9/11 exceeds the threat of another horrendous Matthew Shepard murder.
You can always count on december for comic relief.
The Log Cabin Republicans are the spiritual descendants of the Mattachine Society and close siblings with the modern “post-gay” crowd. They wear the good suits and hobnob with the moneyed set and think because they’re doing so well, all’s right in the world for gays.
But it’s rarely been the gay equivalent of the “house niggers” that have actually fueled change in the social structure. It wasn’t the Mattachine Society that kicked the gay rights movement into high gear. It was the defiant drag queens of the Stonewall. It wasn’t the Log Cabin Republicans who got AIDS national attention. It was the radical actions of ACT-UP and Queer Nation. It isn’t the “post-gay” jet-setters who are working for same-sex marriage, gay adoptions, and gay teen suicide reduction. It’s folks like matt mcl and andygirl.
Every generation has had (in very simplified terms) the gay folk who do something to improve gay life and gay acceptance, and the gay folk who prefer the status quo in which life is good for them and everyone else can scrabble for their own place. Guess which side the LCR comes down on?
I applaud JayJay’s post, just above. There’s a lesson in it for everybody reading this thread who has any sense of social justice.
I seem to recall The Advocate doing extended coverage of the gay men and women who lost their lives in the 9/11 tragedy. John McCain in particular paid tribute to the gay rugby player who was one of the three people who combatted the hijacking of Flight 93, and lost his life in the process – commenting that “if it weren’t for him, I would be dead right now” publicly at the funeral.
Meanwhile, the right wing, led by the pseudochristian demogogues, was insisting that it would be “condoning a sinful lifestyle” to award to their heirs (generally their life partners and adopted children) the same benefits that the country voted as a matter of course to the families of other victims and heroes killed on 9/11. In particular, I recall reading with anger that the female life partner of a woman killed at the Pentagon was in the process of being evicted because she could not afford the rent from her own income alone without what her deceased spouse had contributed or some funding to replace that contribution.
December and others, would you care to define exactly where (a) the Republican Party, (b) its leader our President, and © the Log Cabin Republicans played in the legislation related to those benefits and who received and did not receive them?
Thank you, Poly. Although, on reflection, I kind of regret using the phrase “house niggers”. There’s more emotional baggage in that than is needed to make my point.