shocking

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48 am

Gene Stone: The Right Is Killing Us Gene Stone
Thu Jul 14, 4:28 PM ET

Earlier in the week, a 21 year-old Tampa man went on trial for murdering his 3-year old son. Apparently the father, Ronnie Paris Jr., pummeled his boy to death because he thought the boy might be gay.

According to charges, Paris decided that the way to cope with this fear was to box with the child, slapping him until the boy either cried or wet himself. Once Paris threw his son against the wall.

Eventually, the boy lapsed into a coma and was rushed to a hospital. Six days later he was removed from life support and died.

Here you have a father so afraid that his son might be gay that he’s willing to beat the crap out of him, as though that somehow might make the child straight. There’s no point arguing with the strategy, or even the thinking (or the lack thereof). Outside of the fact that an innocent child has died for no reason, what’s most frightening is the idea that a father would feel it necessary to take such extraordinary steps to prevent his son from being gay.

And where do you think that he might pick up that message?

The right wing has long vilified gays. Gays are perverts, gays are sick, gays are the scourge of society. For the most part, being gay in American means that you spend a great deal of time listening to half the country assert how repellent you are.

Straight people -- even gay-tolerant ones -- often ask, why is there so much self-hatred in the gay community, as though being the constant brunt of bigotry and hatred doesn’t take a constant and unmitigating toll. Even some of the most mature and well-adjusted gays have moments of self-doubt when faced with pictures of thousands of protestors claiming that God Hates Fags.

But such misinformation takes another toll. The right wing’s relentless propaganda machine has a pernicious effect throughout society. Not only does it remind gays how much they’re hated by a segment of the population, it helps convince parents who don’t know much about homosexuality that it’s evil, a perversion, something that no family could possible want in its midst. When people are exposed only to the hateful bigotry of the right, what’s the result? When taken to the extreme, infanticide -- as the Tampa case reveals.

Is this really what the right wing wants? A war against homosexuality in which innocent children are slaughtered in the name of righteousness?

Sometimes, it seems that, yes indeed, this is exactly what the right wing hopes for. Because where else can such anger, hatred, and intolerance lead?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:21 am

Once again, the radical left isolates 1 case and tries to convince us that this type of anti-gay behavior is RAMPANT in America...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:59 am

The article certainly does use a dramatic story to makes it's point about homophobia in America, and I'm not sure if there is a causal relationship between this particular case and any religious or political leanings of the father -- it's impossible to tell without more info.

As to her larger point, though, there certainly is a lot of homophobia in this country, and the spokepeople of right-wing politics and conservative religious groups are definitely promoting that twisted ideology, which is sad.

I'm not sure if one has to be all that "radical" on the left to be upset with people preaching hate and intolerance. I guess if it makes people who might consider themselves to be on the right, but yet don't accept homophobic ideals, to question the attitudes and words of other people also on the right and either change the very essence of that movement towards something less homophobic, or cease to align themselves with that movement as a blanket statement, then the article will have a positive impact. If the tone of the article just makes people on the right defensive and even more resistant to change and tolerance, then it backfired.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:15 pm

Tolerance, schmolerance...

I've always been curious as to why the gays DEMAND that I tolerate their views on homosexuality when that is precisely what they WON'T do regarding MY view of the subject...

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:05 pm

El_Gato wrote:Tolerance, schmolerance...

I've always been curious as to why the gays DEMAND that I tolerate their views on homosexuality when that is precisely what they WON'T do regarding MY view of the subject...

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I think you've just spoken to the crux of the problem. Gay rights have nothing to do with you agreeing with anybody on any issue that's subject to debate. It's just about treating people equally in the eyes of the law (and, of course, not killing babies that one might fear are gay). Not hating people based on the way they were born is a nice thing as well (if it isn't asking too much in the way of humanitarian tolerance), but that isn't what gays are DEMANDing. They are simply demanding equal (not special) rights in the eyes of the law.

I'm not sure what views you have on homosexuality that would be relevant to somebody else's rights to exist as equals in this country, just as our opinions on people of other races have no bearing on their rights to exist as equals in this country. If that rationale isn't widely accepted, then I guess things are much worse than I thought.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:07 pm

This article speaks of infaticide. But the leftists generally support a form of infaticide called abortion, do they not? This type of infaticide is MUCH more prevalent than some wacko beating his child to death. Hell, it is commonly practiced. Sounds like more left wing PROPAGANDA to me...

EDIT:
Sorry for the off topic post - just wanted to get people thinking.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:31 am

That's actually a very interesting and compelling point. I guess it all comes down to the point at which one determines that a human being exists. I'm sure everybody agrees that throwing a fully developed baby against a wall is criminal, but whether that legality applies to an undeveloped fetus is the billion dollar question.

I do find it interesting that this writer is described as being left-wing for simply pointing out the obvious homophobia promoted by some in our society. Has anybody read enough other articles by this same writer to really know where they are on the political spectrum? One certainly doesn't have to fall very far away from the far right to be scared and disturbed by things that are said by some of the leaders on the right with regards to homosexuality. Or is anybody who isn't in full agreement with the far right automatically deemed to be far left (a variation of the "either you are with us or you are against us" black and white model of thinking)? I've noticed that particular test being applied lately in some venues, which generally amuses me.

Keep in mind, even many Republicans are very disturbed by things said and done by the right wing. Fortunately, there are a lot of moderates in the party, and I hope that they will soon be able to take control of the party once again soon and restore the virtues of personal freedom, equality and fiscal responsibility that used to be what the party was about.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:25 am

Hey Bay,

I'm having trouble finding the section of the Constitution that grants special rights/privileges ONLY to heterosexuals; could you direct me to that section, please?

BTW, in our country, our governmental representatives generally enact laws that they feel the MAJORITY of their constituents agree with. In numerous polls & elections, A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LEGALLY RECOGNIZE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER.

Can the gay community continue to try & change this through peaceful, LEGAL means? Absolutely; but they should quit wasting their time trying to tell me I'm intolerant. I'm just as entitled to my view that it's wrong as they are to their view that it's not.

Addendum: I'm tired of the argument that gays are "born" that way. Fine, for the sake of this argument, I'll grant you that their "wiring" does attract them to members of their own gender, but they CHOOSE to act on it. It's their own conscious actions that make them gay. How else can you explain a person I know who dated women when he was younger, married a woman, had sex with her, had 3 kids with her, and THEN proclaimed that he was gay?

When I was married, I was attracted to many women. My "wiring" wanted me to have sex with them; I didn't act on those instincts (even though I would've liked to) because I felt it would be wrong and it didn't jibe with my moral foundations. Shouldn't I be called intolerant for that viewpoint? Shouldn't my wife have just accepted that I was born wanting to have sex with attractive women and tolerate it if I did? Our SOCIETY (due most likely to religious foundations, I suppose) has decided that extra-marital affairs are not acceptable. Why then, is homosexuality any different?

Again, if the gays want to continue to offer their propaganda that homosexuality is OK, let them. Wanting gay marriages to be legal is fine but DEMANDING it is not because it's very simple and obvious: MOST FOLKS DON'T AGREE WITH IT. If they change my opinion over time, fine, but if they can't or don't, they need to shut up and accept it. Unless/until they convince the majority of us to change our minds, the gays need to learn to be a little more tolerant themselves because there are obviously far more of us than them.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:59 am

Again, if the gays want to continue to offer their propaganda that homosexuality is OK, let them. Wanting gay marriages to be legal is fine but DEMANDING it is not because it's very simple and obvious: MOST FOLKS DON'T AGREE WITH IT. If they change my opinion over time, fine, but if they can't or don't, they need to shut up and accept it. Unless/until they convince the majority of us to change our minds, the gays need to learn to be a little more tolerant themselves because there are obviously far more of us than them.

scary I'm leaning towards agreement ONLY on the marriage issue. i think it should still be only between men and women, civil unions don't offend me for the gay population, but marriage does. I don't agree with how he puts it into words, but just the feeling that I too don't agree with homosexual marriages.

-rebecca

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:10 am

EG: You're right -- nowhere in the constitution does it mention any distinction between gay and straight. Very important point.

Interracial marriage was not too long ago something that a majority of Americans voted against. Slavery also held popular support for much of our history. Imoral and unjust opinions held by the majority, especially ones that are in contrast to the ideals of our constitution (that is big on equality, as you noted), are not necessarily good laws. In time, that becomes obvious.

As to your confusion regarding the whole gay thing, and your questions about how people could not come out until later in their lives, you simply need to expose yourself to a more diverse group of people, including gay people. Once you get to know these people with different wiring and backgrounds, all of the silly stereotypes and misconceptions and alien perspectives and irrational fear/hate/damnation fall away and you just see them as regular, normal people ... and maybe even as good friends. Once you get to that point, it becomes impossible to ever again understand why or how other people can justify looking down on them as poeple or even trying to justify unequal treatment or limiting their happiness because of one little piece of who they are that isn't the same as the majority of other people. It's like scorning left-handed people for wanting left-handed tools and instead saying they can just use right-handed tools. It's just silly.

And yes, I felt this same way when I lived in Montana -- I had gay friends there, too. I'm not just saying this due to any kind of SF brainwashing.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:20 am

Of course, the larger issue here, and the one the article addressed, isn't necessarily the legal aspects of homophobia in America (although that is where the rhetoric is the most obvious), but in the general climate towards gays that is promoted by many in the right wing, and the impact that has on the treatment of gays (such as the alleged gay baby) by people in this country.

As long as people preach that there is something wrong with homosexuals and that they are bad people (and spare me the "hate the sin, love the sinner" BS, as that is just a catch-phrase thrown out to try to distract people from the fact that they are not "doing unto others"), then we as a country will continue to have a group of people that are scorned by much of society for no good reason at all ... just like every other minority has been through our history. That's simply not a good thing, and one that, in time, we will eventually outgrow.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:22 am

The guy beat his three-year old son to death, because he somehow thinks the boy is gay and someone gets in a huff and in the same breath changes the subject to how they are against gay marriage? How does that happen?

What a horrific and heartbreakingly sad story and how disgusting it is that someone would desecrate his memory this way.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:43 am

iaa,

Lighten up, man. WHAT MEMORY did I desecrate? You have memories of this child? If so, I'm sorry I offended you.

This is a board for discussions and the posts ALWAYS lead away from the initial topic, in case you haven't noticed.

I'm pretty sure we all agree that this is a disgusting, ISOLATED story about some obviously sick person murdering a child. I'm pretty sure we all feel horribly about it and have empathy for the child and the remaining family.

If that's all this board was about, however, there'd be no one here.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:53 am

briannell wrote:
Again, if the gays want to continue to offer their propaganda that homosexuality is OK, let them. Wanting gay marriages to be legal is fine but DEMANDING it is not because it's very simple and obvious: MOST FOLKS DON'T AGREE WITH IT. If they change my opinion over time, fine, but if they can't or don't, they need to shut up and accept it. Unless/until they convince the majority of us to change our minds, the gays need to learn to be a little more tolerant themselves because there are obviously far more of us than them.
scary I'm leaning towards agreement ONLY on the marriage issue. i think it should still be only between men and women, civil unions don't offend me for the gay population, but marriage does. I don't agree with how he puts it into words, but just the feeling that I too don't agree with homosexual marriages.

-rebecca

I personally think the marriage thing is just a semantics issue -- I think civil unions that grants equal rights should be the norm (and that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, as that should be a religious or personal designation). So I am personally somewhat agnostic as to whether marriage should be one man and one woman. It seems to proactively suggest an inferiority of gays, but at the same time, as long as they are granted the legal rights they should have, that should be good.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:05 pm

BAC - I too have gay friends, and they agree that a civil union is fine, because they will get benefits, and it's okay to leave us bible thumpers to "tradtional" marriage. i just feel more comfortable with that, and I can accept the point that they want their relationships recognized as well. we've agreed to just not tread on each other this way. and i find my gay male friend a great resource, and a hoot. I think every woman needs one, just because they give us great insight into the male psyche, and we don't have to worry about having sex with them.

although, i admit I'm somewhat phobic of lesbians, they like me too much. or at least the joke in my family is that i'm a magnet for them, i think it's because in my career field of exercise wellness(when I DID work for cash) there are large amounts of them. I just didn't know where the boundaries were and that's what made me uncomfortable.

-rebecca

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:08 pm

Bay,

I hope you weren't SPECIFICALLY accusing me of mistreating any gay person because you'd be dead wrong (and I'm pretty sure you weren't). The person I'm referring to is a cousin of mine so I am very much aware that he is "just a regular, normal person". Just because I don't agree with his "choices" regarding his sexuality doesn't mean I arbitrarily look down on him or that I think I have the right to mistreat him & I'm pretty sure most folks who feel homosexuality is wrong would mirror my feelings. I have no problem extending them the same legal protections AS INDIVIDUALS and all the other societal courtesies we all enjoy; I just would prefer that they not participate in nor openly promote their sexual lifestyle.

When my kids get older, I don't want them to live with someone they're not married to because, in my book, it's wrong to do so. That doesn't mean I'll mistreat them or look down on them. As far as your "spare me the hate the sin but love the sinner" remark goes, we ALL do that everyday. I'm pretty sure everyone in our lives does things we feel they shouldn't but we love them anyway despite wishing that they'd "change their ways". If one of my kids told me they were gay, I know I'd still love them but wish they weren't.

Someday, maybe my views will be the minority and the gay lifestyle will "blend into" society as easily as heterosexuality does now. And who knows? Maybe pedophilia will as well. But please stop trying to politely implicate slavery with this issue. You are right; slavery is morally reprehensible. We fought a war to end slavery; I can't see this issue EVER rising to that level. The thing is, slavery existed for a century or so in the U.S. before it was eliminated; the idea that heterosexuality is "right" and homosexuality "wrong" has been pervasive in the human psyche for THOUSANDS of years. Given that, I believe the gays have a long way to go before it becomes mainstream...

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:12 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:...I think civil unions that grants equal rights should be the norm (and that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, as that should be a religious or personal designation)...

TOTALLY AGREE with you here, BAC. The Constitution grants (and the government is charged with protecting) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not "married-people" rights, or "living together" rights, or "just dating" rights.

There is really NO reason for governments to recognize any form of relational bond between two people that I can think of.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:41 pm

[quote]"If one of my kids told me they were gay, I know I'd still love them but wish they weren't. "[/quote]

You get to the core of the matter with that comment. Many gays 'wish' they weren't gay for a variety of reasons. One of the big reasons is because their parents 'wish' they weren't gay. This kind of thinking is a big reason that this is an issue at all. So now I'm 'wishing' your kids don't turn out to be gay, because you can't handle it. And if you can't handle, they likely won't be able to either.

The main thing is that this gay issue shouldn't be an issue.

OZCAT · Post by **OZCAT** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:44 pm

People make decisions based on a lot of factors...education (or lack of), social status, ethnic background, political affiliation, religion, state of mind, and other cultural factors. To say that some "propaganda manchine"( right, left or othwerwise) is responsible for someones reprehensible action is jumping to a big conclusion.

I am a christian and a republican. I have never been taught in any church that Gays are bad. I have learned that God hates sin and that all have sinned and fall short...even christians (big surprise). What we are taught is to love as Christ loved us...thus we are to show love to Gays (tolerance?). But we do not condone their lifestyle because it is sin. Have you ever been in that kind of situation in your life? It is difficult to put aside your feelings about someone who lives their life counter to what you believe and show them love.. but that is what most churches (those that grounded in the Bibles teaching and not mans teachings) preach from the pulpit. Of course not all who claim to be christians show that love and you are sure to read about it in the news paper when they don't.

As a republican I have not been taught "hateful bigotry" but I sure have read about and witnessed it throughout the worlds history. I don't form my beliefs based on a political parties beliefs. Who I am comes from all that I mentioned above. I vote my conscience and I don't support everything any President of this country spews forth and I would hope the same for all citizens of this world.

This news story is very disturbing and this father must have more problems than we could understand just by reading this article. It seems that it has become many Americans favorite pastime to point the finger and lay the blame at someone elses feet. Sometimes we all must take full responsibility for our actions. Maybe we should all pray for this family and this father.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:45 pm

iaafan wrote:Many gays 'wish' they weren't gay for a variety of reasons.

What do you think constitutes many? 50%, 75%, 25%, 10%????? My guess is very few gays wish they weren't. If it is so okay and normal what would make you not want to be so bad? If it is truly what you are then others views should be something you can deal with.