LaBarbera's Deviant Behavior
Today, the Illinois Family Institute defends Robert J. Smith, who was fired from his post on the D.C. Metro Board for refering to gay Americans as "persons of sexual deviancy." The IFI webpost goes on to argue that the word "deviant" merely means "differing from the norm or from the accepted standard of society."
Nothing pejorative about "deviant," eh? Fine.
Let's add these folks to the list of "deviants":
-Anyone who stands along a parade route with a bullhorn, chastising paraders while quoting the Bible. Definitely not a behavior your average American engages in.
-Anyone who moves from Maryland to Illinois to run for the U.S. Senate.
-Anyone who flies over stadiums in helicopters alluding to rounding up immigrants, or spends millions of dollars on losing statewide races more than once.
-Anyone who calls themselves a social conservative but takes their wife to a sex club.
-Left-handed people like Pat Robertson.
-Smokers.
16 comments:
What's your point?
Thanks for the link to the feature on Pat Robertson. The poor fellow must have had a really lousy civics teacher when he was in school. I can't see how he would have a chance of passing a constitution exam these days, given those examples of his ignorance of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
My point Bill is I don't know why some people enjoy spending so much time talking about one particular deviant behavior and ignoring the hypocrisy of their own deviancy.
And, as an aside, I'm surprised there isn't more outrage about the GOP's constant catering to Pat Robertson's left-handed agenda, which leads back all the way to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, himself a closeted left-hander.
Can we add to your list any president who puts the moves on a woman in the Oval Office days after her husbands death? That'd be good.
How about a US Senator who kills a woman by driving off a bridge, then leaving her there to die? That'd be good too.
How about adding Dick Durbin, John McCain, Obama, Lott and Frist...just for the heck of it.
I think Smith meant immoral or just wrong; instead of deviant.
He got fired for explaining his sexual ethics. Whether that was appropriate or not, I don't know. I'm not familiar with his story.
Having lived through a sexual revolution meant to liberate, I don't think having a sexual ethic, or being concerned about ethics, all that bad a thing.
Anonymous 10:47, let's add any Senator who kills cats and lies about it (Bill Frist)...
And how about Senators who seem to get faashion advice from Queer Eye Fashion Diva Carson Kressley (that'd be Rick Santorum)...
Maybe we could add Congressmen who have affairs and then work to impeach a president for the same thing (Henry Hyde)...
All forms of clearly deviant behavior as IFI defines it.
Lovie, it's all about hypocrisy. The right is full of it (...in more ways than one I s'pose).
The right acknowledges a sexual ethic and will argue the degree to which Government should enforce and encourage ethical sexuality; and what should be left to Churches, Schools, and Families. They don't agree among themselves because it's tough issue.
The left ridicules a sexual ethic and calls those who have one hypocrites e.g. Tipper Gore, and Dan Quayle. The left simply doesn't take the notion of a sexual ethic seriously.
Read Dennis Byrne's column about Dan Quayle and what he was saying over a decade ago. Liberals dumped on Moynihan and it's been down hill for them since... they're left telling people their hypocrites (and who isn't?)
Remember though a hypocrite knows right and wrong; moral and immoral by definition: they know the truth yet fail.
For me though today, many Liberals are raising real doubts if they know of sexual ethics when they toss this hypocrite charge at others; if they can tell the differences or even much care. They seem to have no limits or boundaries. Their sexual ethic is not clear and who they expect to teach and transmit it --and when needed police-- left unsaid.
They just fire people who talk about it as in the case of this fellow from out east.
I don't like fags, so I don't like that closeted LaButtpirate.
I don't like Bill, so I don't like closeted LaButtpirate.
I had a professor in graduate school who referred to gays ("homosexuals") as "abnormal" in class. Since he also taught a stat course, I asked him how seven to ten percent of anything could be abnormal. He explained that he didn't mean statisically abnormal, but he didn't explain what he did mean.
Larry,
The people of Illinois will not allow first cousins below age 51 to marry. (Sex over age 51 is ok between first cousins since Illinois assumes no children will result.)
We do not allow sex with minors.
We do not allow polygamy.
It's all a consensus among the people of Illinois about sexual ethics and we let the police enforce it.
I think people use words like abnormal and deviant to medicalize what is in fact chosen actions.
But it sounds kinder to say abnormal instead of immoral.
It doesn't sound a hell of a lot kinder to me.
Bill-
We do not allow closely related people to marry due to genetics (public health).
We do not allow sex with minors due to inability to make binding adult choices (criminal law/contract law).
We do not allow polygamy due to social welfare concerns (case in point the sect in Southern Utah/Northern Arizona).
First cousins after the age of fertility can have all the sex they want.
It is not illegal for two minors to have consensual sex (correct me here.)
It is not illegal for one man to have sex with multiple partners or the reverse.
Your examples are not a case of 'sexual ethics'. They are cases that are based on other reasons even if there is a sexual component.
Gish,
I suppose we could get into a debate over semantics...
The State of Illinois considers all three examples wrong.
Figuring out what's right and wrong is ethics to me.
Figuring out right and wrong in marriage is part of sexual ethics for me... many will argue sex without marriage is wrong... that two go together and marriage is supposed to govern sexual relations.
The original point was the fellow who lost his job was talking about ethics, about morality, and the euphemism he used was a physchological / medical one of deviancy and abnormality.
That's because we've fallen out of the habit of talking in simple terms about what's right and wrong in life.
Not that we all have to agree... we can't...
But once we figure out the ethics and morality, the next question is what should Illinois do about it... I'd offer up HHH's Liberal's mantra as a test...
It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
I can argue a case for same sex marriage based on the care of those at the shadows of life: a partner helps.
I could argue against abortion based on care at the dawn of life: something seriously wrong with an America that so freely aborts life.
I firmly believe families are the key when we apply HHH's criteria to society instead of government, so I'm sure not about to call anyone who focuses on family bigots for doing so.. Families just way to fundamental to our passing this test.
you can be against homo marriage and still think that labarbera is an immoral idiot i read that he was a conservative pornographer with a dirty website that kids can access he makes no steps to keep them out and thinks its good when lots visit it he does nasty things himself and thinks good will come of it what a loser
Post a Comment