Sin and Taking Offense

My girl La Shawn is catching a lot of flak for offering her blunt, unadorned thoughts, not an unusual thing for her--neither the blunt, unadorned thoughts nor the flak.

While commenting on the appearance and demeanor of John Karr, the man who made a (dubious) confession to the ten-year-old, unsolved and infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey, La Shawn observed that Karr seemed more like a “homosexual pedophile” rather than a heterosexual one. This is probably due to Karr’s less-than traditionally masculine way of presenting himself—something that most people, if they’re honest, will admit is common among some male homosexuals (with the reverse being true for some lesbians).

So now, some homosexuals are saying that La Shawn made a slur against homosexuals, that she asserted that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Did she say that? Let’s check it out. If La Shawn thought that all homosexuals were pedophiles, then why would she have bothered to use the word ‘pedophile?’ After all, a person who thought that all homosexuals leaned that way would have assumed that ‘pedophile’ automatically fell under the larger umbrella of ‘homosexual,' which would have made the phrase ‘homosexual pedophile’ redundant. (And a careful writer like La Shawn would not have made that mistake.) Are some people looking to find offense in La Shawn's words? Yes, but finding offense when none is offered isn't a trait exclusive to homosexuals.

The only way that I think La Shawn may have erred is in her reading of Karr’s demeanor: he seems less-than-masculine, yes, but IMO that absence leans more to a child-like characteristic rather than to a female one—not out of the realm of possibility for an obvious pedophile. (Twice-divorced Karr married his first wife when she was twelve—think about those parents—and his second when she was sixteen. Sounds like they became too old for him.)

The absence of adult behavior in a grown man can reasonably be mistaken for femininity by an observer, more so than the same dearth in a woman. Think about it. However, if La Shawn made that mistake, it’s simply an observational one and not a prejudicial one.

Because both La Shawn and I are conservative Christians, people have asked me what I think about her words and, additionally, what I think of homosexual practices. Point blank: sin--but no more of a sin than any of the others: infidelity, sex outside of male-female marriage, theft, lying and on and on. As a matter of fact, homosexual practices have caused no more personal and/or societal problems than any of the others except for one and I’d venture to say that that particular one is the seed of virtually all of the others: pride.

*****

As for the JonBenet Ramsey murder, I didn’t follow it when it was all the rage among the prominent news agencies of the time. However, I can only feel the same thing that I’ve felt since the case came upon our collective consciousness and that’s great sadness for that family. Think of it. A six-year-old, raped and murdered; her mother dies ten years later of a disease that, from my unlearned opinion, is caused by extreme emotional stress. (My mother is an ovarian-cancer survivor—three years—with zero familial history. And, yes, she had been subject to much stress, though, thank God, far less than Mrs. Ramsey.) And, years before the murder of JonBenet, the Ramseys lost their oldest daughter, Beth, 22, in a car accident.

Maybe there were some problems in the Ramsey family. Maybe not. But if there were a way to pay for one’s sins here on Earth, I’d say that that family has anted up in most devastating ways. It would be nice if no one else had to go through so many untimely deaths. But we all know better, don't we?

Comments

[syn]

I beginning to agree with Camille Paglia "I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists."

Gays are trying to insist upon both nature and human commonsense that their same-sex behavior is normal. What gays fail to accept is that the primary purpose of the sex organs are to reproduce therefore same-sex behavior is not normal to nature.

It is this insistance towards normalizing an abnormal behavior which bothers me, not the actual act of same-sex behavior itself.

This is why I understand the point made by Ms. Paglia, that gay activism is simply anarchy against the normal; which is exactly what same-sex activity is.

THe gay activist will alway use black's right to equality but they fail to see that being born black is not a behavior whereas, being gay is.

Interesting that gay activists always target Christians for their belief towards homosexuality but never a word about Buddhists (Dalai Lama has stated that homosexuality is not the normal) or Muslims (they hang'em high in the public square) or secularists like Ms. Paglia.

Why do gay activists always target Christians?

[Zendo Deb]

So lets see if I have this right..

"Some" gays act/look/whatever in a certain way, and some straights do to - so it is a gay trait.

"Some" Lesbians .... so it is a lesbian trait.

I see, evil is gay, good is straight. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Reread YOUR sentences about and substitute black/white for gay/straight and tell me again how reasonable it is to use stereotypes on whole group of people.

[syn]

The fallacy in your response Zendo Deb is that neither white or black are behaviors but are defined genetically by race.

Gay/Lesbians however, are inherently defined by their behavior which is the propensity for same-sex activity.

There is no need to impose irrational emotional blackmail (ie gay is evil, good is straight) into the debate when rational response such as gay is unnatural, straight is natural will suffice.

[DagneyT]

La Shawn may have read this nutball correctly...the latest reports suggest he was there for a sex change operation.

A nut job is a nut job is a nut job!

[baldilocks]

How about that?