Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? ‘In That Case Just Shut Your Mouth’

Posted on | December 7, 2013 | 433 Comments

A columnist for the Huffington Post site says it is homophobic to criticize gay men who use Internet sex sites to meet teenage partners and only “bigots” are offended by such “nurturing intergenerational bonds.”
Publicity about a relationship between 39-year-old Hollywood screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and 19-year-old British diving champion Tom Daley has inspired criticism even from some gay rights activists.
Joshua Epstein, a blogger who identifies himself as a gay progressive Democrat, reacted to the Black-Daley affair on Twitter: “He could be his father. Yuk.” That reaction was condemned by Huffington Post columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said only “internalized homophobia” could cause gays to criticize such relationships.
“There is an undercurrent in these comments — the ‘chicken hawk’ charge — that suggests that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse underage teens, the ugliest lie about gay men out there,” Signorile wrote Friday in Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” section. “Hardcore homophobes are predictably pointing to Black and Daley as supposed proof. But many gay men too, so defensive about the charge and deathly fearful of how it’s used, overcompensate by saying ‘yuk.'”
Signorile specifically defended sites that promote “intergenerational” gay sex. “Some younger people are attracted to older people, and vice versa,” he wrote. “There’s even a gay website called Daddyhunt. The famed novelist Armistead Maupin’s 27-years-younger husband, Christopher Turner, founded it. The met on another one of Turner’s sites, HotOlderMale.com. If that’s not your thing, it’s totally cool, but in that case just shut your mouth.” . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.

Category: Gays, Sex

Comments

433 Responses to “Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? ‘In That Case Just Shut Your Mouth’”

Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:36 am

No, this means I have a healthy psychology regarding sexuality, I don’t sexualize people of the same sex. Portetx has too many psychological problems with women to establish an intimate relationship with them. He’s too warped to experience his heterosexuality. If he should resolve his profound psychological problems with women, he would be heterosexual just like I am.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:36 am

Okay, I guess I’m going to have to point out the obvious.

If a behavior can be seen “in the wild” among more than one species, the chances are there is a biological cause. It may be the environment exposure. It may be genetics. The one thing it can’t be is psychological.

You may find it personally repugnant and you may call it perverted, but that is your opinion and not science.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:39 am

And you haven’t noticed that incest and cannibalism can be see “in the wild”? So are you now going to argue that sexual abuse of one’s kids is determined by genes?

Some day you may realize that what is normal for one species is completely deformed and unhealthy for another. I guess we have to point out the obvious to you!
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:43 am

Every 39 yr old who isn’t out to treat a 19 yr old as a discardable piece of meat and wanted a relationship based on healthy social conservative values.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:45 am

Ah, you don’t get to sidetrack the argument that easily.

My point was that you can’t use Science to denounce homosexuality absolutely because it doesn’t. Some people like yourself keep yelling that it does, but that isn’t science and should not be treated as such.

As I told you before, most of your arguments read remarkably like the ones against interracial marriage in the first half of the 20th Century.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:53 am

Of course, I can. If they both have normal maturity levels for their chronological ages, it means the 39 yr old is relating to someone that could be his daughter. With such an immense gap, there could be plenty of ways in which the older person would just be domineering and paternalistic to the younger one. Or just exploiting the younger for sex, to escape being an adult, or for status, for all kinds of psychological defiencies they might have. And they could be violent too. Many people who are violent have their own twisted ways of simultaneously “being in love ” with their partner. It’s a sick kind of love. Just like homosexual love. The younger one could really be much more in need of a parent than a mate, etc.
trangbang68
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:54 am

It’s not fixed and innate just because you say it is. There is absolutely no scientific proof of the alleged “gay gene”
trangbang68
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:57 am

you spelled boring wrong. You’re a boring, lying little self important twit.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:58 am

My point was that you can’t use Science to denounce homosexuality absolutely because it doesn’t.

=============

It might be news to you but this sentence doesn’t make sense in English.

“As I told you before, most of your arguments read remarkably like the
ones against interracial marriage in the first half of the 20th Century.”

Really? Because people claimed that having black skin was a result of psychological, sociological/cultural, and ideological factors?

Who knew! It seems like your arguments trying to make a psychological problem like homosexuality be “caused by genes” is the one that has never had any scientific evidence. On the contrary, all the scientific evidence that exists proves that the factors causing a homosexuality, a pedophilia, or a bestiality problem are all related to experience and psychological development after one is born.
concern00
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:12 am

Well this topic certainly touched a nerve. The pederast sympathizers are out in force and the agenda is (predictably) crossing that ugly line into the recruitment of youth…just as all us haters predicted many years ago.
Joe Dokes
December 9th, 2013 @ 6:22 am

The only advice the circumcision apostles (Peter, James, John) had for the Gentile converts to whom Paul ministered was that they “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” These are references, not exclusively but primarily, to the pagan temple worship these people had turned from when they came to Christ – rituals which involved each of these elements, including taking the power of the “god” (demon) into oneself in the meat one had sacrificed to a given idol, and fornicating with a temple whore as an act of worship. But again, even here the Jerusalem apostles’ context was not marriage.

Paul later expressly says by revelation of Christ that believers today are counted by God as DEAD to the Law as a means of righteousness. The Law was perfect for what God designed it to do: convict of sin and point out the need for a Savior. But it was and is powerless to make one righteous before Him…that was never its purpose. Only Christ can do that for a sinner, and then only by faith in His death and resurrection from the dead on his or her behalf, for his or her sin.
Quartermaster
December 9th, 2013 @ 6:53 am

About like Charlie Sheen.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 7:01 am

It might be news to you but this sentence doesn’t make sense in English.

Of course it does. I’ll help you break it down. “You can’t use Science (note the capital letter denoting AUTHORITY) to denounce homosexuality absolutely because it (meaning science) doesn’t (meaning does not denounce homosexuality).” See? That wasn’t so hard. Let me know if I can help with any more.

Because people claimed that having black skin was a result of psychological, sociological/cultural, and ideological factors?

Yep. Going right back to the “Mark of Cain.” The eugenics proponents dressed it up in pseudo-science (sound familiar?), but they still argued that certain classes of people could never be allowed a full role in society. And of course those classes should be watched carefully because they were depraved and had criminal tendencies (this should really ring a bell). Drug prohibition and gun control were tied into it in the name of the greater good.

All in all, not America’s finest moment.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 7:15 am

You’re still stuck with the problem I pointed out. There is no coherent meaning in the sentence “science doesn’t denounce homosexuality.” Try again.

==================

“Because people claimed that having black skin was a result of psychological, sociological/cultural, and ideological factors?”

Neo says: “Yep.”

No, the exact opposite! Nice trolling. What the eugenics people claimed is that people were genetically determined to engage in anti-social behavior – they completely disregarded psychology, sociology, culture, and ideology. And that’s I have pointed out again and again the similarity between the old eugenics folks and modern liberals trying to claim that homosexuality is genetic. Both groups entirely dismiss psychology and sociology and culture to explain why humans think, feel, and behave in many ways – which is ridiculous on its face.

Every race-based ideology is also analogous to the modern liberal concept of biology determining homosexuality. Liberals apply to sexuality the equivalent ideology of white racists claiming that the behavior of black people was genetically determined.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 7:44 am

Because science doesn’t denounce things. Science doesn’t work like that.

You’re confusing two points that I’ve made. First, that there is probably a biological basis for homosexuality. Notice how I said probably? That’s how science works. You can make conclusions, but those conclusions may change when more data is included or experiments show new directions.

Second, that your language and attitudes against homosexuals is similar to that taken against interracial marriage in the first half of 20th Century America.

In this case I can infer and work backwards. Given that your language, attitudes and objectives are similar, what conclusions should I draw?
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:01 am

Neo,

What I was pointing out is that it’s not clear what you mean by “denounce” in your sentence. Using the verb “denounce” together with “science” doesn’t make any sense in the same sentence. You still haven’t clarified what it is that you were trying to say by “denounce.”

==============

“Second, that your language and attitudes against homosexuals is similar to that taken against interracial marriage in the first half of 20th Century America.”

I don’t know what you are referring to. If you look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

you will see that these laws were first based on servitude conditions, and later on race (a clear genetically based concept). This has nothing to do with how I explain homosexuality (a profound psychological dysfunction).

Race has never been thought to be something that is the product of psychology. It is always grounded on genetics/biology. And that is the basis for your mistaken views on “born this way” homosexuality.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:07 am

Part 1 What I was pointing out is that it’s not clear what you mean by “denounce” in your sentence. Using the verb “denounce” together with “science” doesn’t make any sense in the same sentence. You still haven’t clarified what it is that you were trying to say by “denounce.”

Simplest terms. You can’t use science to condemn what you don’t like.

The word denounce works in this context because you were using “science” to justify your words, thereby invoking Science as a higher authority.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:09 am

Part 2 Race has never been thought to be something that is the product of psychology. It is always grounded on genetics/biology. And that is the basis for your mistaken views on “born this way” homosexuality.

Race is an artificial construct and has always been a product of politics and control.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:12 am

You can’t use science to condemn what you don’t like.

============
Again, this makes no sense. Science, the study of empirical reality, and all it’s problems, can certainly be an instrument that explains problems in people and in the world, their causes, solutions, etc.
In that sense, science is very much used to condemn or to promote a long list of ideas, attitudes, and actions. Otherwise, there would be little point to science.
And science can be authoritative as well, especially is compared to lunatic suppositions that have no bearing on reality.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:20 am

It depends on what you mean by “race.” We do have different races within the human race, and that has always been genetically determined. You don’t get to have black skin by simply fantasizing about it. It is a biological trait. What is an artificial construct are certain ideological views about the different racial groups.

Your views on homosexuality are all an artificial construct, in case you haven’t noticed. Moreover, your views on homosexuality falsely state that homosexuality has a genetic basis – just like racists and eugenics folks said that poor people or black people would behave differently from whites/gentrified whites because of their genetic make-up.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:20 am

You’re mistaken.

It’s not science that condemns, it’s people.

Science is a set of tools, but it is not a moral or ethical judge.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:27 am

You are mistaken. Because science often contains views, concepts, and proposals containing various components of morality and dominant ideological paradigms. So, the science produced by Nazis did very much condemn lots of things. Science produced 200 years ago promoted profound sexism. Science is often moral/immoral in the sense that it is impossible for it to be ideologically neutral. Just like science produced by liberals promotes harm by covering up so many ugly aspects of LGBT reality. Science comprises tools that both expose as well as lie about reality.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:33 am

I recommend, on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/
JoeMyGodNYC
December 9th, 2013 @ 9:08 am

For somebody who “left the lifestyle” Robert Lopez’ latest gay erotica novel is pretty steamy. An excerpt: “[Harry] pulled out buckets of flowers, lifting them over his head and emptying them onto the table. Joseph slowly calmed himself, lying passively while Harry pelleted him with lilies, roses, daffodils, daisies, tulips, carnations, lilacs and irises. He rubbed the flowers against Joseph’s skin, letting their fragrances soak into his chest, his arms, and his legs. He went softly at first, tickling Joseph’s nipples and thighs with the stems. Then he probed deeper into Joseph’s skin, rubbing the red, white, orange, violet, and yellow petals into him, painting him with spots of soft, moist perfume.”

Yup, he’s totally not gay anymore. LOL.
JoeMyGodNYC
December 9th, 2013 @ 9:10 am

Actor and conservative hero James Woods, who is 66, is now proudly dating a girl only a year older than Tom Daley. I’ll stand by for the outrage over Woods dating somebody young enough to be his great-granddaughter.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 9:31 am

I brought up interracial marriages to show how pseudo-science can be used as a justification for bias. I should have put interracial in quotes.

One of my favorite aphorisms is “There’s only one race and that’s human.” It makes about as much sense to draw “racial” lines on skin color as it does hair color.

It doesn’t help that the whole notion of human races really comes from displaced nationalism.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 9:37 am

I suspect that the differences between the homosexuality and hetrosexuality are even more of a construct than “race,” but I’ve not taken the time to investigate. I’m more interested in how trade leads to cultural and religious expansion. But that is a long and complicated topic.

The fact that there is homosexuality among other species is enough to show that there is probably a biological basis. That means that part of your argument doesn’t work.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 9:37 am

Again, it’s the people, not the science.
Spy Satellite With Creepy Octopus “Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach” Logo and Weekend Links!
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:45 am

[…] Other McCain has many good blog posts up including this one by Stacy on “Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? ‘In That Case Just Shut Your […]
To Answer Your Question, Seth … : The Other McCain
December 9th, 2013 @ 10:57 am

[…] basically, is that there are millions of closeted gay men — including teenage boys (oh, goodie!) — cowering in fear in “less tolerant” states like Mississippi. He doesn’t […]
tennesseetuxedo59
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

lolol lose much? YES
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:32 pm

On the contrary. I would say the problem with your assumption is that you imagine the human brain to be equal to that of an ant (or other animals). The human mind is profoundly deformable – and that all happens after birth. So if you see one species engaging in sex with its young (or incest) and think that is biologically driven, you assume (wrongly) that any time a human (with a completely different brain and psychological functioning) does the same thing (sex abuse of children), their mental dynamics must be the same and have the same cause as for the animal. That’s a mistake. Same for homosexuality. There is no end of behaviors that work for one species but are certainly bad or dysfunctional for other species. And to assume that humans don’t determine most of their attitudes and behaviors after they are born is another big mistake. That’s exactly what happens. We are the most deformable creatures on earth.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Repeating your wrong claims don’t make them right.
DumbCon
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:33 pm

Pederasty? He’s 19! Or are you saying that now 19 year olds are no longer adults, can’t make decisions about who they date, and are nothing more than prey? ABSURD, and you know it. Ironically you’ll claim a 14 year old who commits a serious crime was “adult” enough to fully comprehend the consequences and should be put in “adult” prison for life.
concern00
December 9th, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

Firstly check your definition of pederasty since you seem to be making shit up. Secondly, please quote your source where I made that claim about a 14yo.
DumbCon
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

I did check the definition and 19 is neither pubescent or adolescent and is in fact a legal adult. I never said you personally made that claim about 14yo., but locking up juveniles who commit violent crimes for life seems to be the consensus amongst the “law and order” crowd.
Zohydro
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

James Woods is a man and his girlfriend probably knows exactly what she’s doing! IYKWIMAITYD…

One simply just cannot compare sexual relationships between men and women with elderly homosexual perverts violating and corrupting minors!
JoeMyGodNYC
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

39 years old is elderly? LOL
Zohydro
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

Exactly how old is 39 in gay years? I hear it’s positively ancient…
JoeMyGodNYC
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

In gay years 39 is….39. LOL.
hyrummiller
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

RT @RightOrgs: Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? Huffington Post: ‘In That Case Just Shut Your Mouth’ http://t.co/tKKuRQ5KQF #tcot #ame…
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

You talked about what science “produced” 200 years ago. It wasn’t science that changed, it was people interpreting the science and using it for their political ends.

People, not science.
NeoWayland
December 9th, 2013 @ 2:50 pm

It’s amazing how on one hand you claim that psychology explains the drives, and on the other hand you dismiss any biological connection.

We’re more driven by biology than you accept.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

Wrong, the science itself (the claims, the explanations, the proposals) have profoundly and radically changed in many instances.

When people change, the science they produce changes.
You don’t read science so you don’t know how it changes over time.
You make claims about science that are completely disconnected from its reality. In other words, you have a fantasy take on science – which is, pretty ironic.
Alessandra
December 9th, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

Your claim is not based on human reality. That’s why I don’t accept it.
We’re more driven by experience, its consequences, culture, and psychology than you can grasp.
mraidenrussell
December 9th, 2013 @ 8:23 pm

RT @rsmccain: Disapprove of Gay Sex With Teenagers? ‘In That Case Just Shut Your Mouth’ http://t.co/jp3ESHWJJC cc @jmattbarber @MrEvilMatt …
NeoWayland
December 10th, 2013 @ 12:56 am

Science is an inquiry process. It’s not a set of laws carved in stone forever and ever.

Everything you cited above (claims, explanations, proposals) come from people, not science.

Science just shows how well it works. Or if people need to look harder.

Case in point, right now there’s noise about human caused climate change. Nobody can produce proof that it exists, the evidence is based on computer projections that haven’t been right yet. But telling people not to worry doesn’t get the funding or the publicity.
NeoWayland
December 10th, 2013 @ 1:06 am

Last Tuesday, you slept, right?

Saturday, you ate and drank, right?

Yesterday, you probably breathed,

Based on those biological needs, I’m pretty sure that you will repeat all those behaviors at least three times in the next year.

I know it’s fashionable among some Christians to separate the “animal urges” from the “higher man,” but if you had read your Jung or even your Freud you’d know that it’s more important to deal with the whole integrated person.

That biology is just as much a part of you as the reason and memory.
Alessandra
December 10th, 2013 @ 3:23 am

Neo said: Everything you cited above (claims, explanations, proposals) come from people, not science.

=============

Wrong. Science contains claims, explanations, proposals, descriptions of phenomena, etc. This is a fact.

============

Neo said: “Science is an inquiry process. It’s not a set of laws carved in stone forever and ever.”

Science is much more than an inquiry process. Science comprises multiple processes, and many are not about inquiry. Science is not a set of laws carved in stone and yet it contains endless claims, explanations, proposals.

You clearly cannot face that Science comprises all scientific materials, texts (which contain claims, explanations, proposals), experiments, and treatments ever devised by people in a scientific context.

You have invented and adopted a false meaning for the word Science which has no bearing on reality.

Since you prefer to claim that science contains no claims (!), no explanations (hah!), and no proposals or treatments (!), I’ll let you continue with your trolling all by yourself.

I have been so nicely trolled! LOL
Alessandra
December 10th, 2013 @ 3:25 am

Freud or Jung don’t make any of your claims that being psychologically deformed is genetically determined.

Have fun with your trolling.