and don't even listen. I feel like I should have an award for the kinds of things I've discovered this week from the mouths (or keyboards) of right-wing loonies. The most high-profile example is the pope, who can be counted on for self-serving wackery. On pedophilia:
“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said. . . .
“We cannot remain silent about the context of these times in which these events have come to light,” he said, citing the growth of child pornography “that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society” he said.
No one I know considers the sexual abuse of children "normal," not now and not in the '70s -- but then, I don't know any Catholic bishops. In spite of all that has come to light regarding the Church's concerted efforts not only to overlook priestly abuse of children, but to actively enable it, I find it hard to believe that the pope is still looking for scapegoats. Or maybe not -- when he was simply Cardinal Ratzinger, the current pope was the first one to blame gay priests for pedophilia. He's consistent in not taking responsibility, at least.
Digby also has some thoughts on this one.
We have another strong dissociation from objective reality from Michael Medved, who came up with this doozy:
If men and women are profoundly different-and both science and common sense tell us they are- then an all-female couple is even more different from an all-male couple than either homosexual bond differs from a heterosexual union. This distinction helps explain the oft-noted quirk in public attitudes that sees stronger opposition and denunciation, in the Old Testament and elsewhere, to a physical relationship between two males and intimacy between two females. A physical connection between a female couple, like a physical connection between man and woman, is based primarily on acts of affection. The most common sexual practice between two men involves an act of aggression ---inflicting more pain than pleasure for at least one of the parties.
Point one: if it hurts, you're not doing it right.
Point two: how is anal (i.e., penetrative) sex between men "aggressive," but vaginal (i.e. penetrative) sex between a man and a woman an "act of affection"?
I take this as deliberate demonization on Medved's part, with a full helping of the ick factor. As for the stronger disapproval of sex between men, Medved gives himself away when the cites the Old Testament: of course patriarchs don't like to think about that -- they're afraid of losing their (masculine) power. If anyone stopped to think about it for thirty seconds (and judging from the comments on that post, few of his audience bother to think at all), they'd realize that if straight men are capable of affectionate and loving sex, then so are gay men. Duh.
Star Parker is just plain dumb as a rock. (I'm giving you the link through Box Turtle Bulletin, because Rob Tisinai did a good, if too charitable, take-down. If you want to read Parker's piece in all its glorious incoherence, you can follow the link in Tisinai's post.) You can tell she's not operating with a full deck:
Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.
Tisinai published a link to the poll, and as might be expected, the poll is about orientation and identity, not about behavior. Parker, apparently, doesn't know the difference. The whole post is close to word salad -- I wasn't able to find a logical progression between any two parts of it.
Apparently, one basic characteristic that's missing on the anti-gay right is the ability for self-editing, not in terms of not saying things, but in terms of looking at what you've actually said. Maybe it's just that they've become so fundamentally dishonest that they just don't know the difference any more.