Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Heterosexual Menace: Father forces sex on son

Timothy Kincaid

December 22nd, 2009

An Australian father decided that his son was too gay and that he was going to indocrinate him into heterosexuality:

During a family barbecue around Christmas time in 2007, the dad allegedly phoned a prostitute and arranged to meet her at a motel on Yaamba Road, North Rockhampton.

The father drove his son to the motel and paid the prostitute in $50 notes.

The prostitute took the boy into a motel room while the father waited on a balcony.

The dad walked in and out of the room to check on his son and told him he wanted to see a used condom as proof that they’d had sex.

It seems like the cure didn’t exactly fix Dad’s suspicions, because later he called the police with suspicion that the boy was abusing his younger brother.

The police were not impressed with Dad’s home remedy. He’s on trial for rape.

There’s more heterosexual shenanigans here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

David
December 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Another example of family values: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34512005/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

“A man jailed for piercing his 2-year-old stepson with up to 30 needles said he intended to spite his wife by killing the child, who is recovering from surgery and scheduled for more operations later this week.”

Mykelb
December 22nd, 2009 | LINK

This expose should be sent to all the conservative members of Congress, the National Organization for Marriage Board Members, FOTF, PornoPetey, Matt Barber, Mr. Lively, CWFA, and every school board member across America. Maybe their hate-filled rhetoric will be tempered by knowledge of their own hypocrisy.

Quo
December 22nd, 2009 | LINK

This case is ludicrous, since, while the prostitute might arguably be guilty of rape, the father isn’t. He wasn’t the one who had sex with the boy, and you can’t be guilty of raping someone if you haven’t had sex with him.

Jason D
December 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Quo, hate to point out the obvious to you, but it all depends on the way in which the law is written. It’s likely that those who help facilitate a rape are considered in violation of the law: thus just as guilty, and just as negligent. It would make sense as some rapes occur in gang format where those who assist may not actually be involved in the violation itself.

Quite frankly, rape shouldn’t be the only charge levied against this moron. Child endangerment, and sexual assault on a minor are just two that come to mind.

WMDKitty
December 22nd, 2009 | LINK

I can’t wait for the inevitable “Law & Order” episode based on this….

Elise
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

So now you’ve got me curious, Quo. In your opinion, would, say, a man who forces two strangers to have sex with each other, against their will, at gunpoint, not be guilty of rape because he didn’t have sex with anyone?

Though I will say that unless there’s some evidence that the prostitute herself was coerced into the sex, and it doesn’t seem there is, she’s also guilty of rape. It’s hard to imagine she couldn’t have figured out the boy was an unwilling participant, and even if she couldn’t have known, she’s at least guilty of statutory rape (I’m assuming the age of consent is higher than fourteen in Australia).

William
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Whether or not it amounts to rape, it’s certainly sexual abuse.

Ben
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Elise, unless I’m mistaken, 14 is the age of consent in Australia.

joel
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

14 yrs old? Is that really an age appropriate for consent or just tradition?

Anyways,”because later he called the police with suspicion that the boy was abusing his younger brother”, was this due to his paranoia or did it actually happen?
Im leaning toward the firsst but since its not that clear from the above post… well..

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Jason D,

Regardless of how the law is written, the behavior of the father in this case wasn’t rape in the common sense of the word. He didn’t rape his son (although he certainly behaved foolishly).

Whether it is legally rape depends, I suppose, on exactly how much force was used, something the story doesn’t make clear. It doesn’t appear as though the son offered any physical resistance to his father’s attempt to make him have sex with a prostitute, which is why the argument that it’s rape seems dubious even in a legal sense.

By the way, parents are always forcing their children to do things they don’t want to do (such as attend church). Why aren’t people complaining about that, and why isn’t that against the law?

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo, forcing a child to go to church often isn’t seen as an unreasonable imposition upon a child. On the other hand, forcing someone to have sex is virtually universally seen as an offense against a person.

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

Yes, we all know that. It is an example of society’s hypocrisy.

Regan DuCasse
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I think I can safely rest my case when I’ve mentioned before how many times heterosexuals, directly or by proxy, use sexual assault against gay young people as a means of exacting dominance, or in some cases, the belief that hetero sexual experience will indoctrinate against gay attraction.

Here in Los Angeles, a man (a gang member) and his wife the biological parents, are accused of torturing, sexually abusing and neglecting their FIVE year old son. The child has been hospitalized with severe burns and the father is still at large and considered armed and dangerous.
This case just broke, and I don’t hear the usual anti gay people out there shouting that this is a case AGAINST men and women having children in general?

In fact, they are quick to accuse gay people of having some power over the media or some kind of conspiracy to cover up if there is little fanfare regarding child abuse by gay people.

First of all, the reason why is it doesn’t happen more often or out of proportion to what heteros commit.
Second of all, the news cycle can be overrun by so many other crimes of violence, some stories don’t get enough traction for that reason. And most importantly, gag orders are common in the case of juveniles. The media cannot engage yellow journalism to satisfy the prurient interests of bigots. And those that do, are illegitimate carriers of the news.

And lastly, I’ve noticed that when men engage prostitutes, or when older women initiate young teen boys into sex, it’s not considered much of a crime or traumatic for the boy.
Which is why there is so much scoff at cases in which female middle school teachers or neighbors and so on, aren’t prosecuted to the full extent of the law, than when the opposite is true of hetero or gay males. Very often parents are not interested in prosecuting.
Which is also ridiculous.

Boys are in danger just as much as girls when it comes to adult females…or in this case, a macho father with misplaced priorities.
I’m glad the gravity of the situation was noticed by the authorities.

And Quo, that is the main reason why I’m glad the father is under some kind of criminal indictment. He’s not innocent, he had a horrendous agenda. A wrongful one. How sad that this young boy’s first sexual experience should be something so disconnected and gross.

A child only really gets 18 precious years to be young, without such adult cares, responsibilities and major decisions.

Any adult that makes that young person lose any of those years, deserves to be publicly shamed for it, if not jailed. And especially if it’s the child’s own parents.

And if this case could be used as a precedent as to just how much sexual pressure and abuse young gay children (or those thought to be gay) are under, even better.

The rampant misinformation and gender politics regarding sexuality and sex education leads to serious problems. Which are not only unnecessary, but PREVENTABLE if only people wouldn’t be so stuck on stupid, for whatever reason.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo, I consider it an offense to force a child to go to church but you seem to be suggesting that that’s an offense comparable to forcing a child to have sex and that’s where you’re wrong. That’s like saying its hypocritical if a parent does nothing when their child is insulted but seeks to punish someone who physically assaults the child.

Brucolac
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Ben, the age of consent varies a bit state to state, and it can depend on how old both participants are (e.g. a 14 and 15 year old versus a 14 and 28 year old).

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

An atheist might argue that for parents to force their children to attend church would be worse than forcing them to have sex.

My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t. If society were to decide that they shouldn’t, then for a father to force his son to have sex and for him to force his son to attend church would both be illegal, on the same principle.

However, society hasn’t yet made that decision, and it doesn’t seem to be in any rush to do so. I therefore don’t believe the father should be prosecuted.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo, I’m an atheist and I wouldn’t make that argument. For one there is a clear and solid line between words and physical contact. No matter how one might abuse another verbally it is secondary to physical abuse. Forcing a child to have sex with a prostitute carries a disease risk and is an invasion of one’s inviolate body.

Your statement “My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t.” indicates a childlike naivete – few things in life are absolute. As a society we are frequently called upon to make compromises. For example, we give parents the right to dress their children as they choose, to pass on what beliefs they choose, but we do not give them the right to deny their children medical treatment, education, or food.

Your argument is similar to one I recently had with some libertarians, they like you seemed to argue either you have freedom or you don’t, that if freedom wasn’t absolute that you didn’t have any freedom at all. As is the case with parental authority there are limits and compromises – few things are absolute in this world.

I’ve had christians argue that because god made people he has a right to destroy them. Would you similarly argue that as parents created they children they have a right to destroy them, or would you argue that there are limits on what a parent should be free to do with their children?

snowisfun
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid, yes what this man did is extreme. No, science has not yet found the cure for homosexuality, but if they eventually do find the cure for homo&lesbian sexual activities as well as GID, then the world is a better place. As known, I’m a non-religious person who believes in curing this & GID.

But let me raise a scenario though it’s indirectly related to this. What if parents can eventually predict that an unborn baby will be a homosexual, lesbian or have GID? Many moms would abort them & I have no problem with aborting them for the same reason that I have no problem with aborting unborn babies who are predicted to have deformities. Katie Ann Couric of CBS discussed in 2008 aborting babies known to have Down Syndrome. While this is controversial, chances are that it doesn’t raise the same controversy as it would if in the future they can predict that an unborn baby will be a homosexual & the mom chooses to abort it.

Again, I don’t care if you call me a homophobe & a bigot. But I just think that the world’s a better place w/o homosexuality & w/o sex changes.

Jason D
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

“Your argument is similar to one I recently had with some libertarians, they like you seemed to argue either you have freedom or you don’t, that if freedom wasn’t absolute that you didn’t have any freedom at all. As is the case with parental authority there are limits and compromises – few things are absolute in this world.”

Amen, Priya, seeing the world in black and white and thinking things should be that way is childishly simplistic.

We live in a world of gray. A world of extenuating circumstances. Life is simply not that black and white. Parents do have control of their children, but not ABSOLUTE control. They are not Gods, children are not their property to do with as they please. There’s a reason we call them “Legal Guardians” — it is their job to protect and provide for them.

Freedom without limits of any kind would simply be anarchy, which was pretty much the status quo for generations in time past. I like to think we’ve moved beyond that.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

You know it Jason ;)

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

“Snowisfun” – how is the world a better place if it doesn’t have people who have no effect on your life in any way?

snowisfun
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn, let me rephrase that as it’s not my intent to endlessly discuss a topic which has been rerun so many times. If homo&lesbian sexual activities as well as sex changes were to disappear, then I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. If in the future they can predict that an unborn baby would be a homosexual or have GID & if the mom wants to abort it, then go ahead & do so.

In fact, I mentioned on another post that if oral sex were to disappear, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it, though I know many straights do it. Most people just won’t lose sleep if a cure for homosexuality is eventually discovered & if homosexuality & GID were to disappear, then it’s for the better. There are many other things I could list which I wouldn’t lose sleep over if it were to disappear, but it’s not the purpose here to discuss them.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

So, “snowisfun”, it’s not your intent to “endlessly discuss” it when you say the world would be a better place without gays and transsexuals, you just thought you’d come here and be an a**hole.

No one asked you to “endlessly discuss” it, what I asked was for you to briefly describe how the world would be a better place without LGBTs. Seems pretty clear you don’t want to do that because you know you can’t come up with a rational explanation.

And if you don’t want to explain it, why again say “if homosexuality & GID were to disappear, then it’s for the better”? If, as you say, discussing how this would be for the better is not your purpose here then what is your purpose here beyond being an a**hole?

Richard Rush
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Snowisfun, regarding all those things/conditions which, if they disappeared, you wouldn’t lose sleep over, or you feel would make the world a better place: Would it be correct to assume that none of those things/conditions are present in your own life? If so, that would explain how it’s so easy for you to be smugly dismissive of other people’s lives.

Alex
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I can’t tell what snowisfun is most obsessed with: homosexuality, sleep, or ampersands.

snowisfun
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

With sex changes, I see something wrong with this & already wrote about it.

With homosexuality, again, if a cure were found & if it were to disappear, I won’t lose sleep over it. With regard to violence against homosexuals, whether the suspect is convicted of 1st, 2nd or Manslaughter in homicide cases is a jury topic.

As some1 who has been to criminal trials, what has been my observation is that in some cases where ‘homophobic violence’ is alleged, there was provocation & harassment by the homosexual, such as where the homosexual was harassing another man in a public restroom, where the man reacted by beating up the homosexual-bathroom is not the place for propositions.

It’s 1 thing to go out & beat up or kill people who are minding their own business & not bothering you-that’s 1st Degree Murder. If some1 harassing you such as in a restroom & the harasse reacts by beating up the harasser, then while it still doesn’t justify it, it does put comprehension & mitigation. In any battery or murder case, the prosecutor presents their case, the defense presents their side & the jury decides on what charge to convict. They are topics for juries to decide.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

“snowisfun” said “With sex changes, I see something wrong with this & already wrote about it.”.

No you didn’t. You claimed the world would be a better place if there was no transsexuals but you failed to say how. Its pretty clear the reason why is that you don’t have any justification for that and you just said it it to be an a**hole.

Your assertion that you’ve been to even one, let alone several trials involving anti-gay violence simply isn’t credible. Once again it is almost certainly the case you’re making stuff up to support your bigotry.

You keep saying you “wouldn’t lose sleep” over things disappearing that don’t affect you. Would it bother you if some people felt it was a great loss to them if the things you “wouldn’t lose sleep over” disappeared? Do you have any concern over anyone’s happiness beyond your own?

cowboy
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I’d love to be on a ski lift with snowisfun.

I’m not saying I would do anything but if he just happened to start to slip I’m not sure I would try to…well…oops…he just slipped and fell…

I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.

((I know…I know…throw the Comments Policy at me again.))

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

And “snowisfun”, you dodged the question. If your purpose in comeing here isn’t to explain how the world would be a better place without LGBTs, what is your purpose in coming here?

John
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

So, Quo, how do you think this case be handled in South Africa?

I know that in the United States there is no requirement that a rape victim physically fight back against their attacker. I doubt there is any such requirement in Australia either. I can’t imagine that South Africa requires it either, but perhaps you have better local knowledge.

snowisfun
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn, with regard to ‘homophobic violence’, what I wrote is that I’ve bene to criminal trials incl. murder trials, didn’t say ‘homophobic violence trials’. What I would like to know how many of the cases really are homosexuals being beaten up w/o provocation vs. cases where homosexuals were harassing another man & the man reacted by beating up or even killing the homoman.

I’ve heard conflicting reports surrounding the Matthew Shepard case. No, there was no excuse for what happened to him, but could Matthew Shepard have been harassing his attacker? 1 version is that AJ McKinney who struck Matthew Shepard in the head 6 times with a gun did so because Matthew Shepard 1st touched AJ McKinney’s groin against his will, where AJ McKinney just lost it & beat up Matthew Shepard by striking him 6 times in the head with a gun & later he & RL Henderson tied up Matthew Shepard to a tree where he died several days later of hypothermia.

If Matthew Shepard really was harassing AJ McKinney 1st as that version has it, then no, it still doesn’t justify the deed as AJ McKinney did more than what he needed to do to protect himself. If AJ McKinney had hit MW Shepard once or twice & told him, keep your hands to yourself, that would’ve been 1 thing, but he did more than what he needed to protect himself. But that would be 2d Degree Murder not 1st, if indeed this is what happened that night. Of course, as there are no known witnesses, only AJ McKinney (who did the deed) & RL Henderson really know why it happened & what the circumstances really were. But whatever happened in the 1998 Matthew Shepard case, that is a topic for juries to decide.

As I said, any battery & homicide case, the juries after being presented all the facts & arguments must decide what charge to convict on. In any criminal trial, juries decide whether to convict or acquit. If it’s a rape trial (I’ve been to rape trials) where a woman says that she was raped while the man says that the sex was willful & the woman consented, the jury decides which story is more credible in deciding whether to convict or acquit a rape suspect.

My main point again surrounding the topic of violent crimes incl. ‘homophobic’ violence is the prosecution & the defense presents their case & then the jury decides what the verdict should be.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

“snowisfun” said “Priya Lynn, with regard to ‘homophobic violence’, what I wrote is that I’ve bene to criminal trials incl. murder trials, didn’t say ‘homophobic violence trials’.”

What you said was “As some1 who has been to criminal trials, what has been my observation is that in some cases where ‘homophobic violence’ is alleged, there was provocation & harassment by the homosexual”. You did say you’d been to ‘homophobic violence trials” – you lied. You lead us to believe you’d witnessed trials where “‘homophobic violoence’ is alleged” when in fact you hadn’t witnessed any such trials at all, you made it up to support your homophobia.

It is a lie made up by bigots like you that Shepard touched Mckinney’s groin. The defendents admitted in court that the reason they attacked Shepard was because he was gay.

Once again, you’ve dodged the question:

If your purpose here isn’t to explain how the world would be better off without gays and transsexuals, what is your purpose here other than being an a**hole?

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

Since when, exactly, do parents not have the right to decide that their children will have “physical contact” of one sort or another that the children do not wish to have?

Forcing them to attend church may involve “physical contact”, and society smiles on this. There is no reason why sex should be treated any differently, except that society has a hypocritical attitude to this subject.

John,

I have no idea how the case would be handled in South Africa. Your question is pointless and silly.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “Since when, exactly, do parents not have the right to decide that their children will have “physical contact” of one sort or another that the children do not wish to have?”.

In some cases they may have that right and in other cases they may not. We can debate whether or not they have the right in any given situation but the fact is that parents do not have absolute authority over their children. You said “My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t.” which is profoundly stupid.
Do you thinnk parents have the right to deprive their children of food or to put them to death, or do you want to backtrack and say its not true that “either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t.”?

Our bodies belong to us, no one has a right to use them against our will unless there is a damn good reason. Wanting your child not to be gay is not a valid reason to usurp authority over their body by forcing them to have sex.

Jason D
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

quo, you just keep getting less and less credible with every post.

“Forcing them to attend church may involve “physical contact”, and society smiles on this. There is no reason why sex should be treated any differently, except that society has a hypocritical attitude to this subject.”

I went to Catholic mass for about 12 years, give or take, and the only “physical contact” involved was handshakes during the “peace be with you” section toward the end of the mass. It was entirely my perogative who’s hand I shook.

This shouldn’t have to be said, but the physical contact that is likely at church is nowhere near as intimate as sex, and the fact that you don’t understand that, or completely reject that rather obvious and stark difference is just another point against the dwindling amount of credibility you have at this site.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

That Quo would take the position that a parent has the right to force their child to have sex just demonstrates that he’s as much of a troll as “snowisfun” is. Their purpose in coming here is solely to be a**holes.

snowisfun
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn, mistake on my part. What I meant is that I’ve talked to people who have beaten up homosexuals. I don’t know if MW Shepard did or didn’t 1st touch AJ McKinney’s groin against his will which caused him to lose it, but it’s possible-you & I aren’t witnesses & thus we can only speculate.

When I asked some1 why they beat up a homosexual man, their version has been that they were walking in a public place, where a homosexual 1st touched their private parts & then in reaction they punched the homosexual & beat him up.

Priya Lynn, but if the homosexual had kept his hands to himself, then maybe it wouldn’t have generated the violent response that it did, if indeed what they told me is true. @least some of the homophobic violence happens because there was harassment by the homosexual & if the homosexual had been minding his own business & kept his hands to himself, maybe the violent incidents wouldn’t have happened. But again, those are topics for juries to decide, not propaganda which you push.

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

I wasn’t arguing that parents should have the right to do literally anything to their children; simply that, in most situations, parents should have the right to tell their children to do things regardless of what the children want. No one has provided a convincing argument why that should not include having sex with a prositute, something that is no worse than many things that society considers it acceptable for parents to force their children to do.

I am not trying to troll by arguing that a father should have the right to force his teenage son to have sex with a prostitute. It’s what I really believe. Comments are only trolling if they are said for no reason other than to offend or upset people.

Jason D,

My point was that parents may need to physically force their children to attend church if the kids don’t want to do that. Few people object to this. Nor do they object if parents force their children to shake somebody’s hand, which is also physical contact.

The complaint that sex is more “intimate” than other forms of physical contact is beside the point. So what if it is “intimate”? What special right does any child have to be free of “intimate” contact? It may have unfortunate psychological consequences, but these need be no worse than the consequences of attending church, especially if it’s a really nasty fire-and-brimstone church.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

“snowisfun” said “I don’t know if MW Shepard did or didn’t 1st touch AJ McKinney’s groin against his will which caused him to lose it, but it’s possible-you & I aren’t witnesses & thus we can only speculate.”.

You are a horrible, evil person. There was no such evidence or testimony at the trial, that is a pure hateful fabrication on the part of bigots like you.

“snowisfun” said “But again, those are topics for juries to decide, not propaganda which you push.”.

Propoganda which I push?! I’m not pushing any propoganda, you’re the one making up BS story after BS story, the only one pushing propoganda here is you.

Once again, you’ve dodged the question:

If your purpose here isn’t to explain how the world would be better off without gays and transsexuals, what is your purpose here other than being an a**hole?

Burr
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

FWIW, it’s not unheard of in some places in Latin America to provide a prostitute for a son as a coming of age thing..

Not offering an opinion on that, but for some cultures it’s not an outrageous thing to do.

This situation is obviously a bit different as apparently it was wholly against the son’s will.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “I wasn’t arguing that parents should have the right to do literally anything to their children; simply that, in most situations, parents should have the right to tell their children to do things regardless of what the children want.”.

When you say “My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t.” you’re arguing that parents should have the right to do literally anything to their children. As to “in most situations, parents should have the right to tell their children to do things regardless of what the children want.”, I’m highly skeptical that that would be the case but I haven’t done a comprehensive survey of all the things a parent might force their child to do and which would be appropriate and which wouldn’t.

Quo said “The complaint that sex is more “intimate” than other forms of physical contact is beside the point. So what if it is “intimate”? What special right does any child have to be free of “intimate” contact?”.

I find it unbelievable that you sincerely adhere to this obscenity. There’s a reason why people’s sexual organs are euphemistically refered to as private parts – that’s because they belong to us, no one else has a right to them. As I explained earlier we own our bodies, no one else has a right to use them against our will without a damn good reason. Tell me Quo, what is the damn good reason that gives a parent the right to force their child to have sex?

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Burr, its one thing to provide a prostitute to a son as a comming of age thing and quite another to force him to have sex with her against his will.

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya, I know what I’m arguing. It’s your problem if you misunderstand something I say.

In answer to your question: the fact that a father believes that having sex may be beneficial to his son is a good enough reason.

That belief might be quite wrong, of course, but put things in perspective – a father’s belief that forcing his son to attend church will benefit the boy may also be wrong, but that still gives him the right to make the boy do it.

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Burr,

It isn’t obvious that it was “wholly against the son’s will”, as there is no evidence he offered physical resistance. That’s one of several reasons why this isn’t rape.

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo, I understood what you said, you said that parents should either have absolute authority over their children or none whatsoever – its your problem if you want to deny what you said after the fact.

No it is not a good enough reason that the father believes having sex may be beneficial to his son. A recent case was in the news where a family failed to treat their child’s diabetes, prefering to pray for the child instead and the child died – they were punished by the law as well they should have been. The mere belief that an action is beneficial does not justify performing that action. What matters in the law is the reasonable person standard, what would a reasonable person believe and do. In this case no reasonable person would believe a disease risking encounter with a prostitute is beneficial in any way, a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that such an encounter would de-gay their child, and a reasonable person wouldn’t believe its ever a good idea to usurp another’s right to choose which willing partner they will or will not have sex with.

Tell me Quo, do you believe each person owns their body? What guidelines would you use for whether or not a parent can force a child to do something?

Priya Lynn
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “It isn’t obvious that it was “wholly against the son’s will”, as there is no evidence he offered physical resistance.”.

That’s preposterous Quo. Many children fear their fathers and do a lot of things against their will without offering physical resistance. Not many smaller and weaker people will offer physical resistance to an imposing figure they’re accustomed to obeying. Especially given that many if not most children have experienced physical force used against them to force compliance or as punishment.

The boy’s mother testified she questioned the youngster about where his father had taken him.

“First (he) didn’t want to say anything to me. Then he told me his father took him to a motel room and there was a prostitute there,” the mother said.
“He wouldn’t talk, he just started crying.”.

That’s not the reaction of someone who was in any way willing or undisturbed by the act.

You claim you’re not a troll because you claim your comments aren’t offered for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting, but given your bizarre defense of this immorality no other conclusion is possible.

Many of us consider sex to be a wonderful thing to be enjoyed with someone you love. For another to take the right away from you to save yourself for your one true love is adhorrent. That you are totally insensitve to this makes it clear you’re only here to offend and annoy.

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

You misrepresent what I said.

What I wrote was, “My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t” – that’s a direct quote. I did not use the term “absolute.”

The argument you are using is irrelevant, since it concerns the failure of parents to do something (give their children medical attention), not the commission of an act, which is what we’re concerned with in this case.

I do not believe that people own their bodies. As a matter of fact, I doubt that the idea that people “own their bodies” is even coherent.

Richard Rush
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

Let’s imagine a few small altered facts in the father/son/prostitute case. Suppose the father wanted his son to be gay, and forced him to have sex with a male prostitute. I’m assuming that would not change your assessment of the incident and the parent’s rights, correct?

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

Let me respond to your arguments again. I’m not impressed by your reference to the reasonable person standard, for many reasons. One of them is that there is too much room for disagreement over who is “reasonable” and who isn’t; that’s why we have culture wars.

Arguably, a reasonable person would never believe that forcing a child to attend church was beneficial. To me, that seems neither more nor less likely than the idea that a reasonable person would never believe that forcing a teenage boy to have sex with a prostitute was beneficial.

The risk of disease is not a convincing argument. There may be no significant risk of disease if safer sex is practiced (and parents should be able to force their children to do risky things – a farmer might force his son to chop wood, for example, even though that may involve the risk of the boy accidentally chopping his own hands off).

Your argument that, “a reasonable person wouldn’t believe its ever a good idea to usurp another’s right to choose which willing partner they will or will not have sex with” is rather unfortunate. If a ten year old boy were to say that he wanted to have sex with an adult, would that mean that it would be acceptable for that adult to have sex with him?

Quo
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Richard Rush,

I’m perfectly consistent about this.

Yes, if a father wanted his son to be gay, he should be able to force his son to have sex with a male prostitute. It would be a horribly stupid and inappropriate thing to do, of course, among other reasons because being gay isn’t a good thing, but he should still be able to legally do that.

John
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I can now understand why Quo was so concerned in another thread about hiding his identity and location (which I believe to be South Africa).

Here, he is arguing again and again in favor of sexual abuse of a 14 year old boy, and also arguing that parents have a right to subject their children to sexual abuse.

These are extremely disturbing statements and they must violate the comments policy of this blog since they advocate or excuse sexual violence against children.

People who care about the safety and wellbeing of children do not make these sorts of comments, even if playing devil’s advocate. I am deeply disturbed by what these comments might say about Quo’s mindset and possible actions with regard to children.

I don’t think we should be presenting logical arguements to rebut his disturbing point. You wouldn’t do that with one of your neighbors. You would end the conversation and call the local police to report your concerns.

Regan DuCasse
December 23rd, 2009 | LINK

snowisfun: for the record, I am friends with the Shepards, and the PRIMARY detective of Matt Shepard’s case.

The two humps who assaulted him, were broke and believing the stereotype that gay men are wealthy and weak, chose MShepard as easy prey. Not the other way around.
THEY offered MS a ride home, and in a small town, full of college kids, it’s not unusual.

It’s simply a convenient defense for gay bashers to use ‘he made a pass at me’, because it’s a common stereotype that gay men are predatory.

First of all, MS was exceptionally small in physical stature. There was ONE of him, and TWO attackers, who had a large caliber gun between them.
THEY came to the situation armed and dangerous.

Such dangerous stereotypes are not dissimilar to the defense that whites used in lynching black men during Jim Crow. All a white woman had to do was make an accusation, and he was on the end of a terrible death.
Mamie Till (Emmett Till’s mother) and Judy Shepard BOTH had sons accused of making a pass. And their memory STILL has to be defended by bigots like you.

So WHAT if you talked to people who have beat up homosexuals?
They are LYING sacks of skin.
Apparently THEIR word means more to you than the gay person they harmed.

And as for what you compare homosexuality to, when it comes to those deformed or whatever:

I remember watching the professionally produced propaganda films the NAZIS shot to encourage the public to agree with euthanasia of at first, those with birth defects and the retarded.
Those who had no hope of being self reliant and productive to society.

The idea of that is overwhelmingly obscene to me.
But to suggest that homosexuality or being a transperson renders one worthy of not being born, makes you a seriously disturbed and ugly human being.
Gay and transfolks are self reliant and productive. And I shouldn’t have to argue that point, whatsoever.

And as someone who works in law enforcement, I can tell you from experience that gays and lesbians do not pose the threat to society that you wishfully think do.

So if all the gay people disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. Not the impoverished countries, not homicidal gang members, not children on welfare, or who are abused and murdered by their own parents. Marriages would still be broken by divorce, infidelity and domestic violence and addictions.

You’re ignorant and are only here for prurient reasons no less than a supremacist would be.
You have shown that you buy the stereotypes, and lack the ability to think past a narrow lens.

I can speak from experience you’re not willing to have. I can speak from more than the abstract the way you do.
The second you start rationalizing that another human being has no worth and deserves the violence and threat that befalls them for living life, then you do have the sentiments of the worst and cruelest of men and history won’t be kind to you.

Jason D
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Quo said, (in this very thread)

“The complaint that sex is more “intimate” than other forms of physical contact is beside the point. So what if it is “intimate”? What special right does any child have to be free of “intimate” contact?”

“I do not believe that people own their bodies.”

I just think this bears repeating. This is the mindset, the thoughts, the philosophy of our opposition.

Being gay is bad, but forcing sex on children is not. Gays are bad and nobody has any right to decide what happens to their own body, because they do not own it.

I think John above may have a point.

Richard Rush
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Snowisfun,

While you are careful to cover yourself by saying that the brutal beating or murder of a gay man is not justified for making unwanted advances, it is quite clear that you view it as thoroughly understandable that the advances could elicit such violent reaction. Wouldn’t just a firm verbal “Take your hand off me, I’m not into that” be sufficient?

If women reacted to unwanted advances from men with the same response that you find understandable when it’s a gay men advancing toward men, the world would be littered with millions of dead and brutally beaten straight men.

Burr
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Yep. That’s as anti-freedom as you can get.

We don’t own our bodies. We are slaves to the whims of the delusional who declare themselves to be our masters. Thanks for clarifying.

Priya Lynn
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “You misrepresent what I said.
What I wrote was, “My point is that either parents should have authority over their children or else they shouldn’t” – that’s a direct quote. I did not use the term “absolute.””

No, I didn’t misrepresent what you said. You applied no conditions to the parents having authority – that’s the definition of absolute, without condition or boundary.

Quo said “The argument you are using is irrelevant, since it concerns the failure of parents to do something (give their children medical attention), not the commission of an act, which is what we’re concerned with in this case.”.

Nonsense, its directly relevant. Whether the parents fail to do something or commit an act is besides the point, in both cases they are asserting their absolute authority, whether its by failing to provide medical care or mudering their child.

Quo said “I do not believe that people own their bodies. As a matter of fact, I doubt that the idea that people “own their bodies” is even coherent.”.

Well, now its confirmed, we are dealing with a lunatic here. So in other words you don’t think people have a right to be free from coercion, or unwanted touching, or even murder? I mean why would we, we don’t own our bodies, that’s not even coherent. By what authority do you deny any stranger the right to punch you in the nose or stab you in the heart if you don’t own your body? And if you don’t own it, who does?

Quo said “I’m not impressed by your reference to the reasonable person standard, for many reasons. One of them is that there is too much room for disagreement over who is “reasonable” and who isn’t”.

Go ahead and be unimpressed, its a standard part of law, you don’t agree with it go argue with the weight of the entire judicial system. That there might be disagreement is never a reason not to set standards, if the possibility of disagreement prevented us from doing so we’d have no laws whatsoever.

Quo said “The risk of disease is not a convincing argument. There may be no significant risk of disease if safer sex is practiced (and parents should be able to force their children to do risky things – a farmer might force his son to chop wood, for example, even though that may involve the risk of the boy accidentally chopping his own hands off).”

Once again, it comes down to the reasonable person standard. If a father asked his son to play on the highway and the son was run over a reasonable person would say that was an unacceptable level of risk and the father would be charged. A reasonable person might think that the risk involved in chopping would is sufficiently less that that is an acceptable amount of risk and no charges would be laid if the child was injured. The risk of disease from sex with a condom is not insignificant. The failure rate is between 3% and 14% when a condom is used correctly.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html

And many people do not use them correctly, and in particular an untrained minor is much more likely to use it incorrectly. A reasonable person would say that is an unnacceptable risk which is part of why the father was charged with a crime.

Quo said “Your argument that, “a reasonable person wouldn’t believe its ever a good idea to usurp another’s right to choose which willing partner they will or will not have sex with” is rather unfortunate. If a ten year old boy were to say that he wanted to have sex with an adult, would that mean that it would be acceptable for that adult to have sex with him?”.

Yes, I should have qualified that with a person of reasonable age. Of course its appropriate to stop a child from acting in a risky way that he is not mentally ready for, and it would of course be wrong for a much more senior adult to have sex with a minor due to the exploitive nature of such relationships. Nevertheless, who we have sex with should be a personal choice and because we own our bodies we should never be forced to use our bodies against our will unless there is damn good reason. The erroneous belief that having sex with a prostitute would be good for someone is no more a good reason than the belief that prayer will help a diabetic is a good reason to deny them medical treatment.

Quo said “Yes, if a father wanted his son to be gay, he should be able to force his son to have sex with a male prostitute. It would be a horribly stupid and inappropriate thing to do, of course, among other reasons because being gay isn’t a good thing”.

Ignoring the lunacy of sanctioning rape, why isn’t being gay a good thing? Why are you so anti-gay, why is this such a huge issue for you?

Priya Lynn
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

I should address one more of Quo’s absurdities. He said “you can’t be guilty of raping someone if you haven’t had sex with him.”.

If a criminal abducts two people and forces them to have sex at gunpoint he is guilty of rape even though he didn’t have sex with either person. Rape is forced sex, both the criminal I described and the father in this post forced someone to have sex and are guilty of rape.

ZRAinSWVA
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, I pray that you don’t have children, or if you do, that you at least abide by the law.

Richard Rush wrote, “If women reacted to unwanted advances from men with the same response that you find understandable when it’s a gay men advancing toward men, the world would be littered with millions of dead and brutally beaten straight men.” Amen, brother. Amen.

Regan DuCasse
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Oh and to further Richard Rush’s point, I AM a woman and I’ve had my share of males making comments to me and a woman can be FAR more threatened by ANY male she encounters on the street, or in her own home than any other human being.

I can’t know when a man’s comment will turn to physical threat if I rebuff him.

But if a MAN were approached by another man, or even a man he thought was gay doing so we have another option:

TO TELL THE POLICE.

There is NO assault that is justified unless there is imminent threat.

Every gay basher who uses the ‘gay panic defense’ only does so AFTER he’s committed a brutal murder and run off and hidden the evidence of his crime (which often includes robbery and outnumbering the gay victim).

ANYTHING but reporting to the police and allowing the police to deal with the gay man they accuse of ‘making a pass at them.’

That alone is why such a defense is easily refuted and should be.

As I said, MS’ killers had a 357. magnum GUN with them. They had been taught ALL their lives that gay people were worthy of robbing, and violating and of no value and figured that defense would lessen what they had coming to them.
And considering the prejudice that juries and judges and law enforcers have, that is not impossible to reason.
And the sentence they got was in fact UNPRECEDENTED in such a crime.

The fact that you’re still so short on facts of the case and still stuck on the stupidity that MS made a gesture that enraged his killers isn’t surprising.
Just exhausting.

Many gay and transfolk have been murdered SINCE MS.
Even gay CHILDREN. It’s been hard for people like you to believe that gay people can be murdered for NO REASON, but being gay.

But you yourself feel that abortion of gay and trans fetuses is a worthy endeavor.
Which rests my case that you DO think that gay people shouldn’t be here and it doesn’t matter why or how.
You’re just too gutless to care how such a thing is carried out.

Priya Lynn
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Right on, Regan.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.