60 responses

  1. John
    December 23, 2009

    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.

  2. Regan DuCasse
    December 23, 2009

    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.

  3. Jason D
    December 24, 2009

    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.

  4. Richard Rush
    December 24, 2009


    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.

  5. Burr
    December 24, 2009

    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.

  6. Priya Lynn
    December 24, 2009

    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.


    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?

  7. Priya Lynn
    December 24, 2009

    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.

  8. ZRAinSWVA
    December 24, 2009

    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.

  9. Regan DuCasse
    December 24, 2009

    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:


    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.

  10. Priya Lynn
    December 24, 2009

    Right on, Regan.

  11. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop