Public Radio Host Uses Penn State Case to Debate Gays’ Fitness as Parents

[tishaLA]

On today's edition of nationally syndicated Public Radio International program To The Point, host Warren Olney chose to tackle the Penn State child rape scandal by devoting an entire show to the subject of whether or not gay and lesbian couples would make fit foster and adoptive parents.

What's the connection? The fact that Jerry Sandusky had "adopted many children and took in foster children" over the years. (Listen to it http://feeds.kcrw.com/kcrw/tp">here.)

Right off the bat, this topic made me feel incredibly uneasy, for obvious reasons. Linking pedophilia to homosexuality is a tried-and-true tactic of bigots, just one example in a long line of history's unliked minorities being stereotyped as representing a threat to the majority's most vulnerable members. That the show spun the question in gays and lesbians' favor — i.e., "Shouldn't we reexamine attitudes towards allowing homosexuals access to children, seeing as how ‘macho' Sandusky wound up defying stereotypes and raped them anyway?" — didn't really help matters. For starters, what does Sandusky's "macho-ness" have to do with the fact that he is a child predator? Where are these ridiculous "connections" being defined, except in Olney's own mind? That the debate was being had at all — and To The Point prides itself, to a fault, in offering ample airtime for every side of an "issue" to make its case — made it offensive. <snip> http://gawker.com/5858810/public-radio-host-uses-penn-state-case-to-debate-gays-fitness-as-parents">Gawker

I had to cut the article, but the long and the short of it is this: NPR introduced Jerry Cox, president of Arkansas' Family Council, a conservative group that unsuccessfully petitioned the state to pass a law that would prevent any child in the system from entering a foster home unless it was headed by "a married man and woman." The state shot it down, and the law was obviously bigoted, but it allowed him to speak, unchallenged and uninterrupted, for three minutes about how Sandusky was symptomatic of the problems with LGBT adoption. This despite the fact that Sandusky met what Cox--great name for a homophobic bigot!--met what he calls the "gold standard" for parenting: a mother and father in heterosexual marriage.

But that didn't stop NPR from feeding the fires. Yes, they had a gay couple from LA on to attest to their parenting abilities--and therefore present the issue with a sense of false balance (because homophobia and empirical facts about LGBTers ability to parent is "equal," apparently), but it was another example of NPR's repeated false equivalences, especially with LGBT issues. And it's a good reason to turn my back on NPR.

So, NPR, FUCK. YOU.

[SomethingFishy]

1. He was a Republican too... maybe Warren Olney

should question whether Republicans are fit to parent.

[Puzzler]

2. By the same logic, if the guy was straight and going after girls...

... then we could debate whether straights are fit to be parents.

Right? Oh yeah... right-wing "logic" only works one way.

[EFerrari]

3. I can't find this program when I go to NPR itself. nt

[tishaLA]

4. It's at the link above, at KCRW

[EFerrari]

16. Right but it's not at NPR.

I left a comment at your link but when I tried to find it at NPR, it's not there.

[Telly Savalas]

5. Quelle suprise! A media outlet broadcasts mindless yet controversial bullshit to stir up ratings.

They're not going to stop if people keep tuning in.

[NMMNG]

6. Most pedophiles identify as straight

(if they have an adult orientation at all]). Should the fitness of heterosexual parents be questioned?

[pnwmom]

9. Or they present themselves as straight, whether they are or not.

Sandusky's wife was his cover. Given everything we know now, and since all their children are adopted, I wonder if they had any relationship at all.

[Politicalboi]

17. Or if he had any

"Relationships" with the adopted kids too. :puke: I hate pedophiles.

[pnwmom]

20. Someone just mentioned that a protection order has been put into place for his grandchildren.

I suspect one of the parents must have asked for that. Ugh.

[Politicalboi]

15. Should the fitness of heterosexual parents be questioned?

Yes they are the ones who have gay children. I know my parents were straight. LOL!

[pnwmom]

7. There was an uproar in Seattle about a decade ago

when a 14 year old boy, the son of a single mother, went to prison for killing the popular male teacher who had been molesting him for years. Almost all of the sympathy seemed to be with the murdered teacher. I remember reading a lot of comments that the teacher's crime was "merely" violating age-of-consent laws.

I think it is important to draw a very bright line with age of consent laws; if it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old girl, then it's equally wrong with a 14 year old boy. I was surprised at the time how many people in my city didn't seem to think so. That kind of attitude could contribute to the false impression that gay people think pedophilia is okay.

[justiceischeap]

8. As a gay person, I just get tired of addressing this particular issue

It pops up ALL THE FRIGGIN' TIME! If people aren't smart enough to realize that sexual identity and sexual perversion are two different issues, that's their problem and I no longer expend the energy to fight the claims that as a homosexual, I'm not only interested in adult women but could possibly be interested in little girls. I think it comes down to, if given the opportunity, these straight men who like to link homosexuality and pedophilia, are men who would willingly sleep with a girl child if it wasn't against the law and therefore think that a gay man would sleep with a boy if he could.

[pnwmom]

10. Even with women? I've never noticed that.

But there probably are plenty of straight men who would like to have sex with very young women and project their own feelings.

[justiceischeap]

12. Yes, even lesbians run into this attitude.

That's what they mean when they say they don't won't the homosexuals around their kids and "corrupting" them. What they are implying is that we can't keep our hands off them because they happen to be the same sex we are (gay or lesbian).

Shit, I won't date a woman who shaves herself bald because that's just a turn off for me. I don't want a woman I'm dating to remind me of a child in any way.

[lunatica]

13. If I hadn't seen your post I would have posted the same thing

It does get tiresome to constantly have to set the record straight one more time. And I'm straight. but when this shit comes up I always respond. All I can say is FUCK!!!! Why is it so hard to understand that gays are exactly like straight people except they are attracted to same sex people. Everything else is the same. Pedophiles are in a classification all their own.

[Lyric]

18. First of all, we're not talking about having sex. We're talking about rape.

And not the statutory kind--the forcible kind. If that boy did not consent, then I have a hard time believing that anyone here would defend rape and molestation, or condemn the boy for reacting to it in that way.

Second of all, what do "gay people" have to do with what you said? Are you implying that the people defending the rape of the 14-year-old boy were all gay? Do you have some kind of link for this outrageous claim?

[pnwmom]

21. I'm talking about rape, too. The 14 year old claimed that the contact was NOT consensual.

And it had been going on for years -- and that his anger finally overwhelmed him and that's why he killed the teacher. Most people here didn't believe him -- I think because the teacher was such a popular guy, and because the contact had taken place over years. (Why didn't the boy just stop it, people wanted to know.) It's not that anyone defended rape -- they just didn't believe it. Or they decided that it was "mere" statutory rape. The teacher was revered. He couldn't have done anything that bad. Does this seem familiar? Like how some Happy Valley people treated Sandusky?

Also, are you saying that, with a 10 or 12 (the age when the Seattle boy's abuse started), there is an important distinction between "forcible" rape and "statutory" rape? Are you saying that a 10 or 12 year old can give consent? If so, then how do you know the boy about 10 years old being raped by Sandusky hadn't consented? How do you know it wasn't "statutory" rape for Sandusky?

We have the crime of statutory rape for a good reason -- children can't give consent, but adults can delude themselves into thinking they have. For all we know Sandusky thought his victims were willing, as long as the contact wasn't "forcible." As long as he gave the boys enough presents and trips to keep them quiet and close by.

[RKP5637]

11. Using his logic "ALL" parents are unfit to be parents. This is stupider than stupid. NPR gets

more and more useless. I don't even listen to NPR anymore, there are far better sources for information.

[CreekDog]

14. Why not have a show about which races are smarter, or better looking?

How about a show about whether gays and lesbians are more intelligent or less than straight people?

All these ideas are as valid and harmful as the topic they actually chose.

[mzmolly]

19. Uhm. The coach was a married "hetero" according to him.

Adding my F U to NPR.

[krispos42]

22. If the gay couple next door had kids, they'd be great kids.

Smart, educated, interesting, social, and caring.

The straight couple across the street, they're a bit asshole-ish. I'm not sure how their daughter is going to turn out. And the had a sign up supporting the local Repube at the election last Tuesday.