How Many Victims of Penn State Homosexual Predator Jerry Sandusky Will Think They are ‘Gay’?

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality ^ | November 10, 2011 | Peter LaBarbera

[Diago]

News Release
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

November 10, 2011; Contact: Peter LaBarbera: americansfortruth@gmail.com

CHICAGO—The discovery that former Penn State University defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has been molesting boys as young as 10 years old – and that university officials including head coach Joe Paterno did not do more to apprehend this predator – has shocked America. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), said the scandal exposes the continuing problem of homosexual predators in society. He offers the following observations related to the PSU scandal:

• Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.)
• Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay”) is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?

• Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity.
• There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case.
• Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys.

[stockpirate]

Very good points and when one considers that Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocated fot lowering theage of consent for sex between an afdult and a minor to I think 12 years old I think you have your answer, And another questionas to why republicans didn’t oppose her based on her paper advocating her psoition.

[butterdezillion]

My daughter asked me if I hate people who like Obama. I said no, that I wouldn’t hate them just for that and in most cases the reason they like Obama is because they have believed the lies that the media has told them.

She was relieved to hear that I don’t hate them and then confessed that a friend of hers likes Obama. lol. I asked her why her friend likes Obama and she said because Obama is supportive of women and women’s choices. I said, “Honey, most often when they talk about women’s choices they are talking about a woman having the legal choice of killing her child before the child is born.”

She assured me that her friend would never support that.

I said, “But she supports Barack Obama because somebody who DOES support that told her Barack Obama is pro-woman. In reality, abortion HURTS women...” and then went on to explain how women are victimized by abortion and many spend the rest of their life either in denial or in coping mechanisms. Obama is HURTING women, but by jive-talking them into thinking he’s really helping them, he is exploiting those women just as surely as Sandusky raped those boys after letting them think he was a gift-giving friend.

And the whole while the “pro-choice” movement knows that abortion is one dead and one wounded - yet will not defend the vulnerable because their own power means more to them than the people who are hurt by their exploitation. Just like Penn State.

I think I also brought in Fast & Furious - and how our own government sold guns to the drug cartels so that they could create a massacre-type situation in Mexico, from which good, decent people needed to flee - so that it would seem heartless to close the border to them (and we’d have an excuse to keep the border open to Mexicans who would then come to the US and vote democrat). And so Obama’s administration could say that guns should be forbidden (so only the crooks would have guns and the “little people” would be unable to defend themselves and thus become just like the people in Mexico who had to flee the butchering...)

It was a heavy-duty conversation. I hope it wasn’t too much for her. I did want her to see that people in positions of power who are supposed to be protecting the innocent and executing justice are - all over the place - instead doing the exact same thing that the Penn State system did: letting innocents be hurt, so the powerful people could keep their power.

And they do it while the media calls them wonderful and most people have no clue just how depraved they actually are. My daughter’s friend would be appalled to know that Obama supported a woman’s “right” to have her fully-born child neglected or abused to death - since Obama says that allowing the child to live would be “too burdensome” for a woman.

If Karla knew that she was praising Obama because he supports a woman’s right to butcher her fully-born child, she would be disgusted. Hopefully she would question how the people she trusted could ever tell her that was a good thing. Perhaps she would see that she - in all her trusting but not verifying - is also being exploited by the very people that SHE trusts. If so, that 11-year-old girl would be wiser than nearly every woman in the democrat party.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Only some FReepers have actually questioned Sandusky’s “so called marriage” to his wife as a farce.

It's called "a beard". And it's rather commonplace.

[butterdezillion]

Wow. I wasn’t aware of that either.

The way the laws are now pretty much gives the “right” of young people to have sex with each other. In many instances it just makes it so that the two “consenting teens” have to be less than 3 years apart in age. So the whole idea of teens not being able to legally consent to sex is already shot. They can have legal sex until the cows come home, as long as they have it with somebody who is within 3 years of their own age. The legal justifications for that can’t help but be blurry - leaving the way wide open for the argument that age shouldn’t matter at all.

[dennisw]

It stinks and we all know how the gays love to infiltrate their agenda into the public schools. Their agenda being that gay is OK and perfectly normal. I really think getting a penis put into his rectum really messes up a guy’s nervous system including brain and endocrine system due to all the sensitive nerves in the rectum area. Gays can pretend they are normal but they have messed up “house wiring”. Periodically putting bursts of 2000 volts through wiring intended for 110AC and 15 amps.

Maybe some gays are always the doer and never the sperm receptacle. I don’t know enough about them (thankfully)

[Tax-chick]

leaving the way wide open for the argument that age shouldn’t matter at all

Exactly. Once the society has taken the position that children can be voluntary sexual participants *at all*, there is no logical limit to a total free-for-all short of a general agreement on criminalizing violent coercion.

Psychologists now like to say we are all "sexual beings" from birth, and that's true (from conception) if it means that every person is genetically either male or female. However, that's not what they mean. If you take a look at what the UN considers "basic rights" regarding sexuality, it will make you sick.

[momtothree]

I a “beard” the proper term for it? Meaning is that what the term for someone using a marriage as a smoke screen?

[Tax-chick]

Yes, “beard” is a well-known colloquial term for a woman who is married to or in an apparent sexual relationship with a homosexual man. It’s not unknown for them to produce children, since men can do a sex act with absolutely anyone or anything, even if their preference is for anal with a man or boy.

[butterdezillion]

Is that the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of the Child that Hillary Clinton tried to get approved so that there was no way that anybody in the US could ever get us out from under its obligations?

Is that the declaration that keeps the US from being on the UN’s Human Rights Council while allowing Iran and Venezuela to be on it?

I just read an article about a 10-year-old girl in Mexico having a baby. The article talked about Mexico not allowing abortion except in cases of rape - as if a 10-year-old girl aborting would make it no problem that these girls are either being raped by older guys or having sex with boys.

[Tax-chick]

The Rights of the Child statement is pretty bad, but more is included in their proposals for the universal rights of women ... “women” being defined as any female who makes it past birth and the age for a quick infanticide.

I saw the story about the girl in Mexico. It’s insane that we’re supposed to believe that abortion is a cure for rape and/or incest, but that’s consistent with the modern viewpoint that fertility, pregnancy, and childbirth are pathological conditions, while sterile sex with anything with a pulse is the healthy human norm.

[momtothree]

Thanks, Tax-chick! I have heard about this happening but I never knew there was a “word” for it. Makes you wonder about the women, doesn’t it? Were they the type who were “asexual” or the type of person not to question why their husband didn’t want them sexually? I know in my Mom’s day and age, an unmarried man was “looked at” as being possibly odd. If he wanted to move up in his career or be accepted, he would have to be married. Even in her small town, there were men who married (and had ongoing affairs with other men).

[Tax-chick]

I have heard about this happening but I never knew there was a “word” for it.

I learned it on FR ;-).

Makes you wonder about the women, doesn’t it?

I wonder about a LOT of women's life-choices! Unless one is thinking about AIDS, there's not a lot of difference between marrying a homosexual philanderer and a heterosexual one. An agreement to have a couple of kids, perhaps ... a certain amount of discretion ... and then they live separate lives.

[momtothree]

I would imagine this could happen more “secretly” in olden times. For one thing, the couple could remain chaste without today’s morality standards. So, the wife finds out on her wedding night that he isn’t interested. Then what? Does she file for divorce? Well, women of that time who divorced were seen in bad terms. Plus, many women didn’t openly discuss such situations even with family. Strange stuff!

[Tax-chick]

True, a lot of weird stuff in life.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Yes. A marriage, or a dating, relationship.

[afraidfortherepublic]

So, the wife finds out on her wedding night that he isn’t interested. Then what? Does she file for divorce?

She files for civil annulment. The old rule was that grounds for annulment were that they had never "consummated" the marriage. A civil annulment is different from a Church annulment.

[dsc]

“I think if you probed the backgrounds of most “gay” men, you would find similar stories of grooming and seduction by sodomite pederasts.”

I’ve never seen a case of same-sex attraction disorder that did not begin with a seduction or molestation in the pre-adult years.

I’ve seen some sodomites start out denying that, but if you stay with it, you can identify it.

[dsc]

“I’ve heard surveillance tapes of pedophiles talking about how much they want to be exactly like the adult who molested them”

In psychobabble that’s called “identification with the oppressor.”

[proudofthesouth]

I rarely watch MSM but happened to watch it the other night when NBC nightly news was doing a story about this. They kept referring to it as intercourse between Sandusky and the young boys (inferring that it was enjoyable to both parties). My blood pressure skyrocketed and I started screaming at the TV that it wasn't intercourse but rape and sodomy!

When I think of McCreaky(?) walking in on that 10 year old boy and Sandusky and the boy probably thinking that he was going to be rescued...... How could ANYONE walk away from that situation and not rescue the child and beat the crap out of Sandusky?!

[dsc]

“I’ve worked with many gay people and the vast majority have had rather normal up-bringings without histories of molestation to hear them tell it.”

Which is to say, they lied.