Why is what Sandusky did wrong?
That’s the fundamental question FReepers should be asking. The media and schools tell us that humans are sexual creatures. Sandusky’s behavior is clearly homosexual - same sex attraction. It is also pedophilia, despite the vagaries of the definition, yet sex we are told is normal and good without any bounds. Man-Woman marriage is a religious imposition per their worldview.
If homosexuality isn’t abnormal then that aspect of his action is morally OK to the secular media and government schools. What then is wrong with what he did?
Is it the age difference? Is it the vulnerability of the child? Is it that the boys were unwilling participants?
If the boys were 14-17 year olds would it change peoples perspective? If they weren’t fatherless children from vulnerable backgrounds would it be OK? What if all the children stated that they were willing participants, would that make it OK?
What if Sandusky groomed them until they were 18 or older and then started a physically sexual relationship with young men from vulnerable backgrounds. Would that be OK because consent is implied?
Sandusky speaks directly to the moral vacuum created by liberalism. We must ask liberals why is what Sandusky did wrong and under what circumstances would it be OK or acceptable behavior?
At what point would Jerry Sandusky’s behavior be acceptable?
The argument strikes at the heart of the worldview separating liberals from conservatives.
Gays would love to lower the age of consent. Then their actions wouldn’t be illegal just immoral.
>>The argument strikes at the heart of the worldview separating liberals from conservatives<<
The argument strikes at the heart of the worldview separating Gods law from the evil that permeates the world.
I didn’t say it, it’s in my owners manual.
If Sandusky had simply groomed the young men until their 18th birthdays, then had homosexual sex with them, he would still be a monster, but a “legal” monster.
And this scenario plays out every day on every campus of our Predatory Sodomite Universities, where the teens have been “groomed” by years of PC brainwashing (”Glee” etc etc etc) to accept homosexual overtures as totally normal and beautiful.
Sandusky just jumped the gun by a few years, so he is rightly condemned.
But what about the homosexual profs and coaches who are careful not to make their moves until their malleable charges are one day over 17 years old? After years of the “Glee” message, teens are putty in the hands of older pederastic sodomites.
They are even lauded, like PSU Presiden Spanier, who vowed to make his college the most “gay friendly” in America.
Excellent point. All the questions you ask are not just about the “liberal” worldview, but about the worldview of anyone who takes a “libertarian” view of sexual activity.
Once sex outside normal marriage is accepted, there is no logical point for objection to any activity, other than the absence of physical force.
The Freepers are “asking” because they know the difference between right and wrong. Homosexual activity is wrong. Sex with children is wrong. Actually, sex outside of marriage is wrong.
The Freepers aren’t “asking” because they know the difference between right and wrong. Homosexual activity is wrong. Sex with children is wrong. Actually, sex outside of marriage is wrong.
The argument strikes at the heart of the worldview separating liberals from conservatives.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good question. Good point!
Why is it that liberals want “equal rights” for everyone exept children?The cases handled by liberal judges rarely favor the abused. Why? Is it simply that children can’t vote, so they are not worthy of representation? I would just like to understand why the law does not protect them not just in the womb, but through their entire jouney to adulthood? Some children are blessed with loving parents but those who are not, have no protection at all. very sad.
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.
Personally I have no liberals who are coming to Sandusky's defense and few who are upbraiding PSU for firing Paterno
To answer the question: Children are only young once. Molesting a child is the most selfish act one can commit. One is literally stealing moments from a child's life that can never be replaced.
When one thinks of one's first sexual encounter the memories are invariably pleasant--perhaps awkward--but memories one will carry throughout life.
Sandusky has planted himself into the memories of all his victims for the rest of their lives. My heart goes out to his victims who will always have Sandusky to "thank" for turning them out into sex.
Who the hell does he think he is to bring the "gift of sex" if you will, to these boys? They will never experience the joy, the wonder, the mystery that goes with discovering "what adults do."
This is why what Sandusky did is wrong.