Folks, no need to parrot politically correct/expedient/convenient bromides here. I have little power to effect cultural reality either way. The least we can do is be honest about that reality in the face of mutual powerlessness to change society from behind our keyboards.
Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that
increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men. The specific case is that this may have been a factor contributing to the years-long delay exposing Sandusky and, consequently, allowing him to rape more boys.
The former, general case, is pretty standard fare, economics & social science wise on
other topics, but is not trumpeted for political reasons by most. The latter is speculation based on the former.
Perhaps an example of another sensitive topic might provide illumination? So, let us talk
guns.
Here is a thesis analogous to that above:
Increased tolerance(1) for firearms will result in more innocent people being killed by violent criminals with firearms.But, "No!" we can hear adherents to the Sainted John Lott hollering. "More guns = less crime."
Maybe. Maybe not. If am to to discount Michael Bellesiles's negative thesis WRT American gun ownership & crime due to inability to provide the raw data, I (to be both consistent & honest) must also discount John Lott's positive thesis WRT American gun ownership to inability to look at the raw data. Both had "hard drive failures" of some sort, preventing others from looking at their raw data.
We can compare per capita violent homicides with firearms against those of similar countries with strict(er) gun control (less tolerance for firearms) and control for race/income/etc. Guess what? We (the USA, with greater tolerance for firearms) have more violent deaths with firearms, no matter how you slice the data(2) and (3).
Despite this, there is still relatively strong tolerance for firearms in the USA.
Put simply, many folks value their reasons for tolerating firearms more than the lives of those violently killed with them. What reasons?
* Tradition
* Liberty
* Bulwark against tyranny
* Personal protection against criminals
* Perhaps because the availability of firearms reduces murders with other weapons.
* Etc.
One, some, or all of these or other reasons weigh more than the lives of people murdered with firearms for America.
But, this talk about "America" is the usual dilution of responsibility of the individual in the group. Let us bring it closer to home and own our slice of individual responsibility for these deaths.
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of tradition."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of liberty."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of republican government."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of that 1/10000 chance that I might be attacked by a criminal."
You get the idea.
In this world, all things come at a cost. All actions will have consequences. Folks in Washington can pretend this is not so, but I'd hope we here are adults enough to realize this.
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward firearms, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of..."
If you've been paying attention, you can see the shape of this shinola sandwich to come.
Homosexuality, with Lawrence v Texas, has been decriminalized. Homosexuality, at least in the dominant America culture, is more & more tolerated.
Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.
Previous American intolerance for homosexuality did not eliminate it any more than it eliminated handguns in, say, the UK. But, that intolerance did reduce the number of people willing to pay the increased costs (money, status, etc.) of homosexual practices.
Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty. Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years? Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.
Whether America is willing to admit it or not,
America is willing, for some reason(s), to tolerate some number of boys being raped (who otherwise would not be raped) for the sake of tolerance of homosexuality.What reasons?
* Liberty
* Sexual satisfaction
* Emotional satisfaction
* Etc.
But, again, this talk about "America" is the usual dilution of responsibility of the individual in the group. Let us bring it closer to home and own our slice of individual responsibility for these rapes.
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of liberty."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of sexual satisfaction."
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of emotional satisfaction."
You get the idea.
In this world, all things come at a cost. All actions will have consequences. Folks in Washington can pretend this is not so, but I'd hope we here are adults enough to realize this.
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward homosexuality, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent boys raped by homosexual men for the sake of..."
(1) "Tolerance" in both cases meaning decriminalization, ease of access, lessening of social opprobrium, etc. and an overall lowering of the cost/price.
(2) Violent deaths by other means and/or other violent crimes are not suppressed by a low tolerance for firearms.
(3) This is despite the illegal traffic of firearms in theses countries. Yes, firearms are theoretically available for purchase anywhere on the globe, but gov't restriction and/or lack of tolerance drives local prices so high that the practical availability is significantly reduced. There are also this strange breed of folk who refrain from illegal acts just because they are illegal.
