As one might expect, my post of yesterday criticizing the "gay community" for playing into the hands of individuals like James Dobson, dba Focus on the Family brought a few well-reasoned responses.
First, from regular commentator Ian S., on the topic of age-of-consent laws:
As for age of consent laws, AFAIK the position of the major GLBT organizations in this country is that they be the SAME for straights and gays which invariably means LOWERING them for gays. I for one heartily support that position. If you do not, I'd like you to explain why you think the age of consent should be higher for gay people. Especially you who is so quick to condemn others who propose that gays get treated differently when it comes to marriage laws.
Next up was the insight of regular commentor Pat, as related to sentencing differences between heterosexual and homosexual predators:
NDT, I'm sure many of the gay community do shoot themselves in the foot. But let's look at the examples you bring up. In the case of Matthew Limon, the sentencing is unfair. Why should he get more prison time than a straight counterpart would? If he does deserve more time in prison (which he probably does), than why don't the lawmakers simply impose stricter (but equal) penalties on ALL offenders. Maybe I've missed the outcry on that. But whatever the case, the penalties should be equal. I'll let Dobson try to explain why he thinks heterosexuals should get less time in jail if they behave like a sexual predator.
Pat hits on what I think is an acceptable solution for Ian's dilemma -- namely, that equality can come from not only lowering strictures on gays, but raising them on heterosexuals.
For example, almost everyone at least pays lip service to the concept that teens should not be having sex. Why then, should we not raise the age of consent for all forms of sexual intercourse to an equal level, i.e. 17 or 18? In the case of sentencing, everyone supports harsh penalties for repeat sex offenders. Why not, as Pat suggests, raise the penalties for everyone?
This is akin to my previous argument that gay marriage (and ultimately procreative heterosexual marriage) be limited to covenant marriage. Dobson's argument that "pro-homosexual" organizations want to legalize child sex, molest children, and create more queers is utterly destroyed when we support RAISING the age of consent and scattered to the four winds when we demand stiffer penalties for individuals who molest children, regardless of whether it's same- or opposite-sex molestation. If he opposed this, he would indeed be put in the ridiculous position, as Pat points out, of arguing that heterosexuals should get lesser penalties for molesting children and, persuant to Ian's argument, be having sex sooner.
It's tactically and strategically briliant. In one swift move, we make it clear that gays oppose the sexual exploitation of children, which is probably the most politically-popular statement you could make short of motherhood and apple pie. We also force Dobson and his ilk into the untenable position of either agreeing with the godless homosexuals or arguing in favor of teenage sex and sexual predators.
However, it will never happen for a very simple reason -- because it would cost the gay media, gay lobbyists, and gay rights organizations millions of dollars.
Honestly, now. Do you think the ACLU will put up with stiffer penalties for behavior that it defends the promotion of on the basis of "free speech"? More importantly, do you think Planned Parenthood, NARAL, EMILY'S List, and the like are going to tolerate gays making such an explicit statement to limit sex, when they lose $300 - $500 of clinic revenue for each less abortion they perform?