The Penn State sex scandal has rocked not only the sport’s world but everybody’s world. As the story unfolds, the specifics get worse and worse. Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for Penn State University’s football team, is rumored to have been “pimping out young boys to rich donors,” says Pittsburgh radio host Mark Madden. The scandal has led to the resignation of 84-year-old Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and the school’s president. Paterno has coached the Nittany Lions from 1966 through November 9, 2011. More heads are going to roll.
When parents of these sexually abused children contact their lawyers, there’s going to be a steep price to pay. If the people who knew what Sandusky was doing to these young boys had immediately contacted the civil authorities, the story still would have been heartbreaking but it would have been over. Sandusky would have been stopped, no more children would have been abused and corrupted, and the administration and athletic department at Penn State would have been lauded for their diligent efforts.
University’s have a long history of autonomy, in terms of morality and academic arrogance. Historian Gary North writes:
[T]he Penn State crisis is representative of the West’s deep-rooted confusion over what constitutes justice and how justice conforms with a society’s institutional success indicators. The coverage also relates to the West’s misplaced trust in tax-funded bureaucracies. . . .
The mark of the university’s claim to legal sovereignty is the black academic gown. Judges wear them. So do graduates and professors. So do clerics. From the earliest days, universities demanded equal sovereign status with church and state. It was an illegitimate claim, but it has stuck.
College professors got their money from students in the old, old days. Students would not pay the flakes. Students’ standards prevailed. They established the success indicators. The substandard professors — always in the majority — hated this. It forced them into a free market. They changed the rules. Students henceforth paid the college. Mediocre professors run the college: majority rules. “He who can, does. He who can’t, teaches. He who can’t teach, administers.” This has been true for 800 years of university life.
Sandusky’s behavior with the boys was known for more than a decade, but because the university saw itself as a sovereign institution, equal to that of the civil sphere, it believed it could legitimately mete out justice or not. Here’s what Madden wrote in April of 2011:
Allegations of improper conduct with an underage male first surfaced in 1998, while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State. That incident allegedly occurred in a shower at Penn State’s on-campus football facility. No charges were filed.
There was a grand cover-up to protect the school, the athletic department, the football team, and Joe Paterno. In the end, it was about money and moral autonomy. Penn State’s football program is a $70 million cash cow. Sandusky’s actions were known, but they were reported to the people who had a vested interest in the survival of the football program because their jobs depended on the program. “The mark of this autonomy was the university police force. The professors and the students claimed near-immunity from city councils and city police. The university police’s #1 task was to keep city police off campus. Only secondarily were the university police to establish order on campus.”
The Catholic Church has been heavily criticized for its “sex scandals” and the cover-ups, as it should have been. It was the Catholic Church’s failure to act swiftly and decisively on the matter that disillusioned and enraged faithful church members. ((The public schools have a higher percentage of teachers who use sex as a tool for exploitation and pleasure, and this says nothing about the easy access of drugs, reports of rape, sexual liaisons in the classroom, counterfeiting, stabbings, and murder that are almost a daily occurrence in our nation’s public schools.)) No one likes a cover-up, especially religious devotees who believe the church is a means of salvation.
Like the Catholic Church, Penn State has a homosexual problem, as do most colleges and universities in America. The administrations capitulated a long time ago to the bullies of sexual corruption. Take a look at the “University LGBT/Queer Programs: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual Queer Studies in the USA and Canada” website to see how pervasive the normative study of homosexuality is, and this doesn’t count the number of LGB Student Unions that populate nearly every major university in America.
Is there a correlation between the normalization of homosexual acts and the practices of men like Jerry Sandusky? Remember, Sandusky was molesting these boys on the campus of Penn State, and people in the athletic department knew about it. I found this statement from a Penn State student quoted in the New York Times interesting:
Chanel Lange-Maney, a sophomore, said that in her gay and lesbian studies class on Wednesday, students debated whether a gay and lesbian students’ group should make a statement about the episode. No, they decided, to avoid associating homosexuality with child molestation.
First, it’s no wonder graduates from college are having a hard time getting jobs when they are sitting in “gay and lesbian studies” classes. That’s an area of study that will enhance a resume.
Second, pedophilia, contrary to what the psychiatric world thinks, is a type of homosexuality. The reason Sandusky is being charged with molestation is because society has not made it legal for older men and women to have sex with teenagers. In order to satisfy his innate urge, he has to break the law, the same thing homosexuals had to do before so many anti-homosexual laws were changed. If the laws were changed, lowering the age of consent as homosexuals at NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) want done, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Presently, adults having sex with underage boys and girls is a crime. The day may come, however, when it won’t be. Consider the meeting of the B4U-ACT Conference that was held in Baltimore in August of 2011.
Around 50 individuals were in attendance including a number of admitted pedophiles — or “Minor-Attracted Persons” as they prefer to be identified — as well as several supportive mental health professionals. World renowned “sexologist,” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, saying: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”
Here are some of the “highlights” of the conference:
• Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
• There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
• “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
• “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
• “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
• “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
• An adult’s desire to have sex with a child is “normative.”
• Our society should “maximize individual liberty. . . . We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
• “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
• “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
• A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in much the same way homosexuality was removed in 1973.
• Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific conclusions that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
• Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the much maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.”
• The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexual and same-sex couples have romantic feelings for one another.
• “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
• The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control” and the “need to protect children.”
• Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said children can be “the object of our attraction,” referred to a child as “it,” compared the child to a shoe, and used graphic, slang language to approvingly describe the act of climaxing “on or with” the child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit description of child sexual assault.
It’s important that a high wall be built between pedophilia and mainstream homosexuality that is shown on television and in movies. That wall has been breached, and some in the homosexual community are taking notice. Here’s an example:
In a blatant attempt to intermix homosexuality, an innate trait fixed at birth, with pedophilia, a psychological disorder, LaBarbera flouted his ignorance and bigoted hatred through none other than the decades-old Christian News Wire. ((I’m not going to link to the site because it is disgusting.))
Did you catch that? Homosexuality is “an innate trait fixed at birth” while “pedophilia [is] a psychological disorder.” I suspect that Mr. Sandusky would disagree like most “Minor-Attracted Persons” would. The homosexuals at NAMBLA might also want to get in on the discussion. Homosexuals have bullied the various psychiatric and psychological associations to change their views on homosexuality. This is why homosexuality is no longer considered a form of behavioral choice by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists.
There are gradations of sexual desire and practice, as the homosexual community acknowledges. It’s not just “gay” anymore; it’s LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. Polygamists are next in line to add a letter to the already long sexual acronym. Then there’s the boy who dresses as a girl and has been admitted to the Girl Scouts. Here’s a statement from the Girl Scouts of Colorado:
“If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout. In this case, an associate delivering our program was not aware of our approach. She contacted her supervisor, who immediately began working with the family to get the child involved and supported in Girl Scouts. We are accelerating our support systems and training so that we’re better able to serve all girls, families and volunteers.”
There’s another factor to consider. Many homosexuals will admit that when they very young they had been molested by an older authority figure. Chastity Bono (who is now the transgendered ‘Chas’), Anne Heche, and CNN anchor Don Lemon are just three examples. Peter LaBarbera’s extended comments on the Penn State scandal are instructive:
- 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.
The media, academia, and the entertainment industry have led a moral assault to “define deviancy down” by indoctrinating young boys and girls to believe the myth that homosexuality is a legitimate sexual choice or an innate condition. Remove the taboo and the stigma of homosexuality by an appeal to tolerance, choice, and diversity, and the game is nearly won.
This is being done at a rapid pace. Homosexual propaganda pieces like It’s Elementary and That’s a Family! have been specifically designed to desensitize children to the abnormal nature of homosexuality. Helen Cohen, the producer of That’s a Family!, is unapologetic about her goal: “Now that we have this [film], we have an incredible opportunity to reach millions of children in this country through schools and community service organizations, family service organizations, and many, many other venues.” ((Quoted by Beverly LaHaye, “Dear Friend” letter, Concerned Women of America (March 2002), 1.))
For an even more shocking propaganda push, see the article that appeared in the Boston Globe and Massachusetts News that describes a workshop that was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education and was held at Tufts University. The target audience?: Teenagers. “One could see children as young as 12 or 13 at the conference participating and receiving “information and materials.” At one point in the workshop, a teacher “informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.” ((Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman, “Kids Get Graphic Instruction in Homosexual Sex,” The Massachusetts News (June 200). The entire article can be found at http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm. It’s shocking.))
Then there is the attention-grabbing episode of Glee where two teenage boys “consummate” their love for one another by a sexual romp in the sack. Even a writer who does object to homosexuality had problems with the episode:
Gay, straight, lesbian, or bi, when did it become appropriate for teens to have sex with each other on prime time TV? Is this really the message that we want to send to our kids? . . .
Teenage sex leads to depression and other crappy stuff. Why is Hollywood trying to romanticize teenage relationships? Yeah, two couples (one gay, one straight) on the show gave themselves to one another, but will they be together in ten years?
Gay or straight, Hollywood should not be romanticizing sex amongst teenagers.
Young people are being told that sex before marriage is OK – any kind and with anybody. They’re being told that marriage needs to be redefined. What moral compass does a teenager have today? How does he reject the advances of someone like Jerry Sandusky? “I mean, he’s a football coach. He’s married. He’s doing this to us at Penn State University in the hallowed locker rooms of the Nittany Lions. Some of the employees know about it. The school has ‘gay and lesbian studies’ classes. What could be wrong with it? Yes, I’m uncomfortable and feel ashamed, but that’s only because I’ve believed the stereotypical propaganda about homosexuality.”
This isn’t about hate. It’s about moral reality. Even the liberal masquerading as a Conservative David Brooks understands that something has gone wrong:
“I don’t think it was just a Penn State problem. You know, you spend 30 or 40 years muddying the moral waters here. We have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is; and so, when people see things like that, they don’t have categories to put it into. They vaguely know it’s wrong, but they’ve been raised in a morality that says, ‘If it feels all right for you, it’s probably OK.’ And so that waters everything down.”
How many times have we heard liberals shout, “You can’t impose your morality on me!” If something is said loud enough and long enough, people begin to believe it and live in terms of it.