> Two issues:
>
> 1) I wasn't referring to gay men, but, rather,
> gay men who happen to be child molestors.
I was talking about the casual equivalence drawn by Coulter and the speculators you refer to between men who would other wise be gay and those who end up in the priesthood but can't be gay so they start molesting children. The equivalence is accomplished by means of the term "sodomite," which refers to the preference for a certain kind of sexual act, rather than to a social type, as Foucault would have it, a person (ie homosexual man). It's sanitized way of delivering the insult "cocksucker" or "rump-ranger," and has the added virtue of lumping together everyone who transgresses the prohibition against non vaginal intercourse (with the assumption that all such bad people are men), as if to say that all gay men are but a visit to the seminary away from raping the cute little twinks who bag their groceries.
> 2) It's fairly well-known that young gay men
(i.e. 13-18) often have their first sexual experiences with older gay men. As
far as I'm concerned, many experiences of that sort aren't molestation in any
important sense of the term.
Right, but how many gay men retroactively call their early sex partners molesters? The narrative Coulter tells is not about the ambiguity of the experience of the molested. She is totally unconcerned with that. She's making an extremely crude version of the oft repeated leftish argument that sexuality is amorphous to suggest that the ease with which our sexual objects can be inverted or perverted justifies our quarantining the Boy Scouts or the Church from gays, for example. Or somehow explains the incidents in the priesthood. (We can see the shape of the new patriotism . . .) Those kinds of one-dimensional arguments _are_ objectionable. Saying that sodomites cause sodomy is a tautology, not an argument.
Christian