Addressing the Gay Issue

Heterosexuals are always being accused by homosexuals of being narrow-minded and intolerant, but have any of them ever said they understood why straights might regard sodomy as disgusting behavior?

Have they ever said that although we all grasp the fact that not all homosexuals are pedophiles, it still behooves them to speak out against adults having gay sex with “consenting” teenagers and, furthermore, why it would be inappropriate and criminally irresponsible for the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to be Scout Masters and to oversee camping trips? Just as an aside, I can’t help reflecting on the fact that “camping” is a word long used to describe gays acting out in the most outrageous fashion.

Also, when they defend their life style because they were “born that way,” are they blind to the fact that pederasts and rapists and, I dare say, serial killers, could, in their own defense, make the identical claim?

I happen to know a great many conservatives, and I don’t know a single one who believes that gays should be bullied, beaten, persecuted or ostracized by their families. That’s not to say there aren’t any, but I’m happy to report that I haven’t run into them. At the same time, I don’t know why a crime committed against a homosexual should be deemed a “hate crime” and carry a heavier penalty in a court of law than the very same offense when the victim happens to be a heterosexual.

For that matter, I have no idea why after thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization, the concept of marriage should be turned on its head simply to accommodate same-sex couples because they insist they love each other. People love all sorts of things, ranging from their dogs, horses and cats to their cars, their hobbies and their hometown football teams. All of that is simply a matter of personal preference. It’s only when gay activists make demands that Love is assumed to trump tradition, the law and common sense.

I don’t hate gays. Having worked for decades in Hollywood, I have known a great many of them. How could I not? As in any group, some are decent and some aren’t. Some are excellent co-workers, others are just silly and annoying. Some are extremely talented, while others just think they are because they happen to be gay.

But one thing I have noticed is that I never hear any of them campaigning for the same privilege they demand for themselves being extended to others, such as incestuous couples or would-be polygamists. After all, if love between consenting adults is all it takes to radically transform the concept of marriage from being a sacred relationship between one man and one woman, why shouldn’t the same rights be extended to those other eccentrics?

What gives a man proclaiming his undying love of another man greater moral authority than a back-sliding Mormon who insists that he loves and wishes to marry a dozen consenting waitresses he met at his local Hooter’s?

©2011 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? Write Burt! Click on the little envelope below to email this article.
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.   Get both for just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website:
  • JonWid

    I think that dear Bernie has a conflict of interest in this issue. He’s always on THAT side. He would do best to clarify what that conflict is.

  • Sillypud

    WOW This old guy is seriously messed up. His grandchildren must be so embarrassed and ashamed. I feel sorry for them if not for him. Does he ever write anything based on factual information and current research or is it always just opinion?

  • M. B. Watson

    1) Homosexuals are people whose lust or desire for gratification is greater than their faith that they can be loved by a member of the opposite sex. Like most of society’s problems, it stems from a lack of faith.
    2) Homosexuality has become a cult, instead of just an aberration of our culture and should be dealt with as an offense to religious freedom.

  • Burt Prelutsky

    I see the gremlins have finally emerged. Sillypud, Wilf and the Right Rev, all seem to regard me as a bigot because, like most Americans, I am opposed to the goofy notion of same-sex marriages, but they dismiss people over 60 as backward…and that, in their besotted brains, does not constitute bigotry.

    I’m sure you all take great comfort in seeing the youth of America taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement, turning the concept of peaceful assembly on its head by raping, shooting up and turning our city streets into their personal toilets.

    For good measure, Christianguyhere & The Right Rev have me confused with Bernie Goldberg, who is a Fox News Commentator. By the way, if you spent half as much time actually watching Fox as you do bellyaching about it, you might actually be aware of the fact that liberals such as Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Leslie Marshall, Marc Lamont Hill, Lis Wiehl and Alan Colmes, along with liberal politicians, are on all the time.

    By the way, I never said that all gays get AIDS. What I do say is that the only instances in which heterosexuals have contracted the disease is through transfusions and sexual intercourse with bi-sexuals.


    • The Right Rev.

      “…the only instances in which heterosexuals have contracted the disease is through transfusions and sexual intercourse with bi-sexuals.”

      LOL! Completely factually incorrect. The more you write the more misinformed you prove yourself to be. Funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

    • John In MA

      Burt, it has been my experience that people who so quickly rush to use words as labels – such as bigot, racist, etc. – most typically do not have real arguments to make. Not knowing anything about “The Right Rev.”, but reading the shallow words written, it seems fair to me that person has little to say, but a lot of “hate” to through back at perceived “haters.” That seems commonplace today.

      Reading this reminds me of my children when they were growing apart in their adolescent ages. Most often disagreements were fought with words like, “Nuh-uh you’re wrong! I’m right. You’re stupid!!” Baseless refutation and name calling seems the tools of a immature mind to me. I guess when you get a little older you add some words to the refutation, but make sure to add lots of innuendo in place of simple name calling. Or just name call, too.

      At least many today make it easy to determine which are serious and should considered, and which are just immature. When talking heads that represent an entire party (Dems) engage in it, it is a sad indicator of the times. Many conservatives were guilty of it in the Pat Robertson era, but it seems more repressed now. Anecdotal observation on my part, at best.

      • The Right Rev.

        I just reread every word I wrote and not once did I call anyone a name. On the other hand one poster wrote calling others here the “r” word. Why did you decide to respond to my post and not his?

        And I assure you there are hundreds of thousands of heterosexuals with HIV who got it from heterosexual sex with other heterosexuals. To state this is not a baseless refutation it is an easily verifiable fact.

        • James Holzbauer

          Yeah Rev. I noticed that too. You never called anyone a name but he essentially calls you hateful and childish.

          My grandpa is always blaming other people for moving stuff that they didn’t touch but he just misplaced. I guess blaming other people for doing stuff you actually did is just something older people like to do when they are embarrassed about being confused.

        • Jeffreydan

          “And I assure you there are hundreds of thousands of heterosexuals with HIV who got it from heterosexual sex with other heterosexuals. To state this is not a baseless refutation it is an easily verifiable fact.”

          Where did Heterosexual A contract the disease before exposing it to Heterosexual B?

          Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t buy it for a minute if someone tried to tell me a heterosexual cannot get AIDS from another heterosexual, even a clean-living one. But that doesn’t change the fact that the likelihood of a gay man contracting HIV is higher than that of anyone else, and drastically higher than that of a heterosexual man.

          • Sillypud

            HIV infection began in Africa among heterosexuals who contracted it from eating monkey meat. This is now an undeniable fact as the Patient Zero theory has been completely debunked thorough HIV strain analysis.

            If someone is going to offer an opinion on something they really should be current in their research. That’s what the net is for. It would only take a few minutes to find this out with a simple Google search.

          • Jeffreydan


            If YOU want to lecture others on this subject, I encourage it. Saves us the effort of pointing out you’re a fool. According to the CDC **WEBSITE**, the last sentence in my previous comment is absolutely correct.

            And please, please, tell me more about this “Google” thing in your wonderfully superior tone.

  • MCFergy

    Mr. Burt P; regarding the last sentence of your article, one should make the distinction between the F.L.D.S. Church, practicing polygamists, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who long ago abolished the practice of polygamy. Painting an ox and a horse the same color does not make them the same.

  • Sillypud

    “For that matter…” to connect two totally unrelated flawed ideas. Opinions devoid of facts, archaic ideas proven to be inaccurate by current research, pandering to baseless fears and last gen. prejudices…

    LOL Who is this light weight? Is this what passes for journalism these days with the geriatric set? Sad. No wonder they think Fox reports news. I guess living before access to the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips via the net created intellectual cripples subject to manipulation of emotions and misrepresentation of facts.


    Check it out Bert.

    • The Right Rev.

      Seriously, these types of prejudices are on their way out, just be patient. The young people coming up have access to the accurate research an they will bury these archaic ideas and those who stubbornly hold to them. Just as “children should be seen and not heard,” women are the weaker sex (and have no soul), blacks are inferior, etc. the homosexuals are murdering disease infected pedophiles lie will die, with it’s proponents.

      So breathe deep, count to ten and see…another one has passed on.

    • Christianguyehere

      You do know he is a Faux News (sic) commentator right?

      • The Right Rev.

        Oh, that explains his lack of intellect/integrity…sorry.

        • CCNV

          Both of you are retarded. This is BURT’s column…NOT Bernie’s…and NOT ‘BERT’. Learn to R-E-A-D!

  • Wilf

    Thank god you are like 9,000 yrs. old and most of the people who read your crazy stuff are over 60. Old ideas by old people soon gone, and a more equal and just world looms.

    Humanity is on a march toward greater justice, each generation creating a better world. Women’s rights, racial equality, children’s rights, all human rights are the future of the global human family. We will achieve a better, freer and more equitable world.

    You won’t be there to see it or stop it. I feel sorry that you can’t have the foresight to support it while you have the chance to be on the morally correct side of the progressive vision for the human race.

    Your grandchildren alternately weep and laugh at your irrelevance.

    • james

      despite the efforts of progressives to normalize and institutionalize homosexuality, nature will continually turn people away from it. its an unnatural fad that will die under its own weight once gay rights advocates run out of money and the pederasty so common in gay communities, like the Penn State and Syracuse scandals, continues to be exposed. gay marriage will be a breeding ground for gay men to rape kids and gay women to confuse sex roles.

  • Burt Prelutsky

    TheRealGuyFaux: I recalled the Mineo investigation, but I was unaware until now that Dick Sargent’s cancer had been misrepresented because he was a homosexual.

    I do remember, though, that when Rock Hudson finally acknowledged he was gay and, moreover, suffering from AIDS, he was lionized for his courage and decency…but all I could think of was that he had withheld that essential piece of information for months, maybe even years, from his sex partners. Some courage! Some decency!

    Regards, Burt

  • therealguyfaux

    Burt, you being a Hollywood guy, can understand the examples I am about to cite as an example of the “Gay Anti-Hate” industry that the MSM is willing to buy into. My first example is Sal Mineo: the investigation into his murder stalled for months because no one believed it could have been what it finally was determined to be– a robbery gone bad, if the media and L.A. Sheriff’s Office are to be believed. Many people were convinced that Mr. Mineo’s death was somehow either a hate crime or a crime of victimization of a gay man, and pressure was brought to bear on the Sheriff’s Office to investigate it that way, all in the name of good relations with the gay community. My second example is that of Dick Sargent, who went public as a homosexual when it was (erroneously) reported that he had AIDS. Mr. Sargent in fact had prostate cancer. The media were excoriated for “picking on a sick man” for publicizing Mr. Sargent’s sexual orientation and possible HIV status. To his credit, Sargent met the stories head-on and became a spokesman for prostate cancer sufferers, and to some extent tacitly chided the gay community for not paying attention to the fact that prostate cancer was as much their problem as the straight community’s. Here are two examples where the sexual orientations of the men involved were for practical purposes irrelevant, and yet the gay community felt it necessary for their gayness to be held up as “proof” of their victimization. It’s been said that one should never ascribe to malice what stupidity adequately explains; the gay community counters the stupidity of those they oppose, just as stupidly sometimes.

  • Shirl

    Just another stupid group agitated by the looney-toon liberal democrats who will agree with anyone and anything to get a vote so they can raise taxes on everyone and spend our money. Just another tool in the socialists tool box being used to further their anti-American agenda.

  • flataffect

    I agree with Burt Prelutsky. We are going the way of the classical Greeks and Romans.

    ““Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace” – Alexander Pope

  • Burt Prelutsky

    Holzbauer: Needful of attention? I’m a writer, so it is quite natural to want attention. It’s hardly a crime or a sin. If you wish to attack people for seeking attention they have done nothing to deserve, you might consider going after the freaks who generally show up for Gay Pride Parades.

    It would also help to keep track of numbers. It just looks goofy when you skip from reason number five to number seven, and then toss in an orphan number six.

    I do wonder, though, when you decided that most homosexuals do not practice anal intercourse. I happen to know that AIDS is not transmitted through cuddling.


    • James Holzbauer

      You demean yourself with this bigotry sir. Do you also paint all lesbian women with such a wide brush? Or is it just gay men you want to disparage by equating them with murders, pedophiles and AIDS patients? Your article is a fluff piece, devoid of thoughtful analysis or factual truths. It insights negative stereotypes and a grossly inaccurate understanding of reality. I expect better from you, you know better and you should do better.

    • The Right Rev.

      You embarrassed yourself with this Burt. You owe it to your reputation to think more clearly with fact based evidence as opposed to fear based opinion. Imagine the embarrassment of your grandchildren when they read your retrograde hateful diatribes? It will be like David Duke’s ancestors cringing in embarrassment and shame. Sure they’re going to spend your money but they sure as ever won’t brag about who they got it from. You will be a dirty little family secret…but it isn’t to late too repent.

      You don’t have much time left, you may want to think about your legacy. Do you really want to die being known by your ancestors as a bigot? Can you imag

  • Dave O’Connor

    If you think, “being accused by homosexuals of being narrow-minded and intolerant..” is a usual confrontation; you should be among gays, when as one of them (though I’d prefer to be just called the older “queer’ or better yet, “other”) when you find yourself speaking ‘off-agenda’.
    Boy, oh boy, there’s achilly wind.
    The primary issue of predatory abuse is wrong on its face, I find it an secondary outrage when associated with my life circumstances because of just plain common perceptions. But, to be silent is even more condemning.
    Morphing from rights, there seems to be a further gold-ring chase for marriage and the status of ‘military’, barring any reasonable comparisons or studies exposing the calculated findings against feasibility.
    I was fortunate to serve, before I realized a lot about myself (stepped away from a commission because I would not lie -fact of life). But, I served full time and I’m proud of it.
    But, barring that case, I was able to live “out” and even served within the ranks of GOP politics: without being a token.
    Yet, I refused and continue to refuse victim status. As well, I’d rather not see any part of our population being infantilized in terms of spousal or regimental lives.
    There is peaceful enjoymant of life and there is also reality, within which are differences. But no society should be coerced to abide differences without understanding the harmless nature of them. When one is found acting against the good of society; call them out; family, lifestyle or politics.
    Here, in Massachusetts, courts indulged the gay population because legislators didn’t have faith in themselves or their voters to ‘understand’, ‘feel’, ’empathize’, and wahatever PC’ing required.
    As I see it – or ‘feel’ it, most people just yawn.

  • James Holzbauer

    First-Sodomy isn’t an exclusively homosexual act and not even a majority of male homosexuals do it.

    Second- Biblical marriage (the Judeo-Christian cultural tradition)is most often polygamy (specifically one man and as many women as he could buy)not monogamy between one man and one woman, read your Bible.

    Third- Gay Boy Scout leaders are no more criminal than say straight male teachers of math or soccer or theatre or gymnastics or church school involving coed classes, why would it be? On what grounds do you say it is? The statistical majority of male pedophiles are straight married men. Have you heard of Sandusky? That straight married man who is accused of pedophilia involving male children? Well he is the statistical norm to abuse boys, not an out gay man.

    Fourth- Why do gay men have any responsibility beyond all of our responsibilities to denounce sex between adult and children?

    Fifth- There is no affinity between same sex copulation and incest (causes birth defects), or bestiality (an animal cannot consent to sex), rape (an act of violence not sex), and murder (a person dies).

    Seventh- A hate crime is different from any other that is crime motivated by the personal gain of the perpetrator rather than the identity of the victim.

    But the author knew all this, he’s just needful of attention so he chooses to be polemical and appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator for personal gain.

    How sad that that comes at the expense of others.


    • Ken Hansen

      Homosexual/Heterosexual is a definition tied to the physical act of having sex. If I showed you two pictures, each depicting a grown man and a visibly young man (early teens) each engaged in a sexual act (anal intercourse?) and said which is the homosexual couple and which is a heterosexual predator and his victim – could you tell which is which?

      For most folks, the two pictures are of Homosexual couples.

  • Bot

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

  • Iklwa

    One of the single, over-riding concepts that has been fought and died for repeatedly throughout our nation’s history is “Blind Justice”. Kings and Lords favored their relatives and friends in civil and criminal disputes. American justice (the original concept, anyway) says all humans are to be regarded in the same light regardless of race, creed or color. There was never any reference to sexual predisposition mentioned anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States.

    Hate crime legislation arose from leftist, post modern thinking and pandering to minority constituencies of the Democrat Party. Sadly, liberal Republicans (those with little or no moral fibre) were swayed in the same direction for fear of having to defend their principals in the media.


    In much the same way you will not see the Queer Nation defending the rights of polygamists; you will never see them defending the rights of our unborn children. The logic of Post Modern thought easily accommodates any rational as long as it suits the present purpose. You will see that when the goal of the movement changes, the rational/argument does as well, regardless of the blatant hypocrisy.

    Make no mistake about the queer agenda. It strives for acquisition of political power, wealth and assuaging of the guilt written on the heart of every man. This has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law.

    My mother used to say “Misery loves company.”
    I would add: …and they want the power to enforce that misery everywhere.


  • Ken Hansen

    Burt, I couldn’t help but notice your omission of what I’ll refer to as the “Santorim Google Prank” – forcing a graphic sexual topic most people (straight OR gay) would find offensive as the top google result for a search on ‘Santorum’. I tried to explain that such a ‘prank’ may delight a few homosexual activists but in the long run I fully expect that to have a negative effect on their efforts to ‘normalize’ their lifestyle, much like the hedonistic displays at ‘Gay Pride’ festivals, and so-called ‘Gay Days’ at theme parks like Disneyland…

    A loving homosexual couple raising children and hoping to ‘fit in’ is ill-served by such displays.

  • Burt Prelutsky

    Bill: So what if you were born this way? How does that negate anything I wrote? Comparing being homosexual to being a black man who, at one point, was enslaved and, at another time, was compelled to abide by Jim Crow laws, is a standard technique of gays, but not terribly effective. It is quite a different matter to be condemned for your skin color and quite another to repulse people by your behavior. And I’m not just referring to sexual behavior, but to the mob-like actions in the weeks following the Proposition 8 election here in California.

    Jff3: I guess if you’re free to think I’m hateful, I’m free to think you’re perverted. But comparing the condition of gays in America to being tossed to the lions explains why so many homosexuals are derided as drama queens.

    JeffreyRO5: Giving more weight to a so-called “hate crime” is an example of social justice, which is the opposite of actual justice. You write that a hate crime is worse than an ordinary crime because it is committed against someone because of who or what he is. Therefore, would you say that robbing a wealthy man is worse than robbing a poor man? After all, he is being targeted for what he is…namely, rich. No, I didn’t think so. Unless, I suppose, he were a wealthy homosexual.

    Cynthia: Although other readers have already corrected you, I would add that it behooves you to check bylines in the future. It is difficult to give credence to your comments when you don’t know whom you’re addressing. In addition, I believe that homosexuals have already been the recipient of far more compassion than they deserve. Until they can explain why they, as consenting adults, should have the right to marry but those other combinations of consenting adults I referred to shouldn’t, I think they should just shut their yaps and be satisfied with civil unions.

    Sincerely, Burt

    • Ken Hansen

      Why is the Gov’t involved in marriages?

      In Germany their marriages are two-part, there’s a civil portion where-by you go to a city official, file some paperwork, and in the end the couple is ‘united’ (I struggle finding the right word, I’m not sure what a couple is actually called after this process), and then, in they like, they may go and have a religious ceremony. To accommodate same-sex unions is a simple matter of politicians redefining those who may participate in the civil process, there is no need to force anything down the throats of the churches.

      In America, gay civil unions are derided as insufficient, yet in other countries they are not because everyone has a civil union, a religious marriage is something else.

    • ph16

      Burt, you nailed it with the article and your comment. Great job and keep up the good writing!

    • ted wight

      My question: is there a limit or can any group (aka “faction” by the Founding Fathers) get together, lobby Congress and finance the election of Democrats to invent “rights”? Suddenly those disagreeing are railed against by the media. Is there some reason only “liberal” rights are supported? Not Republican ones. Not pro-business ones, only so-called liberal ones. Like homosexuals. Environmental death caused by capitalists. But each issue is a battle to the death by the affinity group, to often neglected by the conservate right.

    • Wilf

      Thank god you are like 9,000 yrs. old and most of the people who read your crazy stuff are over 60. Old ideas by old people soon gone, and a more equal and just world looms.

      Humanity is on a march toward greater justice, each generation creating a better world. Women’s rights, racial equality, children’s rights, all human rights are the future of the global human family. We will achieve a better, freer and more equitable world.

      You won’t be there to see it or stop it. I feel sorry that you can’t have the foresight to support it while you have the chance to be on the morally correct side of the progressive vision for the human race.

      Your grandchildren alternately weep and laugh at your irrelevance.

  • Cynthia

    I’m not on board with you on this one, Bernie. Although heterosexual marriage is a tradition, it only seems fair to me to allow gays to marry. It can only be good for society to have more marriage rather than less and to have more children raised in families of legally married couples, gay or straight. I can see your point about the Boy Scouts, actually, although I have resisted the idea that gays shouldn’t be allowed as scout masters. You could say that a gay man camping with boys is like a straight man camping with little girls. A decent man is not a danger in either scenario, but adult men camping with little girls is certainly an unwise policy. Then again, it isn’t exactly a parallel. Wish it were more clear, but when it comes to marriage, I really don’t agree with you Bernie. Please be more compassionate on that issue at least.

    • Nancye

      His name is BURT – not BERNIE. Come back when you figure out which columnist you’re trying to respond to.

      • Thomas

        That was something horrible.

        I agree with you Cynthia.

    • Clarence De Barrows

      Cynthia: First, Burt wrote the article, Bernie simply posted it. Second, marriage, as Burt pointed out, has for thousands of years referred to a well defined relationship quite distinct from the arrangement you would allow it to be corrupted into – you know – kind of like usurping and corrupting a perfectly good word like “gay” to add a light hearted perspective to behavior which has been considered abhorrent to conventional societies for centuries. You say that, “It can only be good for society to have more marriage rather than less …”, yet your definition of marriage is both amorphous and ambivalent, it can mean one thing today and something else tomorrow – not a good thing when attempting to define reality. Word meanings and societies do change, but it must be acknowledged that history shows that change is not always in a positive direction.

    • Wilf

      So you think straight men would rape little girls if they had the chance on a camping trip?

      Neither straight nor gay adults are just waiting for a chance to rape children. Pedophile child rapists do that.

  • John In MA

    Predictably, politics removes logic from a situation and replaces it with emotion. For me, finding a way to allow same sex couples the same protections under the law is simply logical. Using the law to enforce the “moral view” of a group, even if a majority, lets emotion supersede logic. Whether or not a same sex union should be called marriage is less the issue than giving the same rights to the union (e.g. end of life rights). But politics allows people like Rick Santorum to make statements of emotion about the corrupting influence of gay – what is it culture?, marriage?, existence?, I’m not sure what the beef is- , as if they are factual.

    I have never found a single incidence where allowing a gay union/marriage has negatively influenced my marriage of over 20 years to an opposite sex spouse.

    I do find the politicizing of “gayness” to be annoying, however.

    • Dave O’Connor

      John, Regarding your comment, “I do find the politicizing of “gayness” to be annoying, however.”: You should try tolerating the mantra from inside the ‘culture’.
      It could drive a guy ‘Straight”.
      But, we’re both Bay Staters, so the saturation level is drowning.

  • Bill Hurdle

    I agree with your logic and it is apparent that the opinion propaganda machine of the US (print, broadcast, film) has been hard at work for well over 2 decades promoting homosexuality as a protected class. The next step will be the “diversity” push, hiring quotas and affirmitive action. I also find the concept of hate crimes to be totally illogical. Does the damage inflicted on a crime victim depend on the motivation of the perpetrator? I hardly think so.

    • JeffreyRO5

      I tried to explain the hate crimes rationale. I guess I didn’t do a very good job. I’ll try again. People who belong to certain groups, most often based on religion, race and sexual orientation, have crimes committed against them for no other reason than their religion, race or sexual orientation. Because no one should live in fear of being attacked for being who they are, the government takes extra steps to discourage such crimes, and that’s how hate crimes legislation came about. It started in 1964, protecting religion and race. Sexual orientation was added recently, along with gender identification.

      • John In MA

        The problem, Jeffrey, as with much of the law making that occurs, is that an artificial boundary (or class) is created. Supporters of certain laws always favor the beneficial side, while overlooking the unintended consequences, making them IGNORED consequences.

        Anytime you create an artificial protected class, others who don’t fit in that class are subordinated in the eyes of the law. Hence, violence against a man is a lesser crime than violence against a woman. Violence against a white woman is a lesser crime than the same against a black woman. In the modern PC world, is violence against a gay woman worse than the same against a black woman? What a complex dilemma….

        It is a cruel situation for those who end up with lesser protection via penalties allowed in the eyes of the law.

        • JeffreyRO5

          I don’t think you understand the issue. Victims of hate crimes are not an artificial class: crimes against them are very real. Again, no person should be a victim of a crime because of who they are. To discourage such crimes, there are penalties for committing them. A person who belongs to a group that is attacked for who they are lives in constant fear: they can never undo or not be the thing that they get attacked for.

          • John In MA

            To pick an example in theme – why is a crime against a straight person less real? Why SHOULD the punishment be different? What if I am gay and I commit a violent act against a straight person because they are straight?

            Law is supposed to be about logic. When you create artificial differences in people you create an artificial class. You cannot ignore that, but you can accept it as a consequence if you think the protected class deserves special treatment. It is that simple to me.

            If you believe in it to discourage certain crimes, that is your right. However, the unintended consequence is that you want to discourage a crime against a straight person less, in effect and using the same example.

          • Joe

            If you hit me over the head because I’m…what? black? homosexual?…whatever, we say we want to discourage “hate”, so we punish you more severely. Do we not want to discourage greed? Revenge? Individual hatred? So if you hit me over the head because I beat you out of a promotion, or took your girlfriend, or because you saw me coming away from an ATM with money in my pocket…am I less injured? The *reason* you hit me is irrelevant. *Nobody* should have to “live in fear”, whether for what they “are” or for what they *do”.

  • JeffreyRO5

    Well, this article recycled just about every stereotype about gay people out there! Bravo, Mr. Prelutsky!

    If you find sodomy disgusting, don’t do it! Since most anal and oral sex is perpetrated by straight people, and they are allowed to marry, I guess “disgust with sodomy” isn’t a relevant reason to deny equal legal rights, including marriage, to gay and lesbian people.

    A gay man can lead a pack of boy scouts on a camping trip and not have sex with them! Yes, it’s possible and is likely happening across the country! I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with straight men coaching girl’s swim teams, but that’s a separate matter.

    Gay and straight people probably are born that way, but the difference between them and rapists and murderers is, they’re not harming anyone in expressing their feelings. Comparing gay or straight people to murderers doesn’t make a lot of sense. Didn’t think that one through, didja?

    You clearly don’t understand what a hate crime is. Let my help you. A hate crime is a crime motivated to some degree by the nature of the person upon whom the crime is perpetrated. Ergo, when someone attacks and beats up a gay person for being gay, that’s a hate crime. The reason victims of hate crimes deserve special consideration is to discourage the practice in the first place. No one should have to be the victim of a crime for being who they are. That’s why hate crime legislation covers religion, gender, race and yes, sexual orientation. Even Jews are protected by hate crimes legislation!

    Gay people are not responsible for advocating for incestuous marriage or polygamy. Why would you expect them to be? Both are primarily straight people phenomena. There’s not much evidence that gay people want to marry a brother or have group marriages. As the obvious majority in society, let straight people advocate for their own variations on marriage.

    • T Ivison

      Since I am a straight white guy, by your logic, it is less of a crime to beat me up than to beat up on a gay black jew?

      • JeffreyRO5

        Is that what I said? No. I said, crimes against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation deserve special treatment and penalties, to discourage such crimes. If you were beat up because you are straight or white, it is a hate crime. But the truth is, rarely are people beat up because they are white or straight. But when it happens, it is, in fact, a hate crime.

        • Me

          But you won’t discourage other forms of crimes. Are they any less violent or horrific?

    • Jeffreydan

      1) It is possible for a straight man to go on a camping trip with girls and not have sex with them. Are you more comfortable with a gay man being out there with boys than a straight man with girls?
      2) “No one should have to be the victim of a crime for being who they are.” News flash: no one should be the victim of a crime, PERIOD. I’ll raise you one: everyone should receive equal protection under the law. Hate-crime legislation appears to disagree with that little concept addressed in the Constitution, no?
      3) Gays already have the right to marry, as long as it’s a member of the opposite sex. That’s not good enough, they want to marry the person of their choice, and the love they share is no less valid than that shared by anyone else.
      Using that same reasoning, why deny a man and his son the right to marry? Why deny ANYONE the same rights you’re insisting on?

  • Florida Jim

    I have known several homosexuals and they all molested children.The homosexual agenda wants to have any sexual activity between men , men and children deemed “normal”. that was the idea of NAMBLA, the disgusting organization that first proppelled molesting children as a homo sexual act. As a child I waqs molested sevral times by diffwerent young men and several salesmen making house callos selling “brooms for the blind” or asking me “would you like a ridfe to town” as a ploy to get me, or any child into their car where they would try to fondle me. It was disgusting then and it still disgusts me. We had one homosexual that molested dozens of young boys under the guise of slipping them money to lure them downstairs.I believe this is far more prevalent than most imagine and homosexuals seem to want to differentiate between molesting children and molesting men.
    I jumped out of a moving car at 35 MPH to escape some molester and homosexual creep.

    • John In MA

      I have known straight people who molest children. Looking at the news, there are straight men who are incurable pedophiles. So, your point only shows a bias, not logic Florida.

    • chuck.tatum

      Is this your first draft for a porno movie idea you’ve been kicking around or are you the modern Marquis deSade ‘Perils of Justjim’?

  • waterlilies84

    I agree with the statement that the gay/lesbian community needs to speak out against pedophilia and other sexual crimes, no matter the age of the child. And I agree with the statement that criminals of every stripe can now claim that they were “born that way.” I have to say that I believe we are all born with different proclivities that could lead us to act out in certain ways. Having said that I also believe we can fight against our natural bent. We are not the sum of our genetics or even our nurturing.

    @jff3 If homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals than why does an armed robbery against a gay man constitute a hate crime but an armed robbery against a Jewish woman not?

    • JeffreyRO5

      Oy vey. If the Jewish woman was attacked because she’s Jewish, it IS a hate crime under current hate crimes law. If she was attacked only because she had something worth stealing, it is not a hate crime. Understand the different scenarios?

      • Bill

        You can not reason with a man looking for a justifiction for his hatred

      • Jeffreydan

        If a white man is attacked because he is white, it doesn’t get treated like a hate crime.

        Doesn’t matter anyway. Gays aren’t interested in equal rights for all. Kind of like the pigs in Animal Farm, they want to be more equal than others.

  • jff3

    There was also a time when everyone loved to watch Christens be eaten by lions. It was a time when the culture and institutions supported and endorsed feeding Christens to lions. Everyone enjoyed the show. Now times have changed, or have they? Now Christens would feed gays to the lions if they could. Bottom line is; God put his beloved gays on this earth to out haters. Human right are for everyone and gays will fight to the death for them.

    • ph16

      “Now Christens would feed gays to the lions if they could.”

      jff3, that is really an outright lie, I can not think of nor have I met any Christian, even the born again evangelical type who would want to feed gays to the lions. Let’s not be so silly as to believing homosexuality is sinful is equal to wanting to throw gays to the lion.s

    • Jeffreydan

      You obviously think prejudice is wrong, and you might have knowledge that could enlighten or inform others. Unfortunately for you, “Christens would feed gays to the lions if they could” exposes you as both prejudiced & ignorant.

      Regarding the 9:02am comment from you, I’m assuming by “rappers” you meant rapists. That said, you are right that there are far more hetero child rapists than homo child rapists, and that is due to the fact that heterosexuals comprise anywhere between 90% and 97% of the human race, depending on the source.
      Try a more direct comparison: between the homo population and the hetero population, which one has the higher percentage of child rapists?

  • jff3

    You are fundamentally wrong and your kind of thinking is hateful to say the least and dehumanizing at best. The same kind of things where said about black people, Jews, and other groups by the same kind of haters. Homosexuals are no different then hetros. If you think a homo is more likely to rape your teenager and not a hetro then you’re sadly mistaken. There are many, many more hetro child rappers then homo rappers.

    @Ken; so if you had sex 1est with a man would you be gay now?

    @Sam; its a great articular if your stupid, shallow and bigoted…LOL

  • samantha perumal

    wow.awesome article, Mr .Prelutsky !u definitely said it 4 al of conservatives al over da world,thank u.

  • samantha perumal

    wow.awesome article, Mr .Prelutsky !u definitely 4 al of conservatives al over da world,thank u.

  • Ken Besig, Israel

    I believe that a person’s sexual orientation is largely set by that person’s first intense sexual encounter. That is, if a young man or woman has a meaningful heterosexual encounter while still in their teens or youth, they will tend towards heterosexuality as their primary or even only sexual orientation. Likewise, if those same young people, especially men, have a homosexual encounter as their first or only sexual experience, then they will tend towards homosexuality as their primary or even only sexual orientation. Homosexual men do indeed prefer young men rather than older men and not just for reasons of physical attraction, indeed, older homosexual males definitely prefer young homosexual men as a matter of course. Homosexual men also have incredible numbers of sexual contacts with different men, and they are not too discriminating about who they have sex with or under what conditions. I would be willing to bet that most homosexual men, and perhaps women as well, had their first homosexual experience at young age, perhaps as pubescent teenagers, with an older man or woman. Maybe this contact was consensual or maybe not, but this experience is what convinced them that they were homosexual, not any genetic or other sort of predisposition. You Burt may have heard yourself from homosexual men that they
    “discovered” their homosexuality when they were in junior high or high school and they went on from there. I would argue that they may have had their first homosexual encounter while very young with an older homosexual male who did indeed molest them but convinced them that this experience was what they really wanted.
    I may well be mistaken and completely wrong, but I have met a number of homosexual men who have told me that they indeed did have their first sexual experience as young teenagers with a sympathetic and considerate older homosexual men who told them that what they had done was perfectly okay and what they really wanted.

    • Bill

      What you belive is stupid.

      Ask a gay person, they’ll tell you.

      I know I was gay at 6 years old. BEOFRE I knew was sex WAS.

      I told my family at 7 that I was gay.

      Now I am 42.

      Still gay.


      • Me

        There’s no scientific evidence that you were born that way.