Uh huh. So saying that the issue is more complex than "this side==bad; that side==good" is now douchebaggery, and closed-minded? Ever consider you're the one with the closed mind in that you're unwilling to see any faults at all in a group you've decided to champion in some way?
Really, the fact that you need to divide it into "teams" (or try to make it about homosexuals) is pathological enough.
I didn't do this though. I responded to a post addressing the question as to whether attraction to children of the same *** is associated at all with homosexuality. While I'll fully admit to leading the argument a bit, I don't think it's a stretch to see the usual anti-*** suspects on one side of that argument, and the usual pro-*** suspects on the other. You also have to remember that I'd just finished skimming through Varus' link when I replied to the post in question, and there was a **** of a lot BS as well as a smattering of valid statements.
Put more simply, the fact that there are folks who oppose homosexuality on principle and will exaggerate their position, does not mean that every claim they make is wrong. The attempts by *** advocacy groups to distance homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) from molestation of boys by older men is a pretty clear attempt at PR and is pretty questionable in terms of honest evaluation of what's going on. And certainly when we're looking at a case like Sandusky, who targeted boys just barely pre-adolescent, this is less about generic attraction to children, and far more likely to be some form of displaced sexual (homosexual in this case) targeting, most likely deriving from some form of abuse he suffered when he was the same age.
I just jumped ahead a bit and played out the argument for *why* that happens from a broader sociological perspective and presented the two sides of that argument and attempted to play middle ground by saying that both bear some blame.
Hint: everyone else was mocking Varus by talking about Republicans or whatever.
Yeah. I didn't say anything about political party's either Joph. That's the "I wont touch this with a 10 foot pole" bit I started out with. Again though, it doesn't invalidate some other aspects of the issue. And judging by the "hit a nerve" like response, I'd say I was justified to bring those other aspects up.