Alan Colmes has his knickers in twist over this statement by Alan Keyes, Liberaland [1]:
If the allegations against Sandusky are true, there’s an aspect of the situation that doesn’t make sense. Why would higher-ups be willing to risk their reputations and life-long careers to cover for the wrongdoing of one of their subordinates? Despite the almost religious promotion of homosexuality now in evidence at all too many of America’s institutions of so-called “higher learning,” it’s hard to believe that they would thus willingly sacrifice themselves to the gods of “political correctness,” especially given the fact that the zealous advocates of homosexual rights are still pretending to draw the line at the sexual abuse of children.
Reax. Lisa Graas [2]:
Keyes is right. The “line” they draw is based on nothing but personal opinion and, as such, is subject to change. “Because I say so” and “because most people believe it” is an imaginary “line”.
What was considered immoral fifty years ago is no longer considered immoral because more people have rejected the notion that anything can be “immoral”.
Unlike Keyss and Graas, I do not claim to know what homosexuals think. Did PSU, Pervert State University, have a line beyond which predatory behavior was no longer tolerated? I suspect that even PSU hsd some standards. Does anybody believe that had Jerry Sandusky been preying on female children that his predatory behavior would have been tolerated? I suspect not. Do we exempt homosexual predators like Sandusky from nomally accepted standards of behavior?
If Sandusky’s predatory behavior was tolerated because his victims were male, then Alan Keyes is right.
Alternate theory, I suspect that Sandusky’s victims were black. Was the victims’ race a reason their rapes were tolerated?
Do not know the specific reason why Sandusky’s sexual predatory behavior was tolerated. It clearly was. So why?