Friday, July 18, 2008

Hi there. Please check out my column on David Benkof, which is in today's Huffington Post. Please comment and bump up the story. :)

To Read it CLICK HERE.

68 Comments:

Wayne-

I thought we were going to drop our public back-and-forth on whether my opinion about the connection between the LGBT community and the lower-or-get-rid-of-the-age-of-consent crows is "founded" or "unfounded." Shall I assume that the Huffington Post column was turned in before we came to that agreement? How should we handle this awkward situation? Maybe you could post in the comments section that you no longer claim that my opinion is founded or unfounded, you take no stance? Or maybe I could list some of the evidence I have? Or maybe you have another proposal?
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/18/2008 5:29 PM  

Mr. Benkopf seems to think that calling him on his trying to tar gay people by trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia creates an awkward situation. Yet, he doesn't seem to feel the least bit awkward about repeatedly trying to link pedophilia and homosexuality in the public's mind. I suppose that it would require some sort of moral compass or respect for the truth to recognize the rediculous position that Mr. Biankof is taking.

Luckily, as more and more gay and lesbian people come out, we are no longer thought of in abstract terms that can lend itself to this sort of vile stereotyping. More people have someone close to them who is gay or lesbian. They know their gay friend/neighbor/family ember as an honorable and upstanding person. It is the best antidote for this sort of hate.

Interestingly from the point of view of fostering hate, one of the most vile anti-Jewish stereotypes involved painting Jews as some sort of threat to non-Jewish children. That was despicable, just as Mr. Binkof's current hateful statements directed at gays and lesbians are despicable.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/18/2008 6:05 PM  

John-

It is *so* clever for you to spell my name differently every time you refer to me. That is widely considered one of the most sophisticated debating tactics, and I just don't know how to respond. Touche!

You can search the Web. I only talk about the historical link between gay people and those who want low or nonexistent ages of consent when people - Wayne in this case - claim it's not true. I'm a gay historian. I'm more committed to the truth than toward making gay people feel good. If Wayne and others will stop claiming there is no such link, I see no reason to demonstrate that there is such a link.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/18/2008 8:32 PM  

Mr. Biankof only paints a connection between gay people and pedophiles when he wants to foster hate (and possibly violence) against gay people.

This isn't about protecting children. He seems completey oblivious to female victims of child sexual abuse (or females in general).

If he really cared about sexual abuse and exploitation of children, he would be advocating stiffer penalties for ALL offenders, tougher supervision for convicted predators and better efforts to protect ALL children (particularly victims of trafficking). My goodness! That might even be a cause that led to some good in the world.

But where is this campaign to protect ALL children? I see no evidence of it.

Oh year, that's right. When you are so busy demonizing gay people, it really is hard to find the time to actually do something productive.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/18/2008 8:49 PM  

David referred to the historial link between the LGBT community and the lower-or-get-rid-of-the-age-of-consent crowd.

It is strongly implied that he rejects the lower-or-get-rid-of-the-age-of-consent goals manifested in that historical connection.

John and Wayne imply, rather less clearly, that they, too, rejects those goals.

On the other hand, unlike David, John and Wayne imply, strongly, that they also reject the historical link.

Now, is that historical link something to be removed from the historical record for some current political purpose?

Or would it not make more sense to make common cause and openly, strongly, oppose the lower-or-get-rid-of-the-age-of-consent goals and to denounce the people (on all sides of the SSM issue) who support those same goals?

It should be obvious that David's claim regarding the historical record provides the pro-SSM side a golden opportunity to make a big stand against any pro-SSM people who support those lower-or-get-rid-of-the-age-of-consent goals.

In Canada, the pro-SSM did not take that stand. Not in Scandinavia either. Maybe in the USA the story will be different, starting with the commenters at this blog.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 12:10 AM  

Anonymous and Mr. Binkopf are just throwing out red herrings by trying to link same sex marriage with age of consent laws. Age of consent laws apply to opposite sex and same sex activity. They have no special relavance to same sex marriage.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 12:52 AM  

I wake up every morning determined to change the world and have on hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning the day a little difficult.- EB WHITE

David Benkof/Bianco, started out challenging the GLBT community. He seems to be a gifted creative indiviual. But his attacks are not winning any prizes or moving him toward any positive change.

Yes, age of consent is an important issue, but it is an issue for all youth, not just youth who identify as GLBTI or are questioning or are 'making a living on the street'. Age of consent laws vary world wide. Some cultures honor young women as early as 13 when they become brides. Other countries have laws that state age of consent is 18.

Just as with male-female marriages, there would be folk watching for inappropriate marriages when it came to age differences in same-sex marriages. Yes David there are instances and documentation of relationships that should be questioned in male-male relationships but there are also documented male-female relationships (fundie mormons) and even female-male relationships -Mary Kay Letourneau- that raise eyebrows and have youth and family advocates becoming more attentive.

But I really don't see the connection between the issue of age of consent and SSM.

David, there are other folk who are coming to the same conclusion that I have reached after my first exposure to you throught your letter to the Seattle PI in MAY. Whether you need some medical/psychiatric help or even meds, whether you are stuck in your own personal 'homosexual adolesence' or if your are just posing as the 'black hat' or devil's advocate in an attempt to create dialogue for the GLBT community to answer the challenges of the pro-family, traditional family folk, you may be succeeding in making people think. But as other internet folk have expressed, there is concern for you. It is not healthy to be spewing so much hate, anger and 'hands on hips' attitude.

'WE MAKE A LIVING BY WHAT WE GET,BUT WE MAKE A LIFE BY WHAT WE GIVE!' Winston Churchill
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 11:44 AM  

OOPS Correction

I wake up every morning dtermined to change the world and have ONE hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning the day a little difficult. . .EB WHITE

Kudos to Wayne Besen for his work for change. You are doing a great job!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 11:49 AM  

Thanks, Rusty. It's great to have your support and I appreciate it. I hope you are enjoying your weekend. I'm still in Asheville and going to a picnic that is opposing Exodus International.
posted by  Wayne Besen, at 7/19/2008 12:00 PM  

"I'm a gay historian. I'm more committed to the truth than toward making gay people feel good. "

Well, actually,

You are someone who claims to be a historian, who kinda flip flops about his sexuality, who has repeatedly made false claims about GLBTQ people, which indicatest that your ocmmitted to the truth is minimal at best. Factor in the considerable distortions that have appeared in your posts on various blogs, the name-calling, and the overt attempt to harm GLBTQ people by depriving us of marriage, and I'd say there is no commitment to the truth on your part.

I'd say you are committed to saying what ever will get you attention and money, David.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 8:46 PM  

Benkof is a worthless, self-aggrandizing piece of shit. If I were him I'd jump off a bridge. What a sorry excuse for humanity. If anything, it shows that God has a wicked sense of humor. I bet the dude is bi-polar. Or - he may be borderline. In any case, he should get the fuck lost and get off the public stage before he humiliates himself any further.

Mel
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/19/2008 10:37 PM  

"I'm a gay historian"

- David Benkof.

...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Oh... ow... my side hurts now.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 12:54 AM  

"Age of consent laws apply to opposite sex and same sex activity. They have no special relavance to same sex marriage."

Sure there is relevance.

The pro-SSM side emphasizes that gay marriage is a romantic relationship.

But there is no legal requirement that people who form a gay marriage also engage in gay sex or romance.

It is not compulsory.

The pro-SSM side declares that if procreation is not compulsory, it cannot be the reason that marriage is recognized in the law. But that same rule applies to the pro-SSM emphasis on romance an intimacy.

Both are not mandatory. The governmet does not force people to engage in procreation nor in sexual relations, just because a marriage license is issued.

If gay marriage is established based on these ideas, the connection between age of consent laws for sexual relations and for marriage will become very vulnerable.

The pro-SSM side gets quite a lot of mileage out of declaring marriage to be a contract between adults, not children. One must be competent to give consent to what marriage entails.

If it does not entail compulsory sexual relations, that consent is not about sexual relations.

Even without gay marriage, under-aged marriages may take place with parental consent or with a court order. There is a broad range of scenarios in which underaged marriages are legitimate.

Thus, the age of consent laws are flexible in most places. Historically and culturally this has been based on concerns about pregnancy (and virginity).

Usually the laws become very strict below a certain minimal age, such as 14 years, for girls.

Some states do not recognize marriages that would be considered under-aged within their own borders but are valid in other states or countries. When an under-aged married couple reach the age of consent, this interstate issue evaporates for them. That happens even when the marriage was below a sister state's minimal age limit.

The pro-SSM side favor a single definition for all the country when it comes to removing the opposite sex law. The other side favors a single definition that enshrines the opposite sex law.

Why not also a single national standard on the age of consent supported by voices from both sides?

The average age at first marriage is about 30 years now. Fewer and fewer marry younger than 20 years.

The pro-SSM side has emphasized that recent trends in marriage make gay marriage a no-brainer. The rising average age of first marriage is a very strong trend.

Also most people will cohabitate before they marry so that pushes the age of first marriage further back. Experience as adults in romantic relationships is becoming a pre-requisite, culturaly and socially, for the big marriage commitment.

Why not raise the age limit (say to 20 years) across the country and provide for some uniform exceptions based on parental consent and court order for the rarest of circumstances. And raise the minimal age to 17 or 18 years.

Whether age of consent laws for sexua relations should follow suite is probably not compatable with the pro-SSM side's general argument. Procreation occurs outside of marriage, as does sexual relations, but marriage is not about what happens outside of marriage.

But raising the age limits for marriage would emphasize the contract basis of marriage -- for adults, not children -- and counterbalance the fickleness of romantic relationships especially among the young. It jives with the pro-SSM side's talk about rights *plus* responsibilities.

If gay marriage requires adult consent, but not gay sex, the standards for competency are not based on sexual relations but on duty, responsibility, and obligation such as *mutual* caretaking. That's egalitarian marriage.

Under-aged marriages don't jive with the pro-SSM argument. To encourage the egalitarian ideal, the people who marry should be full grown adults, not children, not inexperienced teenagers.

Mutual caretaking, the new basis for marriage according to the pro-SSm side, really requires a level of maturity that teenagers generally are not capable of comprehending properly or living up to comprehensively.

There may be exceptional teenagers, and exceptional circumstances, and thus exceptions carved out in the laws, but there ought to be a strong pro-SSM stand in favor of raising the age of consent for marriage.

So far in the comments here the pro-SSM side is turning its back on something in which both sides would probably find common cause.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 3:44 AM  

The above comment by Anonymous makes no sense.

If Anonymous would like to campaign to raise the age of consent for sexual activity or age for getting married, anonymous should get to work in his/her state on this issue. Whatever the state decided would apply to same sex and opposite sex couples.

However, the issue is nothing more than a distraction when addressing whether same sex couples should have the same right that opposite sex couples to marry.

If these sorts of distractions are all Anonymous has to argue against same sex marriage, I would suggest giving up the distractions and support the equal right of same sex couples to marry.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 10:37 AM  

The only time gays have fought against age of consent laws is where the law is different for gays than it is for straights. For example, in Canada the age of consent for gays is 18 whereas its only 14 for heterosexuals and this sort of bias is typical of many jurisdictions. This suggests there is something wrong with being gay and gays have rightly fought to have such age of consent laws harmonized. For David Benkoff to frame such efforts at equality as a desire for underage sex couldn't be more bullshit.

Benkof is a blatent liar when he claims to be committed to the truth more than to making gays happy. The fact is that he's committed to attacking gays and he doesn't give a damn about the truth. This is his own personal vendetta against gays, he couldn't care less about doing what's right.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/20/2008 6:02 PM  

I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on all the lies and crude names listed above. Nor will I go into detail about the things you demand me to detail that might make gays look bad. I can do that at another Web site if you like, but I'm sure Wayne would prefer it if I did not do it here. I will simply present one fact.

Egale, the main gay organization in Canada, was not only trying to get the laws to be equal. They were not saying "Adult-young-teen sex is wrong, but it should be punished the same for gays and straights." It was saying "A 14-year-old can consent to sex with a 21-year-old, or older."

This is from The Guide, a gay press publication:

http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=78FFF5A5-0727-4DC9-96796FE641387757

"Egale, Canada's main GLBT rights group, also testified against the law change. 'Egale believes very strongly that it is possible... even common... for 14 and 15 year olds to consent to sex, even with people over the age of 20,' said then-executive director Kaj Hasselriis in testimony to Parliament in March 2007."

To me, the most interesting point is that lesbians in Saskatchewan and gay ministers in Toronto did not rise up in fury to protest Hasselriis' obscene, immoral comment. I have found no gay person on the Internet except me who is offended by his statement, in Canada or the United States.

If the executive director of the Union for Reform Judaism or the NAACP or Habitat for Humanity or the Girl Scouts of America testified before Congress that 14-year-olds can consent to sex with people ages 21 and older, and such acts should therefore be legal, it would raise a huge ruckus and the organization would rapidly disavow the statement. I won't draw any conclusions out of respect to Wayne, but I will ask - why haven't LGBT people been upset by Egale's position?
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/20/2008 7:59 PM  

Mr. Biankof mentions a group in Canada named Egale. This isn't Canada; this is the United States. I have never heard of this group. Mr. Biankof has misrepresented so many groups and people that I couldn't be bothered trying to chase this down.

However, Mr. Biankof in ranting and raving about the Kansas age of consent case didn't have any problem with the state being lenient on an adult having sex with a 14 year old as long as the victim was female. He seemed to think that the resultant child with benefit by the involvement of the abuser in the lives of both children (the 14 year old mother and her baby).

Perhaps if Mr. Biankof had some consistency to his concern for sexually exploited children and a desire to protect even girls from abouse, the rest of us could take him more seriously.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 8:08 PM  

John-

I brought up a fact about Canada, because we've been discussing Canada. Priya talked about Canada immediately before my comment. Scroll up and see.

I stand by my statements about the Kansas situation, but I want to minimize my criticism of the moral reasoning of the LGBT community while I'm a guest of Wayne Besen's. E-mail me if you wish to discuss it at DavidBiankof@aol.com.

Finally, I'm curious, are you willing to denounce Egale's position? Why or why not?
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/20/2008 8:25 PM  

"why haven't LGBT people been upset by Egale's position?"

Because this is Canadian news, and a Canadian issue.

What a stupid question.

So David, why haven't American Jewish people been upset about the price of dreidels in Guam?

See how stupid you sound when you go grasping for straws?
posted by  S., at 7/20/2008 8:38 PM  

Scott-

There are LGBT people in Canada, believe it or not. And American LGBT people involved in a particular social issue have pointed to Canada, over and over, to show that America should emulate Canadian policies on same-sex issues. Do you believe Canadian LGBT people were wrong not to protest the statement of their leader? If the head of a gay organization in the United States made the same statement, would you protest? Why or why not?
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/20/2008 9:04 PM  

Mr. Biankof wrote: I stand by my statements about the Kansas situation, but I want to minimize my criticism of the moral reasoning of the LGBT community while I'm a guest of Wayne Besen's.

So, he stands by his support for leniency when the sexually exploited victim is a 14 year old girl. And this guy is worried about what he claims some group in Canada is doing, rather than taking a hard look at his own lack of concern for these girls who are victimized. Someone's moral compass is seriously malfunctioning or just plain gone.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 9:31 PM  

John-

I said I didn't want to talk about it. But since you insist, I think that when an adult man statutorily rapes a 14-year-old and she gets pregnant, it is a difficult situation all around. But I do think a judge should have the discretion to be lenient on the father and set him free from prison due to the welfare of the child, and its need to have a father in its life. I know, I know, gay people don't think a child needs a father in its life, but I disagree.

You keep ignoring my questions, but I'll keep asking them: Your question to me implies that it is immoral to be lenient with the statutory rapist of a 14-year old girl. If that's true, and the LGBT community is by and large moral, as you appear to believe, why am I the only significant gay voice to have ever protested the gay community's campaign to set free Matthew Limon, the serial statutory rapist who was given a harsh but appropriate 17-year sentence after his third offense? You seem to think it's immoral when a straight person behaves in such a manner, so won't you join me in condemning Limon and the gay community who championed his freedom?

No? You're too busy misspelling my name? Figures.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/20/2008 9:55 PM  

So Biankof admits that he cares less about protecting the 14 female victim than the 14 year old male victim. He has no concern for children, he just wants to demonize gay people.

Kansas has some serious problems with their laws. It is unfortunate that their "Romeo and Juliet (and now Julio)" leniency factor extends over such large age ranges. Previous Kansas legislatures were lax in the protection of young teenage girls. Perhaps future legislatures will take this issue more seriously than Mr. Biankof, who couldn't be bothered agonizing over young female victims, but can work up quite the lather when the victim is male.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 10:12 PM  

Biankof wrote: You seem to think it's immoral when a straight person behaves in such a manner, so won't you join me in condemning Limon and the gay community who championed his freedom?

I cannot join him in trivializing the sexual exploitation of 14 year old girls for his political purposes.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/20/2008 10:26 PM  

Anonymous-

In the female case, there is a baby involved, a baby that needs a father. I understand, I understand, that in gay "morality" fathers don't matter, but I'm more interested in the morality that the rest of humanity throughout human history has held, which believes that children need their Daddies. So yes, you're more focused on gay "equality" than on whether children have fathers. My interests are the opposite. You can point it out as often as you want, and I'll defend it over and over. I think it's an excellent example of the inability of the LGBT community to come to moral clarity when something doesn't make them feel 100% "equal."

And John once again ignores my question, so I will ask it again: leaving aside how female victims are treated (because you don't care whether an infant has a father, I understand that), will you condemn Limon and the gay community who championed him? Will you admit that that gay serial rapist deserved serious punishment, and the gay community who championed him showed deep moral confusion?
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/20/2008 11:42 PM  

"If the head of a gay organization in the United States made the same statement, would you protest? Why or why not?"

If the head of any U.S. gay organization started yapping about wanting the age of consent lowered, I'd expect somebody to stomp a mudhole in the nutty queen. And then remove him from his podium and position, for good.

We've got too many other important things to worry about - which involves relationships between two ADULTS.

If you're a grown man, and can't find somebody 18 or older to date, then you need to give up on life.
posted by  S., at 7/21/2008 12:55 AM  

Scott-

Thanks for answering the question. It's interesting, though, that the stated reason has nothing to do with the immorality of sex between adults and young teens, nor about protecting 14- and 15-year olds from serious harm. It's just not a priority for you, and you'd rather work on more important issues. Well, I don't like your reason, but I'm happy that in the end you won't go along with an immoral proposal, and I congratulate you for that.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/21/2008 1:06 AM  

David, if you want to protect your 14/15 year old from harm, you need to be a better parent. There's such a thing as Net Nanny, monitoring online activities yourself, not allowing your kids to be mallrats, teaching your kids to not hop into some stranger's car, etc.

You can campaign and make all the laws you want - it won't stop some perv from laying their hands on your kid. And 9 times out of 10, that perv is married with children of his own.

The only thing you CAN do is be viciously protective of your own flock. Keep an eye on them and know where they are at all times, and you have nothing to worry about. That's the best law that can be passed - anything else is a waste of time and resources.
posted by  S., at 7/21/2008 1:24 AM  

Mr. Biankof goes on and on about the "Romeo and Juliet" provision of the Kansas law being in place to allow the sexually exploitative adult to be able to act as a father to the child he concieved while sexually exploiting the 14 year female victim. However, "Romeo and Juliet" provisions DO NOT require that a child be concieved in order to invoke the leniency provision.

The Kansas legislature wrote this law. Mr. Biankof supports both the law and the "Romeo and Juliet" leniency provision. The courts applied that law to the case he cites and now he objects.

It makes no sense. Either you think that a 14 year old needs to be protected from adults who would exploit them, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Both the US Supreme Court and the Kansas Supreme Court made that simple point very clear.

Since Mr. Biankof supports the Kansas law as currently written to allow adults to have sex with 14 year olds, I am very perplexed why he would rant and rave about others who just like Mr. Biankof argue for low ages of consent for sexual activity.

Since I feel that ALL children (male, female, black, white, Jewish, etc) should be protected, I cannot make common cause with Mr. Biankof and his allies who care so little for protecting children.

By the way, my kid is 14 years old and happens to be in 8th grade. I cannot see how Mr. Biankof thinks it is appropriate for an adult to engage in sexual activity with an 8th grader. Some people have no shame.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/21/2008 10:34 AM  

Mr. Biankof goes on and on about babies needing fathers. Since I am a father who is raising kids, I think I know a good deal more about being a father than he does.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/21/2008 10:43 AM  

Benkof, take your lies elsewhere, no one believes you. The only time gays have complained about age of consent laws is when they are applied differently to gays and straights. That's what Egale has done despite your despicable attempts to claim otherwise and no one believes your distortions and lies about Limmon either.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/21/2008 2:23 PM  

Scott-

I think it's great that you're talking about protecting children. That's much better than most LGBT people ever do. Now if we can just get you to go a step further and talk about adult-young teen sex being immoral or at least "wrong"....

John-

It's easy to win an argument when you get to make up the positions of the other side, isn't it? But that's called a "straw man" and it's not a respected way to debate (not that you care because if you did you'd spell my name right).

I do not support reduced sentences when no child is born (or in utero). I support giving the judge the discretion to reduce the sentence if that will mean the baby of a statutory-rape sex act will have a father. The judge can take all factors into account; that's' what judges do.

I do not think such unequal treatment of gay and straight couplings is unconstitutional. If it is, then I would support changing the constitution. I know that is unfathomable and "discriminatory" (which you think is a dirty word) to you. But I think protecting children is more important than the self esteem of LGBT people. You feel the opposite, or you would have condemned Limon and his gay boosters by now, since you're pretending to care about 14-year-old girls who are raped. Surely you would care about a mentally retarded 14-year-old boy who was raped by someone who had done this twice before. But you don't. Because equality is the highest good for most LGBT people.

Your other comments put words in my mouth, and I urge readers to read what I actually say rather than John's fantasies about what I say.

John says he's a father and thus knows more about it than I do. Unfortunately, since it appears he's gay, he probably doesn't. The LGBT community is so obsessed with being equal that they really don't care if a child has both a mother and a father. This past weekend an incredibly ironic thing happened. Gay men flocked in droves to see the jukebox movie musical Mamma Mia!, with a gay character played by Colin Firth and the awesome gay icon Christine Baranski in a showstopper supporting role. And Meryl Streep was fabulous. But I'll bet I was one of just a few gay men nationwide who even noticed the most significant and socially relevant theme of the movie - that little girls need their Dads, and miss them when they are absent. Whether the father is missing due to tragedy, or because the arrogant feminist mother (Streep) vows that her child doesn't need a man, the little girl knows instinctively that something is missing in her life. And even the butchest lesbian couldn't fill that hole.

Priya-

If I am lying then the gay magazine "The Guide" is lying. I gave the url. You could check it out. If Egale was focused on equal ages of consent, it could have argued for a uniform age of 16 or 18 (I prefer 18) rather than testifying that Egale believes it is possible and even common for a 14-year-old to consent to sex with someone 21 years old or older. If what you are saying is true, what would be the purpose of making that point before Parliament?

By the way, the gay spokesman for adult-young teen sex has also served as National Spokesperson of Canadians for Equal Marionettes. (Well, another M word I'm no longer involved with.)

Finally, if I'm lying, will you condemn sex between adults and 14-year olds, no matter what the gender? Will you denounce Limon and the gay community's attempt to free him after his third conviction for statutory rape? After all, if the issue was equal sentences the gay community could have focused on raising the sentences for opposite-sex offenses rather than trying to set Limon free.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/21/2008 2:49 PM  

David, you are lying, you claim there are no gays supporting age of consent laws and you have no study to support that lie. Where's your randomly sampled national level poll of gays to support your lie? You have none because you're a liar. I don't believe adults should be allowed to have sex with children. There you go, now its a lie for you to claim as you have that no gays condemn adults having sex with minors. If you were an honest person you would never repeat this lie, but of course you will because that's what you are, a liar. The gays in your life didn't give in to your selfish demands and ever since that you've pursued a vendetta against gays, attempting to punish all innocent gays for the imagined wrongs committed against you. You're a despicable person David, grow up and get a live. There is nothing more pathetic than a person who's life is consumed by the need hurt innocent gays.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/21/2008 3:25 PM  

And by the way, I've never heard of Limmon and I don't believe a damn thing you say about him. Your just like Paul Cameron. In his latest attack on gays he claims a study shows gays are not monogamous. He never mentions the study was soley on gays with aids and intentionally excluded monogamous gay couples. That's the sort of lie you rely on with your talk about Limmon and Egale. I've got no use for you and I won't waste any time on a liar like you.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/21/2008 3:27 PM  

"It's easy to win an argument when you get to make up the positions of the other side, isn't it?"

A tactic you, with your constant unsupported claims about what LGBT people believe or don't believe, or support or don't support, are obviously very familiar with.

"I do not support reduced sentences when no child is born (or in utero)."

So you support a policy that would encourage adult men, who have having sex with 14 year-old (and younger?) girls to not use a condom, thereby potentially exposing the young girl to potentially lethal STD's in the hope of knocking her up, thereby making what would have been molestation perfectly A-OK. Classy.

Why didn't you mention the fact that Limon is mentally retarded when you pointed out his victim was? If the mental capabilities of the younger party are relevent, surely those of the older party are as well.

Perhaps while you were berating the rest of us for assumptions, it might have occured to you that your assumptions about John and his parenting are not only unfounded but offensive. Oh, that's right, in your world only the offensive of anti-gay bigots is important.

Also, arguing for equal sentencing in the future, regardless of the merits, would not change the fact that the law under which Limon was sentenced was unequal and discriminatory. Even if the law was changed in Kansas to offer the same strict sentencing regardless of the gender of the parties, Limon would still have been injustly sentenced.

Why on earth should I or anyone denounce something at the behest of a dishonest person such as yourself, who won't even offer the same denouncement? You would only offer the same denouncement with a weasel out of it's OK if the male knocks the underage female up!
posted by  JC, at 7/21/2008 3:56 PM  

Here is a little information on Matthew Limon: " * Matthew Limon is a young man who has been diagnosed in the intellectual range between "borderline intellectual functioning" and "mild mental retardation."
* In February of 2000, Matthew and another male teenager were both students at the same co-ed residential school for developmentally disabled youth in Miami County, Kansas. A week after Matthew's 18th birthday, Matthew performed consensual oral sex on the other teenager, who was nearly 15 years old - three years, one month and a few days younger than Matthew.
* Kansas has a so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law (K.S.A. § 21-3522) that makes the penalty for statutory rape less severe when the case involves two teenagers. The "Romeo and Juliet" law reads: "(a) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations is engaging in voluntary: (1) sexual intercourse; (2) sodomy; or (3) lewd fondling or touching with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex."
* Because the "Romeo and Juliet" law excludes gay people, Matthew was charged with criminal sodomy instead under K.S.A. § 21-3505(a)(2).
* Before his trial in June 2000, Matthew's attorneys moved to dismiss the sodomy charge, arguing that the "Romeo and Juliet" law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on a defendant's sex and sexual orientation. The court disagreed, and Matthew was convicted of criminal sodomy based on what everyone agreed was a consensual sexual encounter.
* Matthew received a sentence of 206 months (17 years and two months) in prison, when a heterosexual teenager with the same record would serve a maximum of 15 months for the same offense. Unlike a heterosexual teenager, he also must register as a sex offender and undergo 60 months of post-release supervision. Matthew appealed his case through the Kansas courts, lost, and asked the United States Supreme Court to hear his appeal in 2002.
* The Kansas Court of Appeals had upheld Matthew's conviction and sentence, based on Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that had upheld anti-gay sodomy laws. On June 26, the Court decided Lawrence v. Texas and overturned Bowers, striking down sodomy laws nationwide. The next day, the Supreme Court vacated the decision upholding Matthew's conviction and sentence and remanded his appeal for reconsideration in light of Lawrence. The Kansas Court of Appeals again turned down Matthew's appeal in January of 2004.
* On August 31, 2004, the ACLU argued the case for a second time before the Kansas Supreme Court.
* Matthew Limon has now been in prison for over five and a half years, already four years and five months longer than a heterosexual teenager would have served for the same offense. If he were heterosexual, he would have been released in May of 2001. He is not set to be released until April of 2017, when he will be 36 years old."

Matthew Limon was released from Kansas State Ellsworth Correctional Facility on November 3, 2005, after serving five-and-a-half years for consensual gay sex.

Now, David erote: "If that's true, and the LGBT community is by and large moral, as you appear to believe, why am I the only significant gay voice to have ever protested the gay community's campaign to set free Matthew Limon, the serial statutory rapist who was given a harsh but appropriate 17-year sentence after his third offense?"

Gosh, David, going by what we have here, it seems Matthew was punished more for being gay than if he were straight. And for someone who is as disadvantaged as Mr. Limon, that hardly seems fair. But you wanted him to stay in prison, when if he had been straight, he would have been out anyway. Your hubris knows no bounds, sir. You should be ashamed of yourself. In its' place, we must settle for being ashamed OF you.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/21/2008 3:59 PM  

thanks for presenting the facts, Mirror.

One thing to note is that not only does Benkof explicitly endorse harsher penalties for underage same-sex activity, he thinks that opposite sex statutory rape should carry no penalty for the older party, should he manage to "get one past the goalposts" and impregnate his victim!!

While he is truely odious, I don't think the LGBT community needs to be ashamed of Benkof, at least not any more than they should be ashamed of the positions of Dobson et all, like them Benkof isn't one of us.
posted by  JC, at 7/21/2008 4:10 PM  

"Scott-

I think it's great that you're talking about protecting children. That's much better than most LGBT people ever do. Now if we can just get you to go a step further and talk about adult-young teen sex being immoral or at least "wrong"...."

LOL!!!

When I said (2 previous posts ago) that anyone using the gay rights platform to advocate for lowering the age of consent NEEDS A MUDHOLE STOMPED IN THEM - that should give you a pretty good idea of where I stand on the issue.

If you'd like for me to throw a tasering into the attack.....EXCELLENT! Fine, taser the bastard, too!

Whether it's a man and a boy, Mary Kay Letourneau and her little latin loverboy, or Jerry Lee Lewis fucking and marrying his 13 year old female cousin - I don't approve of it. If you're dumb enough to go that route, you're dumb enough to go to prison. End of story.

Now please, change the subject. All this talk about kids is making me sick. It's bad enough I'll eventually become an uncle, likely in less than a couple years.
posted by  S., at 7/21/2008 4:45 PM  

Thanks for posting that Mirror, I am even more disgusted with benkoff than I was before. As I suspected the truth was not at all what he was portraying it to be, only an evil person would suggest a 17 year sentence was apropriate when a heterosexual person would have received a maximum of a 15 month sentence. Its exactly what I said it was at the beginning benkoff, contrary to your lies gay people aren't trying to legalize underage sex, they're calling for equality of treatement under the law, something evil people like you oppose and lie about left, right, and centre.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/21/2008 5:34 PM  

Mr. Biankof accuses others of putting words in his mouth, yet on this very thread he has repeatedly stated that we as a society should be lenient on adults who have sex with 14 year olds. He seems to be alone here in taking that position.

He talks about the importance of fathers, yet he seems to have no practical knowledge about the subject. He holds the guy who impregnates a young teen up as some sort of icon of fatherhood, while trying to denigrate a man who is there every day through thick and thin, raising his kid.

He tries to accuse gay people of being unconcerned about the sexual exploitation of children, not realizing that some us have been involved for more than 15 years in prosecutions of people who physically and sexually abuse children.

The more he says, the weaker his arguments become. He is his own worst enemy.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/21/2008 5:41 PM  

Priya writes that I "claim there are no gays supporting age of consent laws" but I never, never claimed that. Just like John, you can very easily win a debate with me if you get to make up what I believe.

Priya, you write that you "don't believe adults should be allowed to have sex with children." Terrific. Just to clarify: is a 14-year-old a child, as far as you're concerned, as you apply the previous sentence?

Finally, you say you don't know who Limmon (sic) is, and that's fine. I don't know who Paul Cameron is, but I do know that there are many studies that show gay male couples are far less monogamous than male-female couples, and tons of evidence that LGBT people do not see an essential link between sexual exclusivity and an institution that most non-gay people think is intended for people "forsaking all others."

Would you like me to put links to those studies, which have nothing to do with AIDS, here at waynebesen.com? It's up to you.

JC-

I'll say it again. I believe it's wrong for adults of any sex to have intercourse with underage youths of any sex. Very wrong. And it is should be punished. I know most LGBT people are never going to agree with me, but try to put yourself in my shoes for a minute: I believe that fathers are important, and that the needs of infants to be raised by their fathers are important. I don't support zero punishment when a statutory rapist impregnates his victim, but I think the judge should have the discretion - that means the option - to shorten the sentence in order to make sure the child can be raised by his father. I know that if you believed in morality, you'd think that's immoral. Fine. I am certain that it's moral, and will defend it as many times as I have to.

Everyone involved in the Limon case agrees that Limon was significantly more functional than his victim. Also, the judge in his second statutory rape trial sentenced him to time in the institution where he met his third victim, as a "last chance." I know several highly functioning mentally retarded people. There's a mentally retarded teenager of color who I go to the movies with a few times a month. He's a terrific kid. Mentally retarded people are not amoral. The courts don't automatically excuse them when they steal or kill or beat someone up. They shouldn't do the same when they rape. And Limon was given specific instructions: here is one more chance, don't do this again. And he did it again.

Yes, I understand that the most important thing in the world to LGBT activists is whether everything is equal or not. I think this case is a great example of where by focusing on equality, gay people ended up promoting a perverse result - setting a serial rapist free. Good job, guys.

Most of what Mirror quoted is correct, although the phrase that everyone agreed that an 18-year-old can have a consensual sexual encounter with a 14-year-old mentally retarded boy makes me sick to my stomach. An error at the trial level meant that was technically true, although at the appeals level the prosecution vigorously protested that there was no consent, and the judge overruled them.

It's funny that Mirror claims Limon is gay, although there is no direct evidence to that effect. Whenever a priest molests a choir boy or a Scoutmaster diddles a Scout, gay leaders rush forward and say the molesters are "not gay" even though they were involved in same-sex activities. What evidence do you have that Limon is gay? Or would you agree with me that priests and Scoutmasters that molest young teens are also gay?

JC-

Do you believe children need fathers? Discuss.

Priya-

I understand and have always understood that in today's LGBT movement, equality is the very most important thing. I think there are other factors - like morality and the need for children to have a relationship with their fathers - that should be a factor. You can call me all kind of names you want for refusing to go along with the gay equality-at-all-costs philosophy, but I'm sticking to my guns that some things are more important than equality.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/21/2008 6:06 PM  

John-

Of course I'm alone here in saying that the need of an infant to know his father is important along with that of statutory rape victims to see their molesters punished. Overwhelmingly, LGBT people do not think children need fathers. That's one of the things that upsets me about the LGBT movement.

Of course I don't think a statutory rapist is an icon of fatherhood. I think the situation is very complex, and I trust judges to come to the right decision on a case by case basis.

Non-LGBT people struggle with the conflicting values in these cases all the time. I remember an episode of the Practice in which Eugene Young argued for leniency for his older teenage client who had impregnated his 13-year-old girlfriend. The client wanted to take care of his young family. There were no easy, right answers to that situation. You can paint me as insensitive to rape victims al you want (talk about the pot calling the kettle insensitive) but I care about children and their need for fathers. The vast majority of humanity - the LGBT community notwithstanding - think children need fathers. Maybe the rest of the world is wrong and gay people are right. Or maybe, just maybe, children actually do need fathers. Hmmm....
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/21/2008 6:22 PM  

Mr. Biankof wrote: Or maybe, just maybe, children actually do need fathers. Hmmm....

I do not expect Mr. Biankof to understand that there is a whole lot more to fatherhood than impregnating a 14 year old girl.

John
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/21/2008 6:43 PM  

Well, he is at it again. From the top:
"I believe that fathers are important, and that the needs of infants to be raised by their fathers are important. I don't support zero punishment when a statutory rapist impregnates his victim, but I think the judge should have the discretion - that means the option - to shorten the sentence in order to make sure the child can be raised by his father. I know that if you believed in morality, you'd think that's immoral. Fine. I am certain that it's moral, and will defend it as many times as I have to."

Its official, Davey, you are insane. You think that some rapist, just because his victim gets pregnant, suddenly has desires to be a good father? What? What happened to you, too many drugs in college? That is the most asinine comment I have ever read! Someone commits an act of violence, a baby is conceived, and POOF! A father is born?!? In an ideal world, every child born would be to parents that desire it, and who sacrifice to nurture that life. And if this was a Star Trek episode, that might happen. But it isn’t, and anyone with half a brain can see that. The only thing worse than saddling a woman with a child she did not desire is forcing her to accept the person who violated her as a parental figure to the child that, most likely, they will resent! What a great plan, Davey! You already have the rapist, a criminal who has no respect for women as well as a host of other issues, and you want him to be responsible for passing on his values to the child?!?!? Holy Batshit-crackers-crazy, Batman!

Next:” Everyone involved in the Limon case agrees that Limon was significantly more functional than his victim.”

I assume you have some proof of that. I mean, you wouldn’t just go and MAKE SOMETHING UP, now would you? Oh, I forgot, you are a Gay Historian with an obligation to the truth. Yeah. Right. And I can cling to walls and shoot webbing from my wrists.

“Also, the judge in his second statutory rape trial sentenced him to time in the institution where he met his third victim, as a "last chance." I know several highly functioning mentally retarded people. There's a mentally retarded teenager of color who I go to the movies with a few times a month. He's a terrific kid. Mentally retarded people are not amoral. The courts don't automatically excuse them when they steal or kill or beat someone up. They shouldn't do the same when they rape. And Limon was given specific instructions: here is one more chance, don't do this again. And he did it again.”

Oh, through a few examples, you are now an expert on mental retardation? And the Limon case? Oh, I forget. You are infallible. Either that or it is out of your hands. And, if you care to review, the issue was about disparate sentencing guidelines. What, you don’t think we should be fair?

“Most of what Mirror quoted is correct, although the phrase that everyone agreed that an 18-year-old can have a consensual sexual encounter with a 14-year-old mentally retarded boy makes me sick to my stomach.”

But the law says it’s OK if it is heterosexual sex. That doesn’t make you sick, does it? And I really like the way you failed to mention in that sentence is that BOTH parties were disabled. Way to sway arguments, just leave out a few important facts so it skews the discussion.

“It's funny that Mirror claims Limon is gay, although there is no direct evidence to that effect. Whenever a priest molests a choir boy or a Scoutmaster diddles a Scout, gay leaders rush forward and say the molesters are "not gay" even though they were involved in same-sex activities. What evidence do you have that Limon is gay? Or would you agree with me that priests and Scoutmasters that molest young teens are also gay?”

And I thought you prided yourself on being a ‘Wordsmith”. Leave it you to not know the difference between Homosexual and Pedophile. Limon was not in a position of trust, he was not abusing a position of power, and it was consensual. Learn to read.

“Of course I don't think a statutory rapist is an icon of fatherhood. I think the situation is very complex, and I trust judges to come to the right decision on a case by case basis.”

Oh, much like Marriage Equality, except you don’t trust their decision on that. Do you ever get tired, talking out of both sides of your mouth like that? You either trust them, or you don’t. It doesn’t get much more binary than that.

“The vast majority of humanity - the LGBT community notwithstanding - think children need fathers.”

Oh, HO!!! And where do you get that information? Following your logic, a gay couple would be twice as good as parenting because they would have TWO fathers!!!

You are a sick and twisted man, Davey. Get some help.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/21/2008 7:37 PM  

David, Again with your rant you disrespect so many families and children who do not fit 'your perfect family' model. There are so many children who grow up well-adjusted, happy and productive members of society, and yes some of these children even grow up gay and had only one parent in the house, some had a mom and a dad, some had two moms, and some have two dads. Some are adopted, some are bio children, and some come from blended families. Children need to be wanted, loved and cared for. . .just because one can procreate, does not make them parnets, prepare them to be parents or even qualify them to be parents.

Children raised in a loving home do very well. In the event a child needs a role model, often times families help to find someone to help out. In single parent families, friends, family, teachers, neighbors, the faith community all provide extra help.
In other cases, someone shows up, through an activity, church/temple or community center.

Stop the crap about the lonely child with the missing parent, or the lesbian family sans a father or gay couple sans a mother. Dick Cheney has Mary, and Mary loves her family. My parents love me, a gay member of their family. Gays and Lesbians, for the most part, come from heterosexual families. Then there are so many children out there with Heterosexual parents with fathers and mothers who are distant, overworked, some are abusive, some neglect. . .Families aren't perfect. Divorce happens. Some of the happiest, most loving children I know come from GLBT families. With over 16 years as a child care practioner and advocate, I have first hand experience. LET IT GO.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/21/2008 7:43 PM  

David Benkoff, no one is saying children don't need fathers or mothers, all gay people agree that children need parents and dozens and dozens of studies show that children do just as well with gay parents as they do with heterosexual parents so, once again, you're full of shit. You claim (laughably) to be about morality, yet you want to have a criminal take over the father role when he statutorily rapes a teenager and it is clear from that he is not appropriate as a father.

You insanely rant about "equality at all costs" when there is no cost to equality, only to inequality. Equality is about justice and there is no way you can justify inequality and the Limon case you brought up demonstrates that in spades. Like the hypocrite you are you criticize gays for demanding that Limon be given the lesser punishment given to heterosexuals rather than demanding that heterosexuals be given 17 year sentences for a similar crime. Where's your criticism of heterosexuals, none of whom have stepped forward to advocate that heterosexuals be given similarly stiff sentences, heterosexuals who created those sentences you disingenously claim are too light for a gay? Contrary to your insinuation, no gay people claimed Limon should be unpunished, just that he shouldn't be punished more severely than a heterosexual would in the same situation. Your disagreement merely demonstrates your perverse need to punish gays at all costs.

Your whining about whether or not Limon is gay is irrelevant, the fact is he got a dramatically harsher sentence just because his encounter was same sex instead of heterosexual. Whether you're punishing people unequally because they are gay or because they had gay sex its still grossly unjust. You whine about it being "perverse" to set a gay man free after serving five years for statutory rape and yet you have no complaints about heterosexuals committing the same crime being set free after less than 15 months. Where's your whining about heterosexuals' immorality for failing to complain about 15 month sentences for heterosexual statutory rapists?! You don't complain because you don't care about justice, only about demonizing gays.

Benkoff said "Priya, you write that you "don't believe adults should be allowed to have sex with children." Terrific. Just to clarify: is a 14-year-old a child, as far as you're concerned, as you apply the previous sentence?"


Yes a 14 year old is a child and I support laws that punish adults for having consentual sex with them providing there is a "romeo and Juliet" clause that takes into account those who are within 4 or 5 years of age. An 18 year old having consentual sex with a 17 year old commits no crime

Benkoff said "Overwhelmingly, LGBT people do not think children need fathers. That's one of the things that upsets me about the LGBT movement.".

There you go lying again! Where's your nationally distributed randomly sampled poll that backs up that outrageous claim?! You don't have one, just like your claim that gays don't believe in monogamy, or that most adult gays want to have sex with minors you have NOTHING to back up your smears on gays. It shouldn't come as any surprise to you that you are rightfully despised by decent gays everywhere.

As to your bullshit that there are "many studies that show gay male couples are far less monogamous than male-female couples, and tons of evidence that LGBT people do not see an essential link between sexual exclusivity and marriage", that's another example of you lying just like you did when you claimed the Limon case proved gays want to get rid of age of consent laws.

The reality is the opposite:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012201742.html

Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journalDevelopmental Psychology.
The authors of the studies say their findings challenge the stereotype that same-sex relationships aren't as healthy or secure as heterosexual pairings.
In the first study, researchers at the University of Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples to 50 engaged and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as dating heterosexual couples.
The researchers found that all the couples had positive views of their relationships, but the more committed couples (gay or straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples.
The belief that committed same-sex relationships are "atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings," noted lead author Glenn I. Roisman. "Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships."
Roisman added that gay males and lesbians "were generally not different from their committed heterosexual counterparts on how well they interacted with one another, although some evidence emerged the lesbian couples were especially effective at resolving conflict."
The second study -- conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, San Diego State University and the University of Vermont -- examined how sexual orientation and legal status affected relationship quality among 65 gay male and 138 lesbian couples in civil unions, 23 gay male and 61 lesbian couples not in civil unions, and 55 married heterosexual couples.
The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn't seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.
Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.
The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.


40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "The Older Lesbian"
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%

Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.


Now spare us your Paul Cameron like claims that studies of aids patients which exclude monogamous gay couples are typical of gays. We've already seen what kind of bullshit you rely on with your reference to Limon.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/21/2008 7:43 PM  

Well, Davey? I know you must have yet one more bullshit comment or holier-than-thou pronouncement in you. C'mon, where is that next 'Gays Are Bad People' slur that you have been waiting to spread? Because, in case you haven't noticed, you are getting the proverbial crap beaten out of your 'arguments' here.

And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/21/2008 7:50 PM  

Oh, and Priya? Thanks!!!!
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/21/2008 7:51 PM  

"I'll say it again. I believe it's wrong for adults of any sex to have intercourse with underage youths of any sex. Very wrong. And it is should be punished."

No one here is arguing that it isn't, just that the punishments (and any exceptions due to small age difference) shouldn't be any different if the parties are same or opposite sex. As Priya has already pointed out, none of the fine heterosexuals in KA sought to change the law to apply the same sentence Limon recieved to opposite sex couples. Where is your condemnation of them?

"I know most LGBT people are never going to agree with me, ..."

Most LGBT people? Try most people full stop will disagree with your position on sparing a 21+ year old male who impregnantes his 14- year old sex partner becuase "the needs of infants to be raised by their fathers" is soo important.

Which really raises the question, should this policy apply to rape as well as statuatory rape? Don't the infants concieved through date rape need to be raised by their fathers as well? How about violent rape? Does a child concieved while a knife was held to her mother's throat need to be raised by her father as well?

And why limit this lienency to just rape? Shouldn't we allow judges the discretion to grant ALL fathers shorter sentences to allow them to better meet the needs of their children to be raised by thier fathers?

You can defend your reactionary, patriarchal and yes misogynistic ideas all you want, but it will remain immoral and inhumane, in short, indefensible.

"Everyone involved in the Limon case...."

First of all, I highly doubt everyone involved in the case agrees that, got any evidence to back up your claim? Secondly, I never claimed that Limon's(or anyone else's) mental capacity excuses his crimes, I merely pointed out your failure to mention it, while highlighting that of his vicitm. The point was your hypocrisy and dishonesty, not Limon's IQ.

"Yes, I understand that the most important thing in the world to LGBT activists is whether everything is equal or not. I think this case is a great example of where by focusing on equality, gay people ended up promoting a perverse result - setting a serial rapist free. Good job, guys."

No it's not THE most important thing, but it certainly is important - to morally upstanding decent people, that is.
Yes the LGBT community did a good job in the Limon case. They ensured that Limon did not languish in jail when he would have been set free years earlier had he gotten a blowjob from an underage girl, rather than give one to an underage boy. I'm sure you disagree, but as you've clearly demonstrated, your moral compass doesn't point north.

I've made no statement as to Limon's sexual orientation. I don't know what it is, nor does it matter. I would still have supported his case, whether he identified as gay, straight, bi, ex-gay or whatever. As for the priests and scoutmasters you cite, the priests may or may not be gay, we don't know; the scoutmasters are often married with children, so I don't think they'd qualify as gay.
posted by  JC, at 7/21/2008 9:37 PM  

And it happens again. Just when I'm making progress explaining to some LGBT people some basic concepts about morality and why children need fathers, MirrorMan shows up with his refusal to call me by a name of my choosing (that's right, I don't mind Biankopf but I will not be called Davey) which he knows will drive me away. Which is what he wants, of course, because gays like their little sanctuaries where no one disturbs their illusions that they are actually behaving morally (leaving aside sexual behavior). It is extremely rare for a Web site to feature people on both sides of the homosexuality divide seriously debating the issues (my late Web site was one of the rare exceptions). So go ahead Priya and fool yourself into thinking you've "debunked" my statement about the common occurrence of sexual non-exclusivity in male-male couples with your two irrelevant studies - neither of which says boo about monogamy. You guys go ahead and fool yourselves that a retarded 14-year-old can consent to sex. I just hope you never get on a jury considering such a case. I am confident that when you make arguments using the "gay" version of morality, the rest of the country will be sick to its stomach. As long as MirrorMan is here, I won't be discussing substantive issues, so anyone who wants to continue learning about ways we can move toward a more moral LGBT community (and I'm not talking about gay sex) can E-mail me at DavidBenkof@aol.com. I may be setting up a new non-marriage blog in the near future where people of all perspectives (but not MirrorMan) can discuss and debate issues related to homosexuality and morality. Thanks to Wayne Besen for hosting this discussion.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/21/2008 10:19 PM  

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
posted by  JC, at 7/21/2008 11:54 PM  

David, Mirrorman did an excellent job of exposing you as the immoral liar you are with his bit about the truth behind the Limon case compared to your grotesque mischaracterizations of it. I'm not surprised that you're afraid to have your comments exposed to his scrutiny, your whining about being called Davey is just a convenient excuse to hide from the light being shined on your lies.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 3:18 PM  

Priya-

If I were a transgender woman and asking to be called Michelle and she but MirrorMan insisted on calling me Michael and he, everyone would be mad at him instead of at me if I refused to participate further. Everyone has a right to determine how much indignity he's willing to put up with. Yes, yes, I know, a subculture that considers "fisting" to be just another sexual practice doesn't really understand dignity, but I cannot educate you about everything.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/22/2008 3:32 PM  

I emailed my previous comment to Benkoff, he responded:


Priya-

What were my "grotesque mischaracterizations"? What did I say - and quote me, since you have shown an inability to paraphrase me accurately - that was not true?

And how on earth do those two studies you quoted prove that gay male couples are by and large monogamous? The studies had absolutely nothing to do with monogamy.

-David B.

I replied:

David, you claimed that example proved your baseless assertion that gays are immoral and want to repeal age of consent laws. That was a grotesque mischarcterization/lie. Contrary to the way you portrayed it gays weren't protesting Limon's sentence because they oppose age of consent laws in general, but because it was a gross miscarriage of justice which you also lied about through ommission of the fact that Limon got a 17 year sentence when a heterosexual in that situation would have received 15 months or less. You said the sentence was "harsh but apropriate", another outrageous mischaracterization of the case. Even if everything you said about Limon was true and you hadn't lied via ommission this wouldn't even remotely prove your case that adult gays in general want to have underage sex - you have no randomly sampled nationally representative survey that would allow you to make such a claim, one (false) anecdote doesn't remotely even begin to make that case, you are a liar whose purpose in life is to oppress innocent gays. Your claims to want a more "moral" LGBT community are laughable, the LGBT community is moral, it is you who is grotesquely immoral.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 3:35 PM  

I see the brave Sir Robin has returned to regale us with tales of his sex life! So you, as self-appointed spokesperson, for this "subculture" view fisting as just another sexual practice? Interesting, neither I nor any of my LGBT friends, consider it such, we all consider just another sexual practice we don't engage in.

So, are you still into fisting? Or did you leave that behind with your "gay identity"? Or do you just practice vaginal fisting these days instead of the anal fisting you enjoyed in your past? Or maybe it's A-OK with G-D if the ass you're shoving your arm up is a womans? Please do enlighten us all with more of your precious, precious pearls of wisdom.
posted by  JC, at 7/22/2008 3:38 PM  

Oh, and David, where is your randomly sampled nationally representative survey that shows gays consider fisting to be "just another sexual practice?

Once again, as is typical of you you make absolute claims with no basis whatsoever in reality - you are a despicable liar.

And as to your transgender analogy, not the same thing. Questioning someone's gender is far bigger of an insult than using a common variation of someone's name. I agree its an insult to call you Davey when you've made it clear that offends you but its a trivial one in comparison to the grotesque attacks you've made on gays and you started that, not Mirror man. I can pretty much guarantee when you stop the monstrous insults of the gay community and apologize for it Mirrorman will stop calling you Davey. You started with baseless attacks, its up to you to return to morality first before you can expect anyone else to treat you with the respect you deny to innocent people.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 3:44 PM  

As I am no longer comfortable debating substantive issues in this forum, I will not respond to Priya here (although I have done so privately). But I invite everyone to look carefully at Priya's answer, and see how few actual quotes of mine she uses, and how many baseless, false paraphrases she uses. It's really easy to win an argument when you get to decide what both sides think. Also note she still hasn't told us how her vaunted studies have anything to do with the topic they were supposed to address - monogamy.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/22/2008 3:47 PM  

Another email I got from David. He lists my statements first and then responds:

David, you claimed that example proved your baseless assertion that gays are immoral


never said it


and want to repeal age of consent laws.


never said it

I said quotes, not paraphrases. With quotes, it's things I actually said. With paraphrases it's things you fantasize I said, and how can I be expected to defend against that?


That was a grotesque mischarcterization/lie.


Not if I did not say it.


Contrary to the way you portrayed it gays weren't protesting Limon's sentence because they oppose age of consent laws in general, but because it was a gross miscarriage of justice which you also lied about through ommission of the fact that Limon got a 17 year sentence when a heterosexual in that situation would have received 15 months or less.


I didn't mention that fact because I don't think it's relevant. I don't believe it was a gross miscarriage of justice. This was Limon's *third offense*. Repeat offenders always get harsher sentences. I also think it is legitimate if and only if the offender fathered a child to allow the judge to lessen the sentence. Yes, that's unequal. But gays are not 100% equal. Get used to it.


You said the sentence was "harsh but apropriate", another outrageous mischaracterization of the case.


It was clearly harsh. Was it appropriate? That's a value judgment. It is not a mischaracterization if I say the weather is too cold and you say it's too hot. A mischaracterization is when it's night and I say it's day.


Even if everything you said about Limon was true and you hadn't lied via ommission this wouldn't even remotely prove your case that adult gays in general want to have underage sex


When did I say that?? Hello? Please QUOTE ME don't make up things you imagine I said that you can then complain are wrong.


- you have no randomly sampled nationally representative survey that would allow you to make such a claim, one (false) anecdote doesn't remotely even begin to make that case, you are a liar whose purpose in life is to oppress innocent gays.


How can I be a liar when the "lies" exist only in your mind? If you want to claim I lied, QUOTE ME. Don't just make up an opinion that I do not actually hold.



Your claims to want a more "moral" LGBT community are laughable, the LGBT community is moral, it is you who is grotesquely immoral.


It sounds like you believe the LGBT community cannot be more moral. I would be happy to debate that proposition with you any time, any place. (As long as MirrorMan can't participate.)

-David B.

Those are all fair characterizations of what you said. That you'd deny the implications of your statements just further proves what a liar you are. You claim you didn't think it was relevent to mention that gays weren't protesting age of consent laws in general (but rather the unequal sentencing of gays versus heterosexuals). This couldn't be more disingenous. You knew it was relevent and you knew this would destroy your claim that the Limon case was an example of gays protesting age of consent laws in general. Your immorality is on blatent display.

Your immorality is further demonstrated by your claim that a statory rapist should be rewarded with a lesser sentence if he is irresponsible enough to impregnate his victim. Clearly such a person does not make an appropriate father, by your logic a violent rapist should be given a lesser sentence and apointed as a father figure if he impregnates his victim = you're insane.

Your glib suggestion that gays are not equal and that we should "get used to it" is evidence that you have no concept of justice or morality. There never has been and never will be a valid reason to treat any one who harms no one as less than equal. Your constant insane suggestions that there is demonstrates you are a danger to society and should never be in a position of authority over others.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 3:57 PM  

David said "Also note she still hasn't told us how her vaunted studies have anything to do with the topic they were supposed to address - monogamy."


The studies speak for themselves. That you're wearing the same blinders as when you looked at the Limon case explains why you don't see the obvious. You wouldn't recognize reality if it bit you in the ass.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 4:00 PM  

Priya-

You're not going to trick me into debating you publicly on substantive issues at waynebesen.com by publishing E-mails you knew I wanted to be private (or I would have written them here). I of course stand by them, though. I urge everyone to judge my opinions based on the things I actually say, rather than Priya's unwarranted leaps of logic than I never said, never meant, and cannot prevent.

And as for your studies, if that's the best you can do to prove that gay male couples are largely monogamous - two studies that don't even address or mention monogamy, we might as well quit here and declare me the victor. Anyone who wants some urls for studies showing what everyone knows anyway - that gay men by and large have agreements with their partners that allow for sexual non-exclusivity, E-mail me at DavidBenkof@aol.com.
posted by  David Benkof, at 7/22/2008 4:03 PM  

You've been making baseless claims like forever David, once again, you've got nothing to back up such lies unless you do like Paul Cameron and claim some study on aids patients that intentionally excludes monogamous couples is representative of gays in general. We've seen how dishonest you are with your initial portrayal of the Limon case as an example of gays supporting the elimination of age of consent laws. Thanks to Mirrorman we've seen what an outrageous mischaracterization that was and how incredibly morally challenged you are. Go crawl back in your hole Dr. Evil.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 4:11 PM  

David said "It sounds like you believe the LGBT community cannot be more moral. I would be happy to debate that proposition with you any time, any place. (As long as MirrorMan can't participate.)"


How about on Besen's blog,then? Your desire to exclude mirrorman is dishonest and telling. He beat the piss out of you over the Limon case and exposed you for the fraud you are, your desire to prevent him from participating is the same as asking that no one be allowed to show you where you were wrong/lying. Go fuck yourself asshole.

David replied "We could try Besen's other blog - truthwinsout.org, as long as MirrorMan doesn't come and ruin it. Let me know.

P.S. Moral people generally don't say things like the last sentence in your E-mail, in case you didn't know that."

Your desire to exclude Mirrorman merely highlights your desire to be dishonest and keep it from being exposed. Once a person, such as yourself, breaks the rules of fairplay the reciprocity is off. You broke the rules of fairplay first, if you want to be treated with respect then you must return to the rules of fairplay first by apologizing for your lies about gays in general and the Limon case in particular. Otherwise go fuck yourself asshole.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 4:19 PM  

Well, Davey, I see you are back in full force and up to your oh, so old, tricks.

“Just when I'm making progress explaining to some LGBT people some basic concepts about morality and why children need fathers, MirrorMan shows up with his refusal to call me by a name of my choosing (that's right, I don't mind Biankopf but I will not be called Davey) which he knows will drive me away.”

You are full of it, Benkie, and everyone knows it. Every time you get on the losing end of a discussion, you claim some insult or foul and storm off. You did it on The Stranger’s blog, you did it at Fannie’s place, you did it at Box Turtle Bulletin, you did it at Pam’s House Blend (where he called the webmistress a ‘Nasty Bitch’) and god knows where else. Every time, without fail. You, who have called yourself a ‘Wordsmith’, have extremely poor debating skills and an even looser grasp on reality. I think the real problem is that you have prostituted yourself out to the religious right for so long you have started to believe it yourself. “But look out! It’s the Big, Bad MirrorMan! He won’t call me what I want, so I must run away!” You are pathetic! You can’t win an argument on your own, so you just take your ball and go home.

Fine.

In case you have looked, and I know you haven’t, you are getting destroyed by the facts. Not misquotes, but facts.

“Yes, yes, I know, a subculture that considers "fisting" to be just another sexual practice doesn't really understand dignity, but I cannot educate you about everything.”

Yes, yes, I know that someone who considers “fisting” to be a strictly homosexual practice doesn’t really understand dignity, but I cannot educate you about everything. Yes, Davey, vaginal fisting. It’s not just for homos anymore.

“As I am no longer comfortable debating substantive issues in this forum, I will not respond to Priya here (although I have done so privately). But I invite everyone to look carefully at Priya's answer, and see how few actual quotes of mine she uses, and how many baseless, false paraphrases she uses. It's really easy to win an argument when you get to decide what both sides think. Also note she still hasn't told us how her vaunted studies have anything to do with the topic they were supposed to address - monogamy.”

Hey, what about this claim about gays wanting to lower the age of consent laws, huh? Can you stay on topic for one freaking second? Oh, wait. You were losing that argument so you had to change to a different subject to keep up your appearance of superiority. How is that working for ya?

I thought so.

Coming from someone who is so absolutely moral, you should find this one easy. You wrote:

“But gays are not 100% equal. Get used to it.”

All right, lets take a look through the WayBack machine at all the absolutely batshit crazy things Davey, here, has said or written, and take out the word ‘gay’ and replace it with the group of your choice, be it Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Rastafarian, black, white yellow, etc. Wow, isn’t it suddenly inflammatory? Being that Mr. Benkof is an Orthodox Jew, if you were to use that term in association with his previous statement, he would blow a gasket.

(Now everyone watch closely, as he will now say I am attacking his faith, and as you can see from the previous comment, I did no such thing!)

Separate, but equal is not equal. It isn’t fair, it isn’t right, and it isn’t constitutional. But that doesn’t really interest you, does it Davey. It’s all about setting you and your kind up as some kind of moral arbiters who decide what is and isn’t good for people based on your own likes and dislikes.
‘You might like chocolate ice cream, but we only allow vanilla.’

Well, too damn bad. I like chocolate. Sometimes I even mix it with vanilla. And I might even go for the peach if I am in a mood. And you have absolutely no right to tell me what things I can like or dislike, as long as I am breaking no law or hurting someone. But you want to take it away anyhow; for fear that someone is having just a bit more fun than you are allowed to.

Cry me a freakin’ river, but I really don’t care. Those were the choices you made in life, and if they aren’t working out for you, you only have yourself to blame. You could, of course, change your mind, but that would mean admitting you were wrong, and you just won’t do that. So take your ball and go home and whine that the Big, Bad MirrorMan called you names so you can’t come out a play anymore.

But when you do, as you always do, remember:

We WILL be waiting for you.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/22/2008 4:43 PM  

Mirrorman, making it even more obvious that your calling him Davey is just an excuse for him to hide from you exposing his lies, I called him an asshole and he was still willing to debate me. Obviously his refusal to debate you has nothing to do with you insulting him, its because you picked apart his bullshit completely and demolished his arguments. He doesn't want to give you a chance to do that again.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/22/2008 6:28 PM  

priya lynn, I believe you are absolutely correct in that assessment. But since Davey prefers to be quoted, I quote this:
“Just when I'm making progress explaining to some LGBT people some basic concepts about morality and why children need fathers, MirrorMan shows up with his refusal to call me by a name of my choosing (that's right, I don't mind Biankopf but I will not be called Davey) which he knows will drive me away. Which is what he wants, of course, because gays like their little sanctuaries where no one disturbs their illusions that they are actually behaving morally (leaving aside sexual behavior).”

Now, that is a quote, not a made up ‘fact’. But since that is his stated position, I must take it at face value, and assume it is correct. Because, I mean, really, if you wanted to change someone’s point of view on something, you would do it with information, studies and facts (much like you did, priya lynn, bless you) as opposed to innuendo, half-baked statements, and outrageous claims. Because if I have something important to convey, I don’t let a little thing like how I am addressed get between me and my goal, which is to alter someone’s opinion, through a presentation of information, into one more favorable or amenable to my own. I really don’t care what you call me, as long as I get my point across. Because if I leave a conversation due to not being addressed properly, just how important was my point anyway? How important is it to me that you understand ‘morality’? But, no, I will just go home because you called me a name I don’t like. Now THAT is some stunning example of debating skill, wouldn’t you say?
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/22/2008 6:45 PM  

Wayne, why do you allow this attention whore to hijack your comment sections time and time again as he does at countless other sites?

I honest to God don't believe that he REALLY believes ANY of the SHIT that he spews. He just GETS OFF (as in cums) from being at the center of controversy. It is clearly his substitute for the sex he's not having with men (which is clearly causing him to be extremely hateful and bitter).

Honestly, why do you continue to provide him a forum to rant and rave on your wonderful and informative site.

This asshole is running me away from some of my favorite sites simply because he takes them over and makes them HIS website.

Let him make his case for his batshittery on his own damned site!

Zeke
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/22/2008 10:08 PM  

Wayne, why do you allow this attention whore to hijack your comment sections time and time again as he does at countless other sites?

I honest to God don't believe that he REALLY believes ANY of the SHIT that he spews. He just GETS OFF (as in cums) from being at the center of controversy. It is clearly his substitute for the sex he's not having with men (which is clearly causing him to be extremely hateful and bitter).

Honestly, why do you continue to provide him a forum to rant and rave on your wonderful and informative site.

This asshole is running me away from some of my favorite sites simply because he takes them over and makes them HIS website.

Let him make his case for his batshittery on his own damned site!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/22/2008 10:09 PM  

Suhali Leather Lockit MM Verone
Suhali Leather Lockit MM White
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Black
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Geranium
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Gold
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Sienne
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Silver
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Turquoise
Suhali Leather Lockit PM Verone
Suhali Leather Lockit PM White
Suhali Leather L`
posted by  Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 9:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

January 16, 2005   January 23, 2005   January 30, 2005   February 06, 2005   February 13, 2005   February 20, 2005   February 27, 2005   March 06, 2005   March 13, 2005   March 20, 2005   March 27, 2005   April 03, 2005   April 10, 2005   April 17, 2005   April 24, 2005   May 01, 2005   May 08, 2005   May 15, 2005   May 22, 2005   May 29, 2005   June 05, 2005   June 12, 2005   June 19, 2005   June 26, 2005   July 03, 2005   July 10, 2005   July 17, 2005   July 24, 2005   July 31, 2005   August 07, 2005   August 14, 2005   August 21, 2005   August 28, 2005   September 04, 2005   September 11, 2005   September 18, 2005   September 25, 2005   October 02, 2005   October 09, 2005   October 16, 2005   October 23, 2005   October 30, 2005   November 06, 2005   November 13, 2005   November 20, 2005   November 27, 2005   December 04, 2005   December 11, 2005   December 18, 2005   December 25, 2005   January 01, 2006   January 08, 2006   January 15, 2006   January 22, 2006   January 29, 2006   February 05, 2006   February 12, 2006   February 19, 2006   February 26, 2006   March 05, 2006   March 12, 2006   March 19, 2006   March 26, 2006   April 02, 2006   April 09, 2006   April 16, 2006   April 23, 2006   April 30, 2006   May 07, 2006   May 14, 2006   May 21, 2006   May 28, 2006   June 04, 2006   June 11, 2006   June 18, 2006   June 25, 2006   July 02, 2006   July 09, 2006   July 16, 2006   July 23, 2006   July 30, 2006   August 06, 2006   August 13, 2006   August 20, 2006   August 27, 2006   September 03, 2006   September 10, 2006   September 17, 2006   September 24, 2006   October 01, 2006   October 08, 2006   October 15, 2006   October 22, 2006   October 29, 2006   November 05, 2006   November 12, 2006   November 19, 2006   November 26, 2006   December 03, 2006   December 10, 2006   December 17, 2006   December 31, 2006   January 07, 2007   January 14, 2007   January 21, 2007   January 28, 2007   February 04, 2007   February 11, 2007   February 18, 2007   February 25, 2007   March 04, 2007   March 11, 2007   March 18, 2007   March 25, 2007   April 01, 2007   April 08, 2007   April 15, 2007   April 22, 2007   April 29, 2007   May 06, 2007   May 13, 2007   May 20, 2007   May 27, 2007   June 03, 2007   June 10, 2007   June 17, 2007   June 24, 2007   July 01, 2007   July 08, 2007   July 15, 2007   July 22, 2007   July 29, 2007   August 05, 2007   August 12, 2007   August 19, 2007   August 26, 2007   September 02, 2007   September 09, 2007   September 16, 2007   September 23, 2007   September 30, 2007   October 07, 2007   October 14, 2007   October 21, 2007   October 28, 2007   November 04, 2007   November 11, 2007   November 18, 2007   November 25, 2007   December 02, 2007   December 09, 2007   December 16, 2007   December 23, 2007   December 30, 2007   January 06, 2008   January 13, 2008   January 20, 2008   January 27, 2008   February 03, 2008   February 10, 2008   February 17, 2008   February 24, 2008   March 02, 2008   March 09, 2008   March 16, 2008   March 23, 2008   March 30, 2008   April 06, 2008   April 13, 2008   April 20, 2008   April 27, 2008   May 04, 2008   May 11, 2008   May 18, 2008   May 25, 2008   June 01, 2008   June 08, 2008   June 15, 2008   June 22, 2008   June 29, 2008   July 06, 2008   July 13, 2008   July 20, 2008   July 27, 2008   August 03, 2008   August 10, 2008   August 17, 2008   August 24, 2008   August 31, 2008   September 07, 2008   September 14, 2008   September 21, 2008   September 28, 2008   October 05, 2008   October 12, 2008   October 19, 2008   October 26, 2008   November 02, 2008   November 09, 2008   November 16, 2008   November 23, 2008   November 30, 2008   December 07, 2008   December 14, 2008   December 21, 2008   December 28, 2008   January 04, 2009   January 11, 2009   January 18, 2009   January 25, 2009   February 01, 2009   February 08, 2009   February 15, 2009   February 22, 2009   March 01, 2009   March 08, 2009   March 15, 2009   March 22, 2009   March 29, 2009   April 05, 2009   April 12, 2009   April 19, 2009   April 26, 2009   May 03, 2009   May 10, 2009   May 17, 2009   May 24, 2009   May 31, 2009   June 07, 2009   June 14, 2009   June 21, 2009   June 28, 2009   July 12, 2009   July 19, 2009   July 26, 2009   August 02, 2009   August 09, 2009   August 16, 2009   August 23, 2009   August 30, 2009   September 06, 2009   September 13, 2009   September 20, 2009   September 27, 2009   October 04, 2009   October 11, 2009   October 18, 2009   November 01, 2009   November 08, 2009   November 15, 2009   November 22, 2009   December 06, 2009   December 13, 2009   December 20, 2009   December 27, 2009   January 17, 2010   January 24, 2010   January 31, 2010   February 07, 2010   February 14, 2010   February 21, 2010   March 21, 2010   April 18, 2010   June 06, 2010   July 18, 2010   July 25, 2010   October 31, 2010   December 19, 2010   April 10, 2011