Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere

September 30, 2006

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (and Child Predators)

Filed under: Articles, Gay, Gay Rights, Human Rights, Personal Thoughts, Politicts, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 7:16 am

One topic I am actually surprised I haven’t focused on (on this blog) yet is that of child predators. When NBC’s Dateline started doing it’s To Catch A Predator series, I started watching. Part of me was afraid that homosexuals were about to get a bad rap. I knew that all that was needed would be for one gay person to appear on the show and change the focus of everything. Before long, homosexuality and pedophilia would be, once again, linked. So far, thank Goodness, that hasn’t happened.

In fact, Dateline: To Catch A Predator has almost had the opposite effect. Through this show, we have seen how just about any kind of person can be a child predator. Those featured on the show have included military men, the average Joe next door, and even church leaders and other highly religious people.

One of the myths that have stuck around (even long after it has been debunked) is how homosexuals are pedophiles or child predators. Sure, such things do happen occasionally - however it is far from the norm. In fact, by far the greatest number of pedophiles are heterosexuals - or, at least people living in heterosexual relationships or at least reflecting the heterosexual lifestyle.

And yet, someone always manages to twist the facts to suit their own wants and needs. One recent example of this is from a group calling themselves Americans For Truth. They recently wrote an article about a recent episode of the Oprah Show that focused on pedophilia and child predators. The article starts out by saying:

One of the questions I have regarding any linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia is why such a disproportionate number of child molestation victims are boys—if (openly) homosexual men comprise such a small percentage of society? We doubt that Oprah Winfrey, who is very pro-”gay,” will pursue the answer to that question, but at least she is exposing the notorious group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), which once marched in homosexual “pride” parades in the early days of American “gay liberation.”

While Oprah may not pursue the answer to that question - let me address it now. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. None. What-so-ever.

The writer of this highly prejudicial and misleading article fails to take a number of facts into consideration. For example, most of the convicted pedophiles and child predators are heterosexuals. Most are married, living the heterosexual lifestyle. Sure, occasionally one identifies himself as homosexual, but this is far from the norm.

Another way in which this article tries to mislead you is by throwing up the notorious group NAMBLA, and pointing out one aspect of gay history that we’re not very proud about. Because the article cannot say (and be truthful) that NAMBLA is a group of gay men (because supposedly most of its members are blatantly straight) they point out that in the early days of the gay rights movements, they were allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parades. What the article doesn’t say is that the gay community, in general, can’t stand NAMBLA or what they represent either. We’re just as repulsed by them as Americans For Truth is.

(And, since when does marching in a gay pride parade mean you’re a homosexual? Tell that to the countless politicians who march every year in local gay pride parades. Tell that to the members of PFLAG, a wonderful organizations for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Tell that to … ok, you get the idea.)

The Americans For Truth article contains very little truth, and whatever truth it does contain is both prejudicial and misleading, like the Nambla statement. Even the headline isn’t true. “Oprah Exposes NAMBLA:Homosexual Pedophiles Online”… Oprah did no such thing. In fact, Oprah never even focused on homosexual pedophiles at all. The article also names Todd Calvin, NAMBLA member and convicted pedophile. It is presented in a way that makes you think the guy is gay - even though, on Oprah, we heard from his ex-wife, and the only suggestion of homosexuality is the fact that he was convicted of molesting a young boy.

I also think it is highly suspect in the way they single groups, such as NAMBLA, while ignoring other groups entirely. Why was there no mention in this article about all those Catholic Priests who molested young boys? (And why were those Catholic Priests not labeled homosexual and kicked from the Church, but rather often promoted or moved to different areas?) While it’s true that most “pedophilia groups” are not organized the way NAMBLA was, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. Many such groups do exist, nameless, recruiting through friends of friends - getting together to share ideas about how to seduce the innocent and not get caught.

The Oprah Show did expose a lot of topics that need a lot of focus and attention. Or, maybe what we need is another slight paradigm shift? The Internet has been, and is still, used for illegal purposes - and that does include child porn, that does include groups of pedophiles, and countless other illegal activities. I am not blaming the Internet, far from it. But, when we get onto the Internet, we need to be aware that such things do happen around here. More importantly, law enforcement needs to be aware of it.  (And, more and more every day, they are.)

September 22, 2006

Let He Who Is Without Sin … (Part Two)

Filed under: Gay, Personal Thoughts, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 4:51 pm

I have recently gotten a few comments on one of my older posts - Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone - Unless The Bastards A Faggot … and I wanted to take a moment or two to respond.

One of the topics I want to comment on is whether or not being gay is a choice. Personally, I think the issue is a bit absurd. I mean … I can’t see why anybody with half a brain would think that being gay is a choice.

Think, for a second about the kind of people you’re attracted to. Are they tall or short? Are they fat or thin? Are they blond or brunette or redhead? Do they have long hair or short hair? Are they introverted or extroverted? Are they loud or quiet? Do they tend to like classical music or Top 40? Do they like action movies or romantic comedies? Do they dress in jeans and sweat shirts, or something more dressy? Are they street smart or book smart? Do they remind you of a parent or friend? Do they have tattoos or piercings or do those kinds of things turn you off?

Ok, so you got a mental image … right? Well, then let me ask you this: At what point did you sit down and consciously choose to be attracted to one type of person rather than some other? How long did you actually debate whether tall people are more attractive than short people (or vice vursa)? How old were you when you chose what kinds of people you like to be with? That sounds almost crazy, doesn’t it? … Or … did you just realize over time that you like what you like and have no idea why - not that it really matters much.

So - if you never sat down and made a choice about what you’re attracted to - why do you say that people who are attracted to their same gender choose that? Doesn’t make much sense.

If you’re heterosexual - when did you choose to be straight?

Alex - You are right. I am not a Christian. So I will not debate the bible with you. You can quote your bible at me, but it won’t do much good because I do not believe in what the Bible has to say. My religion teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. In my Church, they teach about respecting others, even if they have beliefs that are different than your own. Part of that respect means not passing judgement. Part of that respect is one not trying to force their beliefs on another. According to my religious teachings, you did cross that line (but I do forgive you) - with your entire comment. Had you said, “in order to be a good Christian, it is my opinion that you must live your life with these principles” - but in making it sound like in order to be a good person - you made it clear that you do not respect religious views that are different than yours. Please do not say you do.

I would also like to thank D-VO for his or her comments (and reaction to Alex).  I think they were very well said.

September 21, 2006

My Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

Filed under: Human Rights, Personal Thoughts, Politicts, Religon — Cork McGraw @ 7:01 pm

There has been a lot of blog talk lately about Freedom of Religion. The general consensus is that “Freedom of Religion” means that anyone can practice their religion any time and any place they choose. Unfortunately, I think the general consensus is … well, a little misguided.

Recently, I posted the antics of Tyler Harper. He’s a high school student who believes that his religious freedom was being infringed upon when he wore t-shirts with a blatant message slamming and condemning his fellow students. When school administration sat down with him to inform him that his t-shirts were inappropriate, and tried to counsel him into demonstrating in a more productive, less threatening way – Tyler Harper started screaming that his religious freedom was being violated.

In another, similar story – this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims of a cosmetology teacher who said her religious freedoms were being violated. Martha Piggee brought the suit when the school she had been working at failed to re-hire her. The main incident that led to the school’s decision involved a gay student named Jason Ruel. Piggee had placed several comic-book style religious pamphlets denouncing homosexuality into the student’s lab coat, urging him to talk with her about his sexuality and her belief in God. After Ruel complained to the school administration, they investigated, finding that Piggee’s actions violated the school’s policy for sexual harassment. The decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that they could “see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic.”

So, does this mean that “freedom of religion” can be used as an excuse for inappropriate schoolhouse bullying or sexual harassment?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the First Amendment is what’s known as the Establishment Clause. It keeps the government from establishing a National religion. The second part is known as The Free Exercise Clause, and states that government can’t infringe on our rights to participate in whatever religion we choose to. While the Establishment Clause is absolute, the Free Exercise Clause often faces state restrictions.

Over the years, the courts have faced the issues of what happens when local laws come into conflict with religious beliefs or practices. Examples have included Native American religious rituals involving the use of Peyote (a controlled substance) … Bigamy in the Mormon Church … even Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the focus many times. The result has been limitations placed upon the Free Exercise Clause.

For me, the issue is as much a moral one as a legal one. If one person’s religious beliefs infringe upon the rights of another individual (or group of individuals) something is wrong.

Would we get a better perspective if we, temporarily, took religion out of the picture for a minute. Let’s say that someone was sexually harassing another person. Is there any reason that would be considered ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mrs. Piggee does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Or, let’s say that someone is bullying someone. Is there any reasons that would be ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mr. Harper does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Is it ok to kill another human being? What if that was being done in the name of religion? Most religions have a long history of doing just that. Even Christianity.

September 14, 2006

Mourning The Loss Of One Of Our Own…

Filed under: Gay, Gay History, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Human Rights, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 9:35 am

This past Monday, 39 year old Tyrone Garner died of meningitis. He was a shy guy, according to those who knew him - but his story is one of inspiration, and his contribution to the gay rights movement were immeasurable.

On September 17, 1998 Tyrone Garner went to the home of John Lawrence, where the two men began to have sexual relations in the privacy of Lawrence’s own home. For obvious reasons, this seemed to upset Robert Eubanks, Garner’s partner at the time. Eubanks must have decided to teach his lover a little lesson because he responds to this by calling 911 and telling the dispatcher that a crazed gunman was loose in John Lawrence’s house. The police quickly respond and find no crazed gunmen, but two men engaged in private, consensual sexual relations. Lawrence and Garner were arrested for Homosexual Conduct. (In Texas, it was a misdemeanor crime to participate in gay sex.) The two spent several hours in jail before posting the two hundred dollars bond.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund approached Garner and Lawrence and offered their support. Lawrence wanted to fight the charges, but Garner was reluctant, stating he didn’t think they could win. He told the Houston Chronicle, “I didn’t enjoy being outed with my mugshot on TV. It was degrading to me.”

The two men pleaded No Contest to the charges, and took their case to the state level where it lost again. In 2002, their case landed them before the United States Supreme Court. By now, Garner had decided to fight these charges at all cost.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lawrence and Garner, finding that Texas’ Sodomy Law violated the US Constitution’s privacy guarantee. The decision also struck down similar laws in thirteen other states.

The Sodomy Laws that criminalized homosexual behavior had long been used to criminalize homosexuals in order to deny them civil rights, were often used in custody cases, were used in denying housing or employment. Essentially, it prevented many people from seeking legal redress simply because the homosexual was considered a criminal. The decision of the US Supreme Court pretty much put a sudden stop to this.

This also started paving the way for future gay rights work - such as the fight for same-sex marriage.

Garner was never the political type - but his contribution to the world proves that even the smallest amongst us can affect the world in great ways.

Since 1998, life hasn’t been particularly easy for Garner, battling not only his legal rights, but also lengthy illnesses such as the meningitis that ultimately took his life. To Garner, I bid thee good night. May the angels hold you tightly and keep you safe, and warm, and loved.

September 13, 2006

Remembering The Black Dahlia (Part Two)

Filed under: Articles, Movie Reviews — Cork McGraw @ 11:46 am

Here’s an article I wrote on the Black Dahlia several years ago. With the upcoming movie release, I thought I might as well share it with you:

The Black Dahlia

The murder of Elizabeth Short (also known as the Black Dahlia) remains to this day as one of California’s more extraordinary unsolved mysteries. And it seems to have been made of the stuff legends are made of - a brutal crime … the victim as a small-town girl gone off to Hollywood to make it in the movies … a list of suspects that seemed more like the Titanic’s passenger list than anything else …

Over the past half decade, countless articles, books, movies, and television shows have presented information on the Black Dahlia. And it seems like the more you know, the more questions you have. And yet the questions remain - Who killed the Black Dahlia and why?

The Victim

Elizabeth ShortElisabeth Short was born on July 29th, 1924 in Hyde Park, Massachusetts, but a short while after she was born her family moved to the town of Medford - a few miles outside Boston.

By all accounts, Beth Short (known as Betty to friends and family) had always been a pretty girl. Her biggest concern was her health. She was plagued with a rather nasty case of athsma. One one occasion, she had to have an operation to remove some fluid from her lungs. Yet, even through all of that she still remained a friendly, feisty, and caring woman and everyone she met seemed to like her.

Her other major concern dealt with a certain birth defect. Her vaginal area was slightly deformed, causing normal penetration to be impossible. She also did not have a normal period. Several doctors stated when she was young that she would eventually outgrow this - however, she never did.

When she was a girl, her mother, Phoebe, would often take her and her younger sister to the movies. Beth loved this, and had often dreamt of being an actress. This was, perhaps, her biggest goal in life. Years later she would move to the Hollywood area, and try to make that dream a reality.

She would move in with her father, Cleo, for a short while when she was nineteen. He had moved there when Beth was a small girl after faking his suicide when his miniature golf course business went under. Years later, he contacted his wife and wanted to be a part of the family again. Phoebe refused. Beth’s relationship with her father was fairly rocky, and he eventually asked her to leave because he found her lazy, boy crazy, and untidy.

After having a rather rough time in Hollywood, she moved temporarily back to Medford, and then headed south to Miami Beach where she met Major Matt Gordon, a pilot. (She seemed to have romantic fantasies about servicemen.) During their engagement, however, he was sent to India. Before he could return home, he was killed in a plane crash. Beth Short had already decided the next thing in store for her was marriage, so after a short while, she called upon a former beau - another serviceman. But that relationship was doomed to failure as well.

Some of the servicemen who knew her started calling her The Black Dahlia. One of the popular films at the time was called The Blue Dahlia (with Veronica Lake and Alan Ladd) and the name stuck because she dressed in black lacy dresses and had black frilly hair. Beth liked the nickname and started portraying this sultry personality.

The Murder Of The Black Dahlia

On January 15th, 1947 a young lady and her daughter were taking a stroll near a vacant lot when the two spotted what the woman first thought was a broken mannequin. But it wasn’t a mannequin - it was the nude body of a young woman, the lifeless body of the Black Dahlia.

She had been posed naked, on her back with her arms stretched above her head bent at the elbows, severed at the waist. Her lower half was angled upward at the hips, her legs spread-eagle. It was believed that she was severed after death, but some evidence suggests it was possible she was severed while still alive. Her bodyparts were placed in a line. The liver was exposed. Her face and breasts were slashed. Marks on her wrists and ankles suggested she’d been tied up, perhaps in an upside-down position Evidence also suggests that feces was placed in her mouth while being tortured.. An incision was also made crudely from her pubic region up to the navel.

After an autopsy was performed, a few more curious details would enter the picture. Some evidence suggested that she was frozen for a period of time, perhaps to aid preservation. Other evidence suggested that the body had been put down, at some point, face-down in dew covered grass and then turned over. The body had also been dead for at least ten hours before it was placed in that lot. Her hair and body had been extensively and painstakingly washed and cleaned. No evidence of semen was found, although that could have been because she had been washed so well. The official cause of death was listed as being caused by a concussion to the head, and to the wounds on her face and breasts.

The police tried everything they could think of to crack this high profile case. They spent countless hours trying to recreate the last few days of her life. They talked with friends, and even went as far as rounding up nearly every known (or suspected) sexual deviants or perverts and questioned them.

During their investigation, they located Robert Manly. He was a hardware salesman and known the Dahlia for only a short time. A week before her death, the two had checked into a motel, gone out to various nightclubs, and then headed back to the motel. Manly reports he slept in the bed while Beth Short slept in a chair. She had complained of not feeling well. The next morning, he had an appointment, but when he came back, she was now dressed, and apparently feeling a little better. She said she wanted to meet her sister so when Manly had to leave that evening, he left Elisabeth Short alone in the room waiting for her sister. This would be the last time anybody saw her alive. She disappeared for the next six days before turning up severed in the vacant lot. Manly became the first suspect the police had. However, after several long interrogations he was eventually released.

The police were flooded with calls from people who knew the Black Dahlia. It took major manpower to handle the volume of calls and to follow up on the tremendous amount of information. Meanwhile, Phoebe Short arrives in California to claim her daughter’s body. It seems her ex-husband wanted nothing to do with the whole fiasco. Later, Phoebe would bury her daughter in The Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland.

And then the local papers received a package containing a few of Elizabeth Short’s personal belongings such as an address book with pages torn out, her social security card, birth certificate, business cards, photographs of her with various servicemen, claim checks for suitcases she had left at the bus station - accompanied by a note made from newspaper clippings which said, “Here are Dahlia’s Belongings” and “Letter to Follow.” The police tried to lift fingerprints off all of this, but none were able to be found. Each and every name in the address book was tracked down and interviewed, but not much came of it.

The Investigation

The investigation went nowhere fast. Every lead seemed to turn into a dead end. And yet, everyone seemed to know something about the Dahlia’s death, or had some connection that nobody else had. For example…

Two detectives sat in a local restaurant discussing the case. When they returned to the station, they got a call from a man who said he had seen the killer. As it turns out, he was the waiter at the restaurant and the two officers were to whom the man referred.

An astrologer said that if they buried the Dahlia with an egg in her hand, her killer would be caught.

Several landlords reported that their problem tenants were most likely the killer. Many women reported their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands.

One serviceman was reported to military police by another serviceman with whom he had fought about money. The man who was reported had blood on his clothing and had some newspaper clippings of the Dahlia. The man confessed, saying that he could have done this since he often got violent toward women when he was drunk. The police saw through his confession eventually and he was sent to a psychiatrist.

In fact, as many as fifty different people confessed to the crime - but there were none the police took seriously.

Suspects

A crime reporter for the Herald Express named Aggie Underwood wanted the police to investigate a connection between the death of the Black Dahlia and the murder of a socialite named Georgette Bauerdorf. Bauerdorf. had known the Dahlia and had died in what Underwood considered similar circumstances - she had been strangled and raped before being drowned in a bathtub with a towel thrust into her mouth to keep her from crying out. The police never followed this lead, citing various reasons.

Janice Knowlton wrote a book titled Daddy Was The Black Dahlia Killer in which she tells of the affair Elizabeth Short had with her father George and pinning the murder on him. According to officials, George Knowlton was never considered a suspect.

Another popular book - Severed: The True Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder by John Gillmore, which contained a totally different view (and sources of information). While it is recommended that you read both books, it is also recommended that you make your own judgements on the information they contain.

Not much to go on. I know. Perhaps this - above anything else - explains why the case remains open andd unsolved, even after over fifty years.

The Killer

From the evidence presented, we can make certain educated guesses at what the killer was like, or certain other bits of information about him. I must strongly note here that since the killer is still unknown - all we are able to do is make these educated guesses. Even though the information presented in this section is logical - there is still a chance that it may not be correct.

Beth Short was a high risk victim. We can guess this since she was emotionally vulnerable, had a somewhat needy personality, led a lifestyle of club hopping, was often homeless, and had a dependant personality. Any killer who was looking for women who he could dominate and manipulate would have been easily attracted to her from the get go.

The nature of the crime suggests that this was a lust murder - although certain aspects of the crime tells us that it dosn’t fit the normal bill. Most lust murderers are, for the most part, disorganized types. However, since the killer went to such legnths to was the body (we can assume to get rid of physical evidence) and the manner in which she was severed, and these are definate signs of an organized offender, an interesting discussion on his personality traits can be made.

Since the body was killed elsewhere and then left in a vaccant lot, we can assume a few more details. The killer would have to have a car. Considering the year is 1947 and that most Americans did not own cars at this point in history, we can either conclude that he was criminally sophisticated enough to be able to steal one without it ever showing up as evidence, or that he was wealthy enough to be able to afford one.

The area where the killer dumped the body was not a busy intersection, however it was populated and nobody ever reported seeing anything amiss. We can assume here that since nobody saw anything out of order, that the killer either blended into his surroundings so that nobody would remember seeing him, or that he went completely unseen however unlikely that is bound to be.

In order to have tied the Dahlia up and torture her the way he did, he must have had his own home (or other such place to - cough snort - work) and he probably lived alone. It would be difficult (but not totally impossible) to pull this sort of thing off had he lived in an appartment, or if he lived with another person. But, then again, considering that the person he lived with might have gone away (as in out of town), and since he cleaned up The Dahlia very well, we can also assume he thoroughly cleaned the area where he kept and killed her, so that no traces were left when the others returned. However unlikely this scenario might be, I must also admit it could be possible.

Since the body was placed out in the open for people to find, we can also surmize that his intention for doing this was to shock or offend the entire community, and make a statement. He also appearantly was not too woried about leaving behind evidence of his identity, thus relating again to the fact that he cleaned the body.

Later, he would communicate with the police. This would suggest that he wanted credability, he wanted to outfox or outsmart the investigators, and that while he was fairly bright, he wasn’t too smart.

The crime also showed definate signs of sadism. He manipulated and degraded his victim to such a drastic level that we can guess his anger wasn’t against her, personally, but against her as a woman, suggesting his anger was toward all women. Or, at least all woman who the Dahlia reminded him of.

Remembering The Black Dahlia (Part One)

Filed under: Movie Reviews, Personal Thoughts — Cork McGraw @ 11:43 am

I am another one of those fine folks waiting for the release of The Black Dahlia. However, I am often one to criticize movies that are based on true events because, more often than not, the story or characters have been fictionalized to the point that it becomes a whole new story. This especially seems to be true about stories with either political ramifications (such as the recent The Path to 9/11) or movies about controversial or sensational events. Unfortunately, the murder of Elisabeth Short (or, The Black Dahlia as she’s better known) seems to fall in that later category. Occasionally a movie comes along that does the story justice.

When it comes to The Black Dahlia, I have found few people who can remember what the case was all about. Most people remember it involved a young lady in Hollywood who was an aspiring actress who was brutally murdered. They also seem to remember that The Black Dahlia murder has remained one of the most sensational unsolved mysteries in history.

When remembering The Black Dahlia, it’s important to remember what life was like back in the late 1940s, especially in Hollywood. So much has changed about the way we think of everything from Celebrities to gruesome murders, it is hard to imagine what it was like back then.

Perhaps, a renewed interest in the story of The Black Dahlia’s murder will inspire further investigation. We have come such a long way since 1947 in terms of understanding criminal behavior. We have more and better forensic tools available now that weren’t even dreamed of then. It is always possible we may never know exactly what happened to Elisabeth Short, who killed her, and-or why, but maybe a few fresh faces on the trail of her killer may shed some light on her story and lead us to new clues.

In many ways, The Black Dahlia’s murder reminds me of Jack The Ripper, another one of those sensational murders that, after so much time, the world started thinking that the case would never be closed. Every few years, a new movie would come out that would shed a slightly different perspective on something or give an alternative theory to the events. But then, a few years ago, novelist Patricia Cornwell and a team of forensic workers began taking a new, fresh look at the case and using modern forensic investigation techniques were able to shed some new light into the darker corners of the case. Using DNA evidence, they were able to link some elements of the story to specific people. If you’re even remotely curious, I’d suggest you check out her book Portrait of a Killer; Jack the Ripper - Case Closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.