My girl La Shawn is catching a lot of flak for offering her blunt, unadorned thoughts, not an unusual thing for her--neither the blunt, unadorned thoughts nor the flak.
While commenting on the appearance and demeanor of John Karr, the man who made a (dubious) confession to the ten-year-old, unsolved and infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey, La Shawn observed that Karr seemed more like a “homosexual pedophile” rather than a heterosexual one. This is probably due to Karr’s less-than traditionally masculine way of presenting himself—something that most people, if they’re honest, will admit is common among some male homosexuals (with the reverse being true for some lesbians).
So now, some homosexuals are saying that La Shawn made a slur against homosexuals, that she asserted that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Did she say that? Let’s check it out. If La Shawn thought that all homosexuals were pedophiles, then why would she have bothered to use the word ‘pedophile?’ After all, a person who thought that all homosexuals leaned that way would have assumed that ‘pedophile’ automatically fell under the larger umbrella of ‘homosexual,' which would have made the phrase ‘homosexual pedophile’ redundant. (And a careful writer like La Shawn would not have made that mistake.) Are some people looking to find offense in La Shawn's words? Yes, but finding offense when none is offered isn't a trait exclusive to homosexuals.
The only way that I think La Shawn may have erred is in her reading of Karr’s demeanor: he seems less-than-masculine, yes, but IMO that absence leans more to a child-like characteristic rather than to a female one—not out of the realm of possibility for an obvious pedophile. (Twice-divorced Karr married his first wife when she was twelve—think about those parents—and his second when she was sixteen. Sounds like they became too old for him.)
The absence of adult behavior in a grown man can reasonably be mistaken for femininity by an observer, more so than the same dearth in a woman. Think about it. However, if La Shawn made that mistake, it’s simply an observational one and not a prejudicial one.
Because both La Shawn and I are conservative Christians, people have asked me what I think about her words and, additionally, what I think of homosexual practices. Point blank: sin--but no more of a sin than any of the others: infidelity, sex outside of male-female marriage, theft, lying and on and on. As a matter of fact, homosexual practices have caused no more personal and/or societal problems than any of the others except for one and I’d venture to say that that particular one is the seed of virtually all of the others: pride.
As for the JonBenet Ramsey murder, I didn’t follow it when it was all the rage among the prominent news agencies of the time. However, I can only feel the same thing that I’ve felt since the case came upon our collective consciousness and that’s great sadness for that family. Think of it. A six-year-old, raped and murdered; her mother dies ten years later of a disease that, from my unlearned opinion, is caused by extreme emotional stress. (My mother is an ovarian-cancer survivor—three years—with zero familial history. And, yes, she had been subject to much stress, though, thank God, far less than Mrs. Ramsey.) And, years before the murder of JonBenet, the Ramseys lost their oldest daughter, Beth, 22, in a car accident.
Maybe there were some problems in the Ramsey family. Maybe not. But if there were a way to pay for one’s sins here on Earth, I’d say that that family has anted up in most devastating ways. It would be nice if no one else had to go through so many untimely deaths. But we all know better, don't we?