23 November, 2011

B.C. court prepares to rule on polygamy law | CTV News

B.C. court prepares to rule on polygamy law | CTV News

48 comments:

  1. One more thing the Catholic hirearchy and the religious right cannot blame on "teh gays": polygamy.

    I recall more than one Catholic bishop intoning that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead down a slippery slope towards polygamy. Today's ruling confirms that it has not.

    I would also hasten to add that all of the other vague ills that were supposed to flow from same-sex marriage are yet to materialize. Last time I checked, straight people are still getting married and divorced, and our children appear no worse off due to the existence of same-sex households.

    Could it be that the hierarchy of the RCC was not only wrong, but also fear mongering to promote their own narrow, sectarian point of view?

    Say that it isn't so.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Martin: It isn't so! The very fact that the outcome of the trial was in doubt is the first clue. The polygamists used the same Charter argument as led to the legalization of SSM. Aside from this, it's not over yet. The case will no doubt be appealed to the SCC.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Tim,

    Fair comment...the issue is not settled, but allow me to remind you why I think the Bishops' slippery slope argument was so dishonest in the first place:

    1. The primary argument used by the polygamists was "religious freedom" not same-sex marriage. If anything, the Bishops should have been arguing for the curtailment of religious freedom if they were so worried about the future legal status of polygamy;
    2. Let's not forget that it is scriptures that are the primary justification for the practice of polygamy. Scriptures document polygamy as an acceptable social practice. Of course, the institution of marriage has evolved since then in the west...meaning that our basic concepts of marriage can and do change over time (sometimes for the better). This is quite contrary to the notion that the RCC was peddling at the time: that marriage was handed to us by God almighty from the beginning of time in a perfect inviolable form. Poppycock. It has always evolved and changed to reflect humanity's new needs and understandings about human relationships.

    Lastly - the Bishop's promised the demise of "traditional marriage and the family" in the wake of same-sex marriage. They never did spell out the mechanisms that would accomplish this, yet they beat that drum of fear ceaselessly. I am still waiting for the promised "apocalypse". Wonder if we are expected to wait around for 2,000 years or so for that to happen?

    You are right Tim...the jury is still out on the legal status of polygamy until it reaches the SCC. But if, as, and when it does...you can bet that the primary argument will be religious freedom once again. Same-sex marriage is only the latest example of the evolving nature of marriage. Polygamists didn't need that example to make their point - they could have pointed to dozens of other historical examples. A first year history student could have done that for them, which raises the question of how the Canadian Bishops could have missed that fact in 2005?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree polygamy will be fought on the basis of freedom of religion. Thats a given.

    The reason it will eventually pass however is the precedent set by gay marriage and the dramatic deviation from social norms that it represents. If two men or two women in a sexual relationship can now marry and adopt children, on what grounds do you refuse any other possible marriage arrangements?

    There is even a case to be made for polygamy based on sexual orientation. If its a denial of human rights to refuse marriage based on sexual orientation, how can you refuse bisexuals multiple marriage partners?
    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

    Regarding the claim that gay marriage hasn't had any adverse affects on society or the children put in the middle of these relationships, I suspect its premature to sound the all clear. This social experiment is only 6 years old so the jury is still out. Already we're seeing dramatic changes in the sex education of children and the prevailing message of the entertainment industry (The modern moral compass). Dramatic changes in family law and freedom of religion. We may not know its full effects for decades.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1920/53/2053107

    I don't blame the failure of heterosexual marriage on the fact that gays can marry. Its failing because there's an exodus from God and the embrace of moral relativism. Gay marriage is just a product of moral relativism and soon, polygamy will be too.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Paul,

    I suggest you read the actual ruling. The BC Supreme Court upheld the law that criminalizes polygamy. The court also decided that polyamourous relationships are legal. The court did not take a further step to extend the institution of marriage to polyamourous relationships.

    The reason the court upheld the law criminalizing polygamy is because the evidence showed that it creates social and individual harm that outweighs religious freedom. Same-sex marriage was also challenged on the basis that it would cause harm. The courts and parliament rejected those claims and extended marriage to same-sex couples.

    If polygamy is legalized it will be because the courts find no compelling evidence of harm. It has nothing to do with any precedent set by same-sex marriage.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. You really should rely on more objective news sources if you want to express an informed opinion.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Martin

    I'm well aware how the court ruled,,, this time.
    Its my opinion that with the advance of gay marriage, its emboldened other groups to seek the same status. I think polygamy just needs more marketing as gay marriage got from hollywood and it'll pass. That marketing is underway as polygamy has become the new flavour of the week.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/23/reality-tv-loves-polygamy.html

    Regarding the facts presented on Lifesite, which ones do you refute?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Paul,

    Polyamorous relationships are no longer criminalized because the courts view them as occurring among consenting adults with no necessary or material harm resulting. You and I may question the wisdom of such relationships, however, folks are free to enter into them if they want to.

    As for polygamamist relationships, they remain criminal because there is substantial evidence of harm (child brides, sexual abuse, lost boys etc...).

    See the common thread? It is a question of harm. Same-sex marriages are not necessarily any more harmful than opposite-sex marriages. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest that there is - there was not any evidence of harm in 2000, none in 2005, and certainly none in 2011 after 6+ years.

    As for LifeSite, let me just say that I think they sometimes perform a valuable service by bringing some issues into focus that are not covered in the MSM, however, they sometimes resort to half truths, extreme bias and propaganda.

    In this particular case, I think their entire framing of the issue was inaccurate. Just as your Catholic Bishops were inaccurate in framing the same-sex marriage debate.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  8. Martin: IF higher courts support is ruling, then it truly is a good thing. The state has no right to tell people who to live with. If non-traditional unions were to be prohibited, it would be a violation of our civil rights. It is only if such individuals attempt to commit bigamy do they cross over into criminal territory.

    The Church is still free to demand what it considers right conduct from its members, but it can not infringe upon the rights of those who do not belong to their communion.

    In this, I believe we agree.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Martin

    You say "there was not any evidence of harm in 2000, none in 2005, and certainly none in 2011 after 6+ years."
    I followed the debate pretty closely back when the push was on for gay marriage and I don't recall ever hearing of any studies or consideration being given to the effects on children in these relationships beyond anecdotal cases of children with gay parents. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think effects on children raised by gay couples was given much consideration or investigation.

    If the statistics like this are true it would seem to indicate there is a huge statistical risk of sexual abuse for a boy living with male homosexual partners. Its ironic that many people wouldn't let their child within 5 feet of a Catholic Priest will support sending children to live and be raised by two gay men given the statistics below.

    Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA's preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [7]

    A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 - 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 - 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." [8]

    Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories." These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. [9]

    A third study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30 - 40%." [10]

    A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." [11]

    A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." [12]

    A study by The Institute for Sex Research, which was founded by Alfred Kinsey, determined that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [13]

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon: (Paul?) One question. What was the age of the men who reported having sex with boys at the time of the sex? It's just as likely that gay teens will experiment sexually once their hormones kick in as would any straight adolescent. They could be reporting an activity that were consensual, teen sexual encounters. That would skew the interpretation of the results quoted from the studies you reference.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Tim

    I can't answer that question but the author of the article has meticulously sited all sources in the footnotes. I'll give you a link below.

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Fr. Tim

    Don't mean to derail this thread but I'd like some clarification on this statement.

    "The Church is still free to demand what it considers right conduct from its members, but it can not infringe upon the rights of those who do not belong to their communion."

    Does this mean you would support the "I'm Catholic but... argument from politicians that vote in favour of abortion rights, euthanasia or gay marriage because they don't want to impose their churches morals on others? Clearly there are cases where being a faithful Catholic can infringe on someone else's perceived rights.
    Example: a Catholic doctor that refuses to perform an abortion. Clearly the doctors refusal to perform the abortion (a legal right of his patient) would violate that principle.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul: Just the opposite. I am standing up for the Church's right to say who stands within and who standings outside its communion. It has the right (I believe obligation) to put a doctor who performs abortions outside of the communion. The doctors does not have the right to claim that he belongs when he directly participates in the killing of an innocent life. Same goes for politicians who espouse and promote abortion, euthanasia and the entire 'life agenda'. Other digressions from orthodoxy should be dealt with less severely because their direct effect is not as dire as death. So I have no problem stating that one can vote for same-sex marriage and still remain within the Catholic communion.

    Fr. Tim

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Fr. Tim

    Thanks for the clarification. So basically you draw the line on the life issues in moral matters that affect the rights of those outside the church?

    I understand that you feel someone can vote for same-sex marriage and still remain in the Catholic communion because it isn't taking someones life. I guess my question is, should they? The churches teaching is quite clear on this matter so voting in favour of it would seem to be a pretty grave sin. No? Would this not be a Pontius Pilot scenario, supporting what you know is wrong to appease the masses? I would think a faithful Christian politician would campaign on his moral principles and if elected, not compromise on them. However I realize this is not the reality.
    I would argue that a faithful Catholics has every right and a moral obligation to support laws that infringe on the perceived rights of others. In fact, that is a universal right of everyone. Its how laws are made. The environmental activist pushes for legislation they believe is morally right yet it can affect the rights of others that don't share their belief. As and example, their ideology may mean that someone looses the right to earn a living cutting trees or spraying lawns. It may hinder a person's right to hunt and fish and provide for their family. It may result in soaring energy bills, fees and taxes to penalize those that violate the environmentalists moral principles.
    Gay activists are pushing an educational agenda that blatantly infringes on a parents right and obligation to inform their child's moral conscience. You can't opt your child out of homosexuality 101 no matter what you think of it morally. Nobody would suggest homosexual activists or environmentalist check their values at the door before imposing ideology that infringes on the rights of others. Why should Christians be any different in moral matters?

    Forgive me Tim if I'm misinterpreting your statement. I'm still having issues with "it can not infringe on the rights of those who do not belong to their communion". Clearly supporting or forwarding anything that reflects Christian morality can infringe on someone's rights. Maybe my confusion is with what you mean by "The Church". I translate that to be anyone that professes to be Catholic while I think you may have been referring to its institutional authority?

    Have a great day.
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul: We really don't disagree. I would not vote contrary to what I believe to be right. I believe that politicians should say what they will do and do what they say. I believe that parents should be responsible for the formation of values in their children.

    The point I'm trying to make is that there are gradations in life and faith. Some acts call for more severe or serious response on the part of believers than others. So something that violates the life agenda deserves the severest penalty; other issues require similarly appropriate responses.

    I am also acknowledging that the civil state has the sole power to determine what will be legal or not for its citizens. The Church has the right to offer its opinion, and it has the authority to tell its members the consequences of their vote. But it can not set the law of the land.

    See... we don't disagree at all!

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Paul - You do not seem to recall that the question of harm to children was a consideration in the public debate over same-sex marriage? It was. Please refer here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c38&Parl=38&Ses=1#c3parliamentarytxt

    As for the "cut and paste" evidence of harm that you presented above, you forgot to include exact references to the studies that was no doubt in the footnotes of wherever you lifted it from. Consequently, I will not be bothered in a point by point refutation. In most cases - these references are either thoroughly discredited or simply propaganda. If there were any REAL evidence of harm, I assure you the religous right would have weilded it like a club in the courts and in the parliamentary hearings.

    Just don't keep skating by the fact that the primary argument used by the polygamists in B.C. was "religious freedom", not any precedent set by same-sex marriage. If you are so worried about polygamy, then advocate for the curtailment of religious freedom.

    Your ridiculous assertion that male children of homosexual partners are at high risk of molestation is simply vile! There is not one iota of proof to support your bigotted contention. If so, cough it up buddy...chapter and verse and I will happily rub your nose in its illegitimacy.

    Hi Tim - I agree that the RCC can set whatever rules it wants for membership in its little club. I just wish that its leaders would argue honestly and with integrity in the public square when it comes to social issues with which they disagree. The Bishops' argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy was slimy. This case proves it was slimy...because the primary argument was based on freedom of religion. The counter argument is "harm" and the court in my opinion made a balanced and fair decision based on REAL evidence.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  17. We certainly don't disagree then. Thanks for putting up with my thick headedness.

    I guess when you said Martin would share your view on that statement, that's when my confusion began. For many atheists I've talked with online, they would contend that a person of faith has no right to propose laws or support laws that could stem from or impose a religious moral principle. The whole "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" thing comes to mind. The idea that Christian morality or opinion should be rendered invalid runs rampant on many social issues with atheists. As soon as you oppose any social issue be it abortion, prostitution, legalized drugs, polygamy etc. they drag out the "you have no right to inflict your religious morality on me" argument or mention the American principle of "separation of church and state" as if that means you have no say in civic matters.

    I say we have every right to propose and promote our moral principles as would any other group or individual outside of religion has.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  18. Martin: You can't deny the seductive allure of the 'domino' argument. We all are capable of predicting causalities and consequences that don't come to pass. But I think the reason that the argument is a popular paradigm is because it often correct. The Bishops had good reason to believe in the soundness of their logic. Just look at their record. (I am not asking you to comment on the rightness of the Church's position, just note the progression.)

    a) Contraception led to Abortion, led to Euthanasia;
    b) Therapeutic Abortion, led to abortion on demand, leads to falling birthrate;
    c) Rare divorce led to no-fault divorce, led to redefining 'family'; led to redefining 'marriage'

    Why would they not believe that there is a zeitgeist in the modern liberal state that is antithetical to the Christian proposition and potentially dangerous to society as seem from their perspective?

    Although I've got to ask how it's possible to interpret the demographic collapse of the west as being anything other than a cultural decision that life isn't worth continuing beyond this current generation. We cannot maintain our institutions and programs without a steadily growing population. In deciding to choose 'things' in lieu of 'children', we have decided to deny the generation after ours the benefits of the liberal state. Throughout history, chaos and conflict usually follow economic collapse. That is not something we should bequeath to our children.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Tim - I would disagree with most of the above outcomes as being necessary products of the preceeding events. Correlation is not causation. Social change is not as binary, or as black and white, as you imply.

    Your Bishops were wrong in asserting that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to polygamy. This case proves it. Your Bishops made an illegitimate argument in 2005 and they knew it.

    Polygamy was practiced long before there was any mention of same-sex marriage. Its basis is scriptural. Its motivation is apparently "theological". Nothing whatsoever to do with "queer" or "feminist" social theory. In fact, the legal battles over the ban on ploygamy has been brewing for over 20 years...long before the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2005. Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy has more in common with straight marriages (of which it is a subset) than same-sex marriages.

    Hi Paul - I assume you can't find any real "evidence" for your vile slander against same-sex parents. Until you either successfully defend this crap, or retract and apologize for it, I will not converse with you further on this thread.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  20. Martin: Thus I referred to it as a seductive allure! I didn't say that it was always true. I only question your attribution of malice to the Bishops in the motivation. IF this ruling stands up, then you will be proven correct that redefining marriage for gays resulted in further expansion of the concept to include multiple partners. But you have the benefit of hindsight. They did not.

    What is to be gained by attributing malicious intentions to individuals or groups that believe differently than you? It doesn't seem to help you win converts to your convictions. Your argument is strong enough without making assumptions that you cannot prove about the interior motivations of others. (I include Bishops as well as more complex members of the species - grin.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Martin

    Thanks for the "cut and paste" link but I know concern for children was brought up as confirmed by this one line of the Bill. "Fears of harm to children raised by same-sex parents were also expressed."

    My contention was that there wasn't any government studies or investigation into the effects on children. At least not that I'm aware of. Heck the government would send a team of environmental scientists over to investigate if I planned to cut down a tree near a pond that may contain an endangered frog. I guess I expected more when we were proposing to reinvent the natural environment for the raising of children than "some concerns being expressed". Given the statistics I've seen, our side clearly dropped the ball or it was brought up and quickly dismissed by Liberal minded folk in government that had already made up their minds what they wanted.

    "Just don't keep skating by the fact that the primary argument used by the polygamists in B.C. was "religious freedom", not any precedent set by same-sex marriage. If you are so worried about polygamy, then advocate for the curtailment of religious freedom."

    Now why would I do that? Obviously freedom of religion is already curtailed in this country or this ruling would have turned out differently wouldn't it? That said, it'll be interesting to see how it goes when the first bisexual threesome comes forward seeking marriage.

    "Your ridiculous assertion that male children of homosexual partners are at high risk of molestation is simply vile! There is not one iota of proof to support your bigotted contention. If so, cough it up buddy...chapter and verse and I will happily rub your nose in its illegitimacy."

    If you read the thread you'd realize I posted the article link to Tim which has the footnotes to all the statistics. The one making ridiculous assertions however is you.
    Firstly you refuse to even consider the possibility that the statistics could in fact be legit and their could very well be an issue simply because of the source of the information.
    Then you say "In most cases - these references are either thoroughly discredited or simply propaganda". You say this without even a minute of investigation on your part. Also, how do you know these statistics were never brought up during the arguments against gay marriage and quickly dusted under the rug as you've demonstrated.

    You then drop this nugget "Your ridiculous assertion that male children of homosexual partners are at high risk of molestation is simply vile!"
    To that I would say, your quick dismissal of possible evidence of the potential harm gay marriage could have on the lives of children is simply vile. If you cared as much about children as you did gay issues, you'd at least consider the evidence.

    Unlike you Martin, I'm humble enough to admit that I may well be wrong on this. I've seen the statistics presented and if they're legit, there is good reason to be concerned for the welfare of boys in constant care of married gay men. We see what happens when they're around gay priests. By all means rub my nose in it if you have the hard facts that support your outrage.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Tim,

    "Slippery slope" arguments are inherently poor arguments. They depend on a whole series of assumptions and "what ifs". That is why they are considered illegitimate by most thinking folks. The Bishops are well educated and learned men. Consequently, I can only surmise that they advanced a "slippery slope" argument as a means to scare people. It was propaganda - not a serious argument.

    The Bishops made many arguments against same-sex marriage, most of which were without real merit. For example:

    a) Same-sex marriage would limit religious freedom becuase it would force churches to marry individuals that did not conform to their beliefs. This was false, but in any case, the Marriage Act provided additional safeguards to address this concern.

    b) Same-sex marriage would change the definition of traditional marriage and thereby undermine the traditional family. The mechanisms of this supposed harm to traditional families was never disclosed and I am still at a loss to understand how this undisclosed mechanism was supposed to work. To this day, no one has been able to detect this supposed harm to the traditional family, or to anyone else.

    c) Same-sex marriages are contrary to Natural Law and they are therefore a logical impossibility. As I have outlined in previous threads, Natural Law is simply a set of moral theories (among many competing moral theories) that are unproven. Natural Law is simply a way to smuggle "god" into the conversation without actually admitting it.

    d) The purpose of marriage is pro-creation. Same-sex couples are not able to naturally procreate, therefore they have no right to the institution of marriage. Wrong again...civil marriage does not require procreation. It never has. Why introduce this idea at all? In fact, even most religious marriages do not require procreation (afterall - even you will marry faithful but infertile Catholics every day of the week).

    e) Children have a natural and inherent right to be raised by (or to know) their birth parents. Again, if this was truly the Bishops' concern, then why do they not advocate for abolishing adoption? What about their approval of divorce and annulments in some circumstances? Oh the inconsistencies of their new found convictions on this little gem.

    f) Same-sex couples are largely incapable of providing an emotionally stable environment for raising children. Unfortuantely for the Bishops, there are no credible studies to support this view, but there are studies that actually conclude that same-sex households are as nuturing (if not more nurturing) than opposite sex households. Again, reality simply refuses to cooperate with the religious worldview.

    There may be other arguments. Maybe they had better arguments that they kept to themselves. Nevertheless, these were the main arguments against same-sex marriage that I recall.

    I have no idea why you grant your Bishops a pass on this issue just because they found a "slippery slope" argument to have a "seductive allure". Propaganda also has a seductive allure. So do lies.

    The slippery slope argument was inherently a poor argument, advanced in a sea of other weak arguments. They are not serious arguments worthy of public consideration and debate. In my opinion they are propaganda and meant to mobilize fear and public resentment towards LGBT citizens. They play on negative stereotypes.

    Such arguments are slimy. Such arguments are dishonest. Such arguments lack integrity. It is not what I expect from a group of well educated and learned men who claim great moral authority. You should demand better from your Bishops.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Paul,

    I have studied this issue in great detail. I am aware of the evidence. Provide your evidence or retract and apologize.

    I will gladly rub your nose in it when you do.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Martin

    The study I pulled from is at the following URL.
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100424

    The statistics can be found under the following heading
    Studies on the Frequency of Homosexual Child Molestation

    The statistics I sited are directly below that with bullet points. The sources of the statistics are sited with footnotes below.

    If you could, deal with the statistics presented and abstain from shooting the messenger instead, that would be great.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  25. Paul,

    You write: “If the statistics like this are true it would seem to indicate there is a huge statistical risk of sexual abuse for a boy living with male homosexual partners.”

    In support of this assertion, you cite: “A third study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30 - 40%."

    Other studies of which I am aware, clearly indicate that adult male pedophiles statistically abuse boys more than girls. Your statement then conflates adult male pedophiles with homosexual male partners. These are not the same two groups of people.

    The activities of adult male pedophiles are not indicative of the activities of the homosexual male population that form marriages, and they are not representative of the activities of homosexual males in general. This study in no way supports your assertion.

    I have not been able to examine the methodology of the study itself, I am not able to determine if the paper was peer reviewed, and I have no idea of the qualifications or biases of the authors because I cannot locate your reference on the internet. Having said all of this, basic logic clearly shows you cannot legitimately draw the conclusions that you have.

    I await your retraction and apology. I do not actually expect you to because you have consistently shown yourself to argue in bad faith, and to resort to idiotic rhetoric. I predict that you will either double down on your crap, change the subject, or claim you are just a poor little transcriber who does not understand all this social “sciencey stuff”. Will you surprise us Paul?

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello Martin,

    For your logic to be correct, pedophiles must never marry, but clearly they do. Its certainly the case in heterosexual marriage. Whats so special about gays that exempts them from pedophilia within marriage?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  27. So you haven't surprised us at all Paul.

    I fondly remember one of my seminary professors who often said that the great hope of humanity is that we are capable of change.

    In your case apparently - not so much.

    Yes, you have provided a response, but it is incoherent.

    Will your retraction and apology be forthcoming?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  28. How did I know you'd come back with the gold medal skating performance we see above.
    You seem to develop sudden reading comprehension disorder when you're lost for an answer. I'll try dumb it down a bit more so you can take another crack at it or you can move along to the ice dance portion of your routine.
    If pedophiles can be found in heterosexual marriages, why would they not be found in gay marriages as you claim?

    As for an apology, why not.
    I'm sorry for pointing out the statistics from the extensive studies done by various social scientists and institutions which hurt Martins feelings and made him uncomfortable. I hereby retract the statistics and the crazy concerns myself and the Ph.D that penned the study I sourced expressed for the safety of children because the studies were obviously conducted by Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church or some other hate mongers. Martin has declared it so and I humbly submit to his vastly superior knowledge on all things homosexual and anti-Catholic.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  29. Paul,

    So...you are saying that all of these pedophiles are in heterosexual marriages? The data you cite does not even address this point. Let's say that this is true. That means for all intents and purposes these men do not identify as homosexual and would not be the same persons who would form same-sex marriages. Got it? That is why I say your response is incoherent. LMFAO.

    If you want to make the idiotic claims that you have, you would need to sample all same-sex married couples with male children, and then measure the incidence of pedophilia. Simple logic. None of your studies does so, therefore the conclusions you draw from them are 100% invalid.

    Now on to your non-apology. The reason I gave you an opportunity to retract your vile comment and to apologize for it was to demonstrate to me (and other readers) whether or not you are an anti-gay bigot. I wanted to understand if your beliefs about LGBT folks are principled positions, or whether they are held simply because you are an arrogant, intolerant, bigot.

    Your refusal to seriously engage my remarks is strong evidence for the latter.

    In addition to denigrating women, gays, lesbians, transgendered persons, as well as advocating violence against against those who oppose your beliefs, we may now add your vile intolerance towards same-sex parents. You are proving to be quite a sparkling gem in the crown of the Catholic taliban.

    I won't be engaging you further on this thread Paul. The sum of your comments here are those of a first class jackass.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  30. More lies, bluster and pompous indignation. YAWN!!
    Did he mention I eat kittens? Martin's straw man must surely eat kittens.

    So now, rather than answer the question Martin opts to reinvent it with a smattering of BS so he can go on to perform his trademark grand finale.

    Martin says this...
    "So...you are saying that ALL of these pedophiles are in heterosexual marriages? "
    Notice the word ALL he slipped in there? He was hoping nobody would smell that little turd and he could skate off the rink and collect his medal.

    I'll buy someone a hard cover copy of the Christophobic hate bible The God Delusion written by evangelical atheist Ricky Dawkins if you can find the word ALL in the following statement as Martin has.

    "If pedophiles can be found in heterosexual marriages, why would they not be found in gay marriages as you claim?"

    Clearly the only jackass here has just skated off the ice with the a nose bleed but he managed to hold it high in the air during his exit.
    At least his sarcasm detector is functional.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  31. Paul,

    You originally wrote: “If the statistics like this are true it would seem to indicate there is a huge statistical risk of sexual abuse for a boy living with male homosexual partners.”

    This is vile slander. The study you cited has nothing to do with married same-sex partners and everything to do with pedophiles. They are not the same 2 populations, therefore the conclusion that you draw is invlaid. In fact, since the study is dated OIctober 2000, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that any of these pedophiles could have been in legal same-sex marriages becasue it was NOT a legal possibility in 1999 or 2000. So, I assert with absolute confidence that none of the pedophiles in that study were in same-sex marriages.

    In any case, your study does not mention marital status and my argument does not depend upon. Once again, you are trying to change the subject and doubling down on your crap. I seem to recall someone predicted you might resort to that.

    You then wrote: "For your logic to be correct, pedophiles must never marry, but clearly they do."

    Let's parse that.

    You asserted that I said pedophiles "must never marry". I did not, but that is what you asserted. You then state that "clearly they do", in this context, I took that to mean always, since the opposite of never is always. Hence, my legitimate interpretation that you meant all pedophiles in that study were in a heterosexual marriage. I await my copy of Dr. Dawkins' The God Delusion.

    In any case, the marital status of pedophiles in your cited study is entirely irrelevant to my point. Please re-read my post carefuly.

    Lastly, I point you to a real study conducted by the Mayo Clinic (you know them? They are a reknowned medical research clinic that engages in real science - not churning out propaganda).

    They write:

    "This finding (i.e. male pedophiles largely abuse male children) does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children."

    Unlike you, I will even provide a link to the SOURCE material:

    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

    That is what one does when they are a making well researched cogent argumnet.

    Will you now be retracting and apologizing for you vile slander against same-sex parents, or will rant about how the Mayo Clinic has been coopted by the "homosexual agenda"?

    Please send my copy of the God Delusion to Tim's parish. I will make a special point of collecting it.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  32. How about I send you a gift certificate to sharpen your skates. They're getting rather dull.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  33. Time to "man up" Paul. Take your balls out of your purse and retract your vile slander against same-sex parents.

    You know, a principled person might say something gracious like this:

    We are all capable of sometimes letting our biases blind us, preventing us from thoroughly examining evidence before drawing a conclusion. In this instance I failed to properly assess the evidence. I retract my comment about same-sex parents and apologize for any harm or offense it may have caused.

    A principled person would say something like that. A decent Catholic from a tradition of scholarly thought and erudition would say something like that. A man of integrity would retract and apologize.

    So the question I have this morning Paul is: what will you do?

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gentle readers:

    While Paul is busy working out what kind of man he is, I wanted to explore a key point he made:

    Paul points out that the author of the article that he refers to holds a PhD. The author's name is Brian W. Clowes and he indeed holds PhD from a reputable US school in Civil Engineering. Paul implies that since a PhD wrote the article, it's conclusions have more weight.

    Let me bring you in on a little secret. Persons with a PhD are not infallible - especially when they are commenting on science outside of their area of expertise. And even when PhDs are commenting within their field, they can make mistakes. That is why we give the highest credence to articles and studies that are peer reviewed. How do I know this? Simple, I have several PhDs who work for me. While I value their judgment, I assure you they are no more competent outside of their fields of expertise than you or I.

    Now I draw your attention to the following facts:

    1. Mr. Clowes' article concerns social science and behavioural psychology.
    2. Mr. Clowes is neither a social scientist nor a behavioral psychologist. In short, he is a civil engineer commenting outside his area of expertise.
    3. While the article notes the fact that Clowes holds a PhD, nowhere does it disclose his area of expertise (you need to go to Human Life International for that information).

    It is a common trick among propagandists to misuse academic credentials in this way. Their intent is to lend a greater air of authority to what is nothing more than a very poorly reasoned opinion article.

    So when Paul suggests that just because a PhD has written something, this means very little until we understand if the article is written in an area where the PhD has expertise. And even if it is within their expertise, we should closely examine methodology, and logic. Trust me...even when a PhD is not an active participant in propaganda, they are capable of error. Argument from authority is always a weak argument - regardless of the authority.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gentle Readers,

    In this thread, I have thrown around the term “propaganda” many times. Many of you may be legitimately wondering what the heck I mean by propaganda, and some of you may suspect that I am simply trying to portray my ideological opponents in a negative light. You are right to be skeptical, but I would also like the opportunity to explain myself.

    First of all propaganda is much more than what we commonly call “persuasion”. A useful definition of propaganda is put forward by Jowett and O’Donnell:

    “Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve responses that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”

    Jowett and O’Donnell also provide us with sub-categories of propaganda:

    White Propaganda – this propaganda “…comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate.”

    Black Propaganda – this propaganda “…is credited to a false source, and it spreads lies, fabrications and deceptions.”

    Grey Propaganda – this propaganda “…is somewhere between white and black…the source may or may not be correctly identified, and the accuracy of the information is uncertain.”

    The above sub-categories of propaganda are useful, because some propaganda is relatively benign (e.g. national symbols such as flags are used by government to induce patriotic sentiment towards one’s country), yet other examples can be downright destructive.

    Emotion usually plays an important role in forming an individual’s attitudes and behaviours (notwithstanding the rational responses we tend to espouse when confronted by a challenge to our cherished attitudes). It is therefore little wonder that we find emotional appeals as the basic building block of propaganda. Good propagandists appeal first to emotion, and then provide the audience with a plausible rationale to paper over that emotion. The more negative the emotional appeal, the stronger and more plausible the covering rationale must be.

    To illustrate my point, I will take the article that Paul has cited. It is a typical example of contemporary propaganda, and it is a good example of how the religious right is currently employing propaganda against gay men.

    Firstly, the article links gay men to pedophilia, as a way to invoke the emotion of disgust in the minds of the audience. Interestingly, the author is not satisfied to simply raise the emotion of disgust. He is also quick to give his assertions an air of scientific validity by quoting a number of scientific studies. As I have pointed out above, the author fails to draw valid conclusions from any of the studies that might be considered legitimate.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  36. continued...

    Secondly, the article presents the audience with a ready-made set of “scientific” reasons that buttresses a negative attitude towards homosexual persons. Nothing in our society is more legitimating than science, and consequently, this article is littered with scientific titles, terms, scientific studies taken out of context, and pseudo-scientific studies inserted where necessary.

    Most readers will not actually check each reference to ensure that the studies which are cited in fact support the conclusion being drawn. The propagandist counts on this fact – otherwise why list studies that do not support your conclusions, if not to give your article the veneer of “truthiness”? Paul should not be judged too harshly for not checking the individual studies cited – after all, the propagandist is relying upon this common behavior.

    This article is a great example of grey to black propaganda. Most of the sources are credible studies, however, the conclusions drawn from them are entirely invalid.

    Lastly, Mr. Clowes’ PhD features prominently in the article, however, the fact that his PhD is in Civil Engineering is not disclosed in either the article, or on the Renew America website where it is printed. The PhD is mere window dressing designed to lend a greater air of “science” to the whole process of illegitimately linking gays to pedophiles.

    Please ask yourselves this question: if the scientific evidence was so clear cut that gays are overwhelming pedophiles, and they are a significant threat to children, then why would secular courts and governments be unaware of this fact? Why would world renowned medical research clinics, such as the Mayo Clinic, clearly state that the studies referenced by Mr. Clowes in no way implicate gays as being disproportionately pedophiles? Outrageous and extraordinary claims such as Mr. Clowes’ require credible evidence. None is to be found.

    And this now brings me around to a painful question for my friend Tim. You link to a number of sites such as Renew America. They contain an inordinate amount of malicious propaganda. Catholics and ordinary people such as Paul peruse these sites and they uncritically take in this propaganda. This material negatively colours how they view LGBT folks. These websites perpetuate negative stereotypes about LGBT folks. They are lies dressed up to look like scientific fact. Where is your responsibility in all of this? Why are you helping these sites to extend their reach? If one helps to spread lies, then does one not share in the consequences and culpability for those lies?

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  37. Martin: I was unaware that I had linked to such a sight as Renew America. It's not on my 'links list.' I don't doubt that there may be a story or two from them, but it is not by design.

    Let me tell you how I choose articles for the blog. I subscribe to a number of RRS feeds that compile stories with certain key words (eg: Catholic, Marriage, etc.) I then post anything that looks interesting. By that I mean something that will likely generate a conversation. I do not necessarily agree with every story, but I offer anything that seems interesting. I have posted from some of the sites you refer to that 'perpetuate negative stereotypes about LBGT folks.' I also post some stories from sites which argue the other side of the argument. Because of the feeds I get, there is a preponderance of stories that argue the Catholic perspective, which I assume you believe falls into the former camp, but I've also posted articles sent to me by others which are not positively disposed to the Catholic position. I've even invited others (including you, Martin) to write a column and I have published everyone I've received - irrespective of the convictions of the author.

    So, while I understand that you might ponder whether or not I am culpable for promoting positions you do not agree with, I am always open to posting stuff that you do like. Let me also add that I have engaged in conversations in the comment threads in which I have expressed my disagreement with the source article if it (IMO) stands contrary to my personal convictions.

    Lastly, I don't believe that I need to change my strategy for the blog as it seems to be working. I passed the 150,000 hit mark so far this year, so clearly there is a 'market' for what I offer. The only thing I won't publish is anything that is anything I consider reprehensible or poorly argued. I think I've hit the mark far more times than I've missed and don't believe I need to apologize for any posts.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Tim,

    My apologies. I took Paul's comment to mean that you linked directly to Renew America. You do not, and I should have checked it before making my comment. We are all fallable after all...even me. ;-)

    Just to be clear though, my objection to websites such as Renew America is not that they merely disagree with me, but that the views they put forward are largely propagandistic in nature. There is a big difference. I am happy to engage honest, principled, positions that do not conform to my own views. Propaganda and deliberate lies are another matter altogether.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  39. Paul...

    I have clearly demonstrated that your conclusions about same-sex parents are not supported by the evidence that you cite. You should retract and apologize for them.

    I have clearly demonstrated that my use of the word "ALL" was reasonable if not tentative. You owe me a copy of the God Delusion, and I expect you to make good on your promise.

    This stuff goes to character Paul...do you argue from a principled position? Are you a person of integrity?

    We are waiting....

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gentle readers,

    As we await Paul’s retraction and apology, I thought I would point out another of the many inaccuracies in Mr. Clowes’ article (which Paul referred to in support of his scurrilous comments against same-sex parents).

    The Clowes’article makes the following statement:

    “NAMBLA is by no means on the fringe of the "gay rights" movement. For years, it was a member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993.

    Some context: NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association, and is a notorious proponent of pedophilia. The ILGA is the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is member organization belonging to the United Nations.

    Mr. Clowes’ statement is “accurate” as far is it goes, but it leaves out some extremely relevant facts in order to create a misleading impression, namely:

    “ILGA does not advocate – and never has advocated - paedophilia in any way or form. ILGA has issued statements condemning all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation (regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the perpetrator or the victim). ILGA has issued statements calling for the strengthening of the rights of children and young people, in support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and condemning all forms of abuse (including sexual abuse), coercion, and exploitation of children and young people. The ILGA conference (the highest decision making authority) has passed a resolution categorically rejecting any attempt to promote or legalize paedophilia.

    In 1990, the ILGA World Conference in Stockholm adopted a resolution on the protection of children that stated categorically that “Every child has the right to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, including prostitution and involvement in pornography”. This wording of the resolution is directly in line with article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other paedophile groups at its World Conference in New York. These groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership. At no time, however, did ILGA support or endorse their positions, and these groups were expelled precisely because their aims were incompatible with those of ILGA.”

    Here is a reference to ILGA’s above statement: http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/861

    Yet more evidence that Mr. Clowes’ article is an example of grey propaganda.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  41. Gentle readers,

    For reasons that are known only to Paul, he seems to have taken a break from posting.

    During his absence, I thought it might be worthwhile to examine the anti-gay article to which Paul originally referred us. Let’s examine each of its claims to see how well they stand up to critical thinking.

    In the heat of my exchange with Paul, I did not have enough time to refute each and every claim that the article makes. That is one of the reasons why anti-gay propaganda is so powerful. It is relatively easy to make false claims, but much more time-consuming to do the heavy lifting necessary to refute those claims.

    It is easy to get sidetracked in a heated exchange, and I must confess that my interaction with Paul sometimes descended into juvenile name calling (on both of our parts). Now that I am in a calmer space, I would like to take a more detailed look at each of the claims from Mr. Clowes’ article. Here is the first one:

    “Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA's preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.”

    I find it interesting that Mr. Clowes chooses to cite the work of Alfred Kinsey at all. The religious right often dismisses most of Kinsey’s work, especially his much publicized claim that 10% of the population tends towards a homosexual orientation.

    For anyone with even a passing understanding of Kinsey’s work on homosexuals, they would already know about two of the main criticisms of that work:

    a) Most of his homosexual subjects were from prison populations or were male prostitutes;
    b) Men who volunteer to participate in a study on a taboo subject are likely to have a self-selection bias.

    In 1948 very few homosexual men outside of prison, or a deviant subculture, would volunteer to participate in such a study. It stands to reason then that the incidence of pedophilia among such populations would not be representative of the general homosexual population. It would be like trying to understand the sexual practices of heterosexual married couples by surveying folks who frequent brothels. While there may be some overlap between the two populations, you would not be able to draw too many useful conclusions.

    Should Mr. Clowes have been aware of this limitation of Kinsey’s work? Well if he was not aware of it, he should have been. After all, a basic search on Wikipedia would have quickly set Mr. Clowes straight on the matter.

    So we now need to ask ourselves a couple questions:

    Why did Mr. Clowes fail to disclose this information to his readers? Better yet, why did Mr. Clowes choose to use this suspect information from Kinsey’s work to support his argument in the first place?

    Could it be that Mr. Clowes is an anti-gay propagandist?

    We already have a few clues that this is what is really going on.

    Tune in tomorrow as I take a look at another anti-gay claim from Mr. Clowes.

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gentle readers,

    Examining the propaganda in Mr. Cowles’ article is yielding some interesting results. Let’s take a closer look at his next anti-gay claim from the article:

    “A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 - 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 - 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."

    This is a quote from:

    Ray Blanchard, et al. "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles." Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2000 [Volume 29, Number 5], pages 463-478, p. 464.

    First let me begin by saying that the Archives of Sexual Behavior is a legitimate peer -reviewed journal, and that Dr. Blanchard is well qualified researcher in his field of study. The quote provided by Mr. Clowes is not really damaging at all to the general population of gay men.

    Why?

    Because it tells us nothing about the general population of gay men. Dr. Blanchard’s entire study is directed at providing evidence to show a link between the fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles.

    In fact, the study states on page 465 that:

    “There were two sources of pedophilic patients: Male outpatients referred to
    the Kurt Freund Phallometric Laboratory of the Centre for Addiction and Mental
    Health—Clarke Division (Toronto, Ontario) for psychophysiological assessment
    of their erotic preferences, and incarcerated male sex offenders undergoing assessment
    or treatment at the Sexual Behaviour Clinic of Warkworth Institution
    (Campbellford, Ontario).”

    No matter how much contempt one may have for gay men, there is no way that these study participants could be regarded as a representative sample of gay men in general.

    So why is Mr. Clowes so motivated to provide this quote? Simple, the quote mentions “homosexuals” and “ pedophiles” in close proximity. It does so in a scientific study (remember my earlier comments about the legitimating nature of science?). And lastly, if one does not read the quote closely, or one does not understand the context of the quote, then we might be tempted to think that there is an equivalency between “homosexuals” and pedophiles”.

    And that is exactly what Mr. Clowes is aiming for. He is trying to elicit an emotional response of disgust from his audience towards homosexuals by linking them to pedophilia – over and over again – and in a way that sounds scientific.

    So far, we have been unable to uncover a single shred of credible evidence that shows homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles, or represent a material harm to children in general.

    What do you think the odds are of that actually happening before we finish Mr. Clowes’ article?

    Tune in tomorrow when I examine another of Mr. Clowes’ anti-gay claims, as well as show you how to write your very own anti-gay propaganda in 3 easy steps.

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gentle readers,

    As promised, here is another installment in my examination of Mr. Clowes’ anti-gay claims. Next on the list is this little gem:

    “Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories." These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.”

    This was taken from the following study: Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number 1], pages 67-76, p. 73.

    First, a bit of context: The study involved 192 subjects and showed these gay and straight men and women only faces. Participants were asked to rate their degree of attraction to each face.

    When we read the actual study, guess what we learn?

    First of all, none of the male faces shown to homosexual men and heterosexual women were below the age of 18. Got that point? Clowes has actually misrepresented the study by stating that the age categories were between 15 and 20 years old. Refer to Page 73 figure 1.

    On page 73 the study goes on to state that: “Heterosexual men showed a strong sexual preference for young adult (twentyish) female faces and heterosexual women showed a strong sexual preference for somewhat older (thirtyish) male faces, as expected from past studies of heterosexual. The prediction that homosexual and heterosexual men would prefer younger partners of their preferred sex than would homosexual and heterosexual women was confirmed.”

    In other words folks, both gay and straight men tend to like them young. There are all sorts of cultural and evolutionary explanations for why this might be, but there are no meaningful differences between the two groups of men.

    Now why would Mr. Clowes fail to alert his readers to the scientific fact that regardless of whether or not a man is gay or straight, he gravitates to more youthful faces? Why would Mr. Clowes get all confused about the age of the faces shown to homosexual men and heterosexual women? Why indeed.

    The propagandist’s point is to simply link gay men to children, and to do so in a way that looks scientific. Mission accomplished – even if one has to bend the truth a little. Another point in Clowes’ anti-gay propaganda has been made.

    Running out of time today – but stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment (I promise to provide you with an easy 3 step guide to writing your own anti-gay propaganda).

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gentle readers,

    Since I have already eviscerated Mr. Clowes’ next anti-gay claim, I thought this would be a perfect time to take a breather and provide you with my 3 easy steps to writing your very own anti-gay propaganda.

    Let me begin by saying that it is crucial for us to have a constant supply of fresh anti-gay propaganda on the internet. Why? Well…because stuff like Mr. Clowes’ propaganda gets “worn out” fairly quickly when “strident pro-homosexual activists” like me begin debunking it. Don’t be worried if you do not have an academic degree. Academic credentials help, but they are by no means essential.

    STEP 1 – Begin your propaganda piece by appealing to a strong negative emotion. There are really only 3 basic negative emotions to choose from, but they can all be tailoured to a number of themes. Here are the 3 basic emotions and some suggested anti-gay themes for you to choose from:

    1. Fear – Fear of homos recruiting your children (in or out of the womb); Fear of homos destroying society, marriage, or the traditional family; Fear of homos attacking your religion; Fear of homos destabilizing the country; Fear of homos asking you out on a date; Fear of homos corrupting the courts by creating activist judges; etc.. Almost anything about homos can be feared, so just let your imagination run wild.
    2. Disgust or loathing – The tried and true theme here that is a real crowd pleaser is homo sex. It is 100% icky and perverse and you can dwell on it endlessly. Be sure to frequently mention anal penetration, feces, scat, S&M, bondage, role playing, promiscuity, anal warts, gay bowl disease, gerbels etc… The list is really endless, but one word of caution – never ever mention that straight people do these things too. Keep it focused on those disgusting gay men – give the lesbos a pass…their sex is either titillating or boring depending on your audience. Don’t forget that pedophilia is also a great button to push for maximum “disgust”.
    3. Anger – Best to use lots of words like: militant homosexualist; strident homosexual activist; strenuous. Phrases like “forcing their lifestyle down our throats”, “homosexual agenda”, or “same-sex disorder” are also good. You can pretty much build up a head of steam about any theme: from pedophilia to pandemic AIDS, to economic ruin. Word of caution: never ever talk about homos as ordinary human beings with all the frailties and virtues of their fellow human beings. Keep it abstract and generalized for maximum impact. If you ever focus on a single one of them, make sure it is the most depraved example of a human being you can find.

    Remember – when it comes to strong negative emotions, never be afraid to combine them. They work well in threesomes.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Continued...

    STEP 2: Support your strong negative emotional appeal(s) with lots of “facts”. Use tons of footnotes and references. More is always better. There are two basic challenges with “facts” however:

    a) The challenge of choosing the right kind of “facts” for your intended audience. For example, if you are appealing to fellow believers you can never go wrong with scripture, church documents, or quotes from church hierarchy, or theologians. JP2 and BXVI are a rich source of material. If, however, you are appealing to a more general audience, I would strongly counsel you to use “scientific facts”. Nothing is as legitimating as science in our culture.
    b) The challenge of finding “facts” for your intended audience. The good news is there is simply no end of “facts” provided you are not looking for the truth. Remember, you are not writing a scholarly article to defend a well reasoned thesis or theory. You are writing something that can be quickly copied and pasted into an online argument to shut down your opposition. It will take them days or even weeks to prove you wrong. By then, you will have waltzed off smugly into the ether. Some good sources of “scientific facts” are: studies from STD clinics; studies of incarcerated pedophiles; studies about the mentally ill, studies about HIV/AIDS (never use ones from sub-Saharan Africa as there are too many straights in those). Never be afraid to sprinkle in some discredited sources (e.g. NARTH or Dr. Paul Cameron) among the legitimate (but out of context studies). The discredited studies are not peer reviewed, but they are the juiciest. Just be cautious about using too many as someone may quickly debunk your arguments if they show your sources are severely biased. Lastly, you can comb articles in the gay press for statements made by real live gay activists. Some of them say some pretty silly stuff. Just make sure you set them up as representative of the entire LGBT community. Be creative. Never worry about context or balance and you will do just fine.

    STEP 3: Conclude with “love”. Never openly hate the homos. Hate the sin and always “love” the sinner. Always refer to their behavior or lifestyle, and deny their so-called orientation. Tell your audience that true charity means telling homos the “truth”. Tell them the church believes they are intrinsically disordered, but you would never advocate “unjust discrimination”. Never ever define what kind of discrimination against homos that you regard as “just”. Be totally impervious to the hypocrisy and irony of your words. Pray for them, or at least say that you do.

    Like anything, writing good anti-gay propaganda requires practice. Start by test driving your ideas at church socials (if people frown on it you are either in the wrong congregation or in the wrong denomination), and work your way up to family gatherings and public meetings. Encourage others and never be afraid to ask for help from such experts like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, LifeSite News, Catholic Insight, or the CCCB.

    Good luck and be prolific!

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gentle readers,

    This will be my last examination of Mr. Clowes’ anti-gay claims. It is my last - not because Clowes makes no further anti-gay claims - but because I am tired of wading through his propaganda that has so far not yielded a single shred of credible evidence against gay men. Clowes writes:

    “A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."

    This was taken from a February 1989 study published in the Journal of Sex Research entitled: Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Erotic Age Preference by Kurt Freund et al.
    While the quote is taken from a legitimate peer reviewed journal, the quote is entirely taken out of context. We have seen this tactic employed by Mr. Clowes repeatedly and there is no reason to believe the rest of his quotes are not equally flawed. In fact, the study itself states this on the first page:

    “Homosexual males who preferred physically mature male partners, responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female partners.”

    Got that? Ordinary gay men were no more attracted to children than ordinary straight men.

    So why is Clowes trying to create the opposite impression in our minds?

    We cannot attribute Clowes tendency to misrepresent studies as some basic defect in his reading comprehension abilities. After all, the man holds a PhD from a reputable school. The most economical explanation is that this is a deliberate tactic on Mr. Clowes' part.

    So who is Mr. Clowes?

    According to Human Life International’s website, he is a Director of that organization in charge of Training and Development Worldwide: http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-experts/238?task=view

    And who is Human Life International? According to Wikipedia, “Human Life International is an American-based Roman Catholic activist pro-life organization.”

    Here is a senior officer of an ostensibly Catholic organization engaging in anti-gay propaganda. This is a clear cut case of propaganda, obviously designed to disparage an entire group of people in a way that is fundamentally dishonest. One might even say that the “sin of calumny” is being committed by Mr. Clowes in the name of the pro-life movement and in the name of the RCC.

    My question to Tim and other readers is as follows:

    Has the RCC publically denounced this specific propaganda, or similar propaganda? Has any Bishop of the Church EVER taken it upon himself to warn faithful Catholics about such “calumny”? If not, why not?

    The RCC is quick to denounce the slightest straying from Catholic teaching when it comes to public persons or politicians who dissent on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Where is the Church’s doctrinal zeal when it comes to setting the record straight on anti-gay propaganda?

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gentle readers,

    I imagine that some of you may be sitting back now and saying to yourselves:

    “Well OK Martin…so you have blathered on for several posts and you have managed to demonstrate that Paul was wrong about same-sex parents, and that Brian W. Clowes wrote some propaganda against gay men. Big deal - they were wrong in this ONE single instance, but they are aligned with my church’s teachings, and they hold a correct biblical interpretation about homosexuality. In any case, Paul and Brian have a right to free speech, even if that free speech is based on weak arguments. So why should I give a tinker’s hoot about this issue?”

    Good points. Paul and Brian both have a right to speak freely – even if that involves making poor arguments. Similarly, I have a right to point out those weaknesses and distortions, and to make counter arguments. But that is not really the end of the story.

    Why?

    Firstly, Mr. Clowes explicitly produces his propaganda in the name of the pro-life movement and in the name of Catholics everywhere. Mr. Clowes speaks as a fellow Catholic when he publicly misleads people. Mr. Clowes cuts his lies out of “scientific cloth” and stitches it into a shroud to be placed over the civil rights of LGBT people. His work is not just an attempt at persuasion, it is a lie. He uses his propaganda as a weapon against a vulnerable minority in their legitimate pursuit of their civil rights. He does this in your name!

    Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church gives permission to Mr. Clowes to do this in 2 important ways:

    • Sin of commission: when the Bishops of the Church engage in the public demonization of LGBT citizens, they are implicitly encouraging such propaganda. For example, His Excellency, Bishop Fred Henry, wrote the following in a “pastoral letter” to his diocese in 2005: “Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.” His Excellency not only encourages the state to use of unspecified coercive force against same-sex couples, but he also suggests an equivalency between adulterers, prostitutes, pornographers and homosexuals. No evidence is offered because none is available.
    • Sin of omission: when the Bishops of the Church fail to correct or discipline members of the Church (such as Mr. Clowes or Bishop Henry) who engage in unfairly demonizing an entire class of citizens, they are adding to the scandal. They are turning a blind eye to public activity carried out in the name of Catholics that is inherently dishonest.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Continued...

    Lastly, I remind you that when the Church explicitly participates in anti-gay propaganda, and when it implicitly allows anti-gay propaganda to take place in the name of Catholics, it is squandering its moral authority in the promotion of lies. It is fine if the Bishops choose to make principled anti-gay arguments in public, but when they engage in, or encourage propaganda, they denigrate their own moral authority. They close off the message of the gospel to LGBT folks, they close off the message of Christ to thinking people everywhere.

    Now - I am not going to pretend that I agree with your Church on very much. I emphatically do not. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that your Church and its Bishops have a lot of influence over many people, and consequently the Church has the potential to use its influence to promote the common good. But it cannot do so if it undermines its own moral authority by participating in grey or black propaganda.

    So why should you give a tinker’s hoot about this issue? Simple: If you care about your Church and its stature in the modern world, you should be insisting at every opportunity that the public anti-gay statements of your Bishops are principled, fair, and true. You should insist that every major Catholic organization and public figure avoids anti-gay propaganda….and when someone does sink to that level…that they are publicly rebuked as an example to all of the faithful.

    I have written elsewhere on this blog that the barque of Peter will run aground upon the rocks of homosexuality. This is only one of the ways in which I think history will judge this to be true.

    Cheers…Martin

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics