Browse By

Anti-Equality Bigots Can’t Count

After the Supreme Court decision yesterday, ruling that same-sex couples have the right to equality in the administration of marriage laws, a little group of right wing protesters ran over to the steps of the high court to show just how many people are determined to stop gays and lesbians from getting married. They held up a banner reading, “One Man, One Woman”.

Actually, I see two men, four women, and one person of indeterminate gender (and tight jeans) hiding his or her face.

If these anti-equality bigots can’t even get their numbers straight, why should we listen to their rantings about family life?

Count, Christian Soldiers. Count.

one man one woman protest

23 thoughts on “Anti-Equality Bigots Can’t Count”

  1. ella says:

    “If these anti-equality bigots can’t even get their numbers straight, why should we listen to their rantings about family life?

    Count, Christian Soldiers. Count.”

    I see 2 men and 4 women holding signs. Representative of the population probably, more women than men. As for Christian Soldiers, maybe we should stick with Prayer Warriors and let the chips fall where they may. The last days in Rome spoke eloquently of the disparity between the desperate ‘citizens’ and those who followed law and order with Guidance. It was Romes own ‘soldiers’ that settled the matter. And you make a solid point for the view of ‘anti-family’ when you say “…why should we listen to their rantings about family life?” I am sure they are happy with their own family life and wish the same for you. Is it bigotry or concern? Since ‘family’ means so little to you and many others, it is your right under the law to live as you wish. Why does it still bother you that others have that same right?

  2. J Clifford says:

    It isn’t “concern” to prohibit other people from getting married.

    It’s interference.

    It’s discrimination.

    These people want to impose their religious standards on everybody else.

    That’s concerning, but it is not an expression of concern. It’s about as self-centered as you can get.

    1. ella says:

      It depends on your view point, J. Clifford. By the standards of many, it is a service to try to help people they believe are endangering their own health and possibly the health of others, both physically and mentally. That is not self centered. A young, impressionable person, frequently becomes emotionally upset when an idea that is presented to them is suddenly and strongly opposed. They struggle with their emotions, come to defend the idea, even if it seems wrong, and before they realize what has happened, they are involved in something that they do not know how to extricate themselves from. Children not born of homosexual relationships do not know a mother and father that are both related to them, at least not within their home. Statistics show that children frequently are abused in such relationships. Today of course that has become an unfortunate result of changing relationships within the home. (that is my own observation and from reading) When we feel attacked we respond in kind, instead of thinking in kind ways.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Ella, can you share a link to a research study demonstrating that children in same-sex parent families are abused more often? It is my impression that such a claim is based on urban myths, although I would be glad to see contrary evidence. Also, if I could demonstrate that, say, Catholic schools had high rates of sexual abuse, would you favor outlawing Catholic schools?

        1. ella says:

          I have provided such studies in the past. It is amazing what is not on the internet today. However here are some important facts about homosexual life that has a direct bearing on raising children.

          1) http://home60515.com/4.html
          2) http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Health
          3) http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/STDFact-MSM.htm

          Some of the Diseases of this type, in a close home environment, can spread to children, even without abuse of that nature. And studies show that such is prevalent in the LBGT communities.
          Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disease: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
          However heterosexism is: Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. https://duckduckgo.com/Heterosexism?ia=about&iax=1

          Continued as there are too many links here.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            There are indeed too many links there. You made a specific claim, and I asked a very specific request: “can you share a link to a research study demonstrating that children in same-sex parent families are abused more often?”

            You didn’t do that. None of those links describe any scientific research having anything to do with your claim that children in same-sex parent families are abused more often.

      2. J Clifford says:

        Okay then, Ella. Let’s make it illegal for you to get married, and see if you regard that as a “service”.

  3. ella says:

    Continued:

    “…Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”” http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

    “‘Homosexual Pedophiles’: A Clinical Term
    The fact is, however, that the terms “homosexual” and “pedophile” are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster’s Dictionary defines “homosexual” as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. “Pedophile” is defined as “an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.” The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.” http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
    This is not to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Please read the study.

    Although these are not studies directly mentioning parenting/child issues directly, they are issues that need to be considered when considering two people who will be responsible for the care of a child or children. Since, by nature, two persons of the same sex are not expected to bear children – are not natural parents – perhaps it is better that they don’t have someone elses.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      These are tracts from the right-wing fundamentalist Christian Family Research Council, which hyperventilates about gay characters in Star Wars…

      http://irregulartimes.com/2012/01/28/how-can-christians-object-to-homosexuality-in-the-star-wars-universe/

      … and has been deeply involved in political fights over same-sex marriage…

      http://irregulartimes.com/2009/09/16/if-marriage-laws-are-religiously-based-government-interferes/

      … and do not directly test this claim. Reading the FRC’s essay (not a study) closely, you’ll notice that the question I raised is not tested. Please stop tossing this chaff into the air and directly answer the request or retract your claim.

    2. J Clifford says:

      “Although these are not studies…”

      Well there you go, Ella. Instead of basing your claims about reality on the basis of facts, you’re making your claims about reality on the basis of the tracts of a religious organization.

  4. ella says:

    “Ella, can you share a link to a research study demonstrating that children in same-sex parent families are abused more often? It is my impression that such a claim is based on urban myths, although I would be glad to see contrary evidence.”

    I did not make that statement in this blog and in the one I did it was because I found a study so saying. You did ask me for a study, but I’m cooking this morning. This time around you will need to do your own research on that subject – thank you. However, I have provided a link within the last two posts that does state there is homosexuality within the Catholic church and that child molestation has taken place. I do not believe that is new news. Monks who took celibacy vows were not allowed female companionship. Guess homosexuality overcame celibacy in some cases. I don’t know of a study on that particular aspect yet.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      You haven’t answered my question about the Catholic church, and you haven’t provided support for your statement that “Statistics show that children frequently are abused in such relationships.”

      Just saying.

      1. ella says:

        “Statistics show that children frequently are abused in such relationships.”
        Jim Cook, For what it is worth, here is one link, many documents: http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000030

        And if you are too lazy to read the link provided that covers homosexulity in the Catholic Church, that is not my fault. But here is one that is easy to read: http://boysofthecloth.com/ Really that other document is long and detailed so this will serve your purposes.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Please re-read my question regarding the Catholic church, which had nothing to do with statistics or with homosexuality.

          EXCEELLENT LINK FROM BORNGAY, Ella! I hope you noticed that every link that supports your position is from a religious fundamentalist publication. Every link contrary to your position refers to a publication in a scientific journal.

          1. ella says:

            Jim Cook, are you saying that: http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000030. is “…from a religious fundamentalist publication.”? ProCon.org? That gives both the ‘pros and cons’ of the question in an unbiased format? You, methinks are bring a rascal here! Present your links and I will do you more of a service by actually reading them.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            No, I’m not saying that the website PRO-CON is fundamentalist.

            I’m saying that on the website you link to all the “PRO” (yes) answers to the question “Are Proportionally More Incidents of Child Sexual Abuse Perpetrated by Gays and Lesbians than by Heterosexuals?” are sourced to non-scholarly opinion pieces written by religious fundamentalists. On the other hand, among the sources of answers on the “CON” (no) side of the page are references to peer-reviewed research in major journals (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Pediatrics) and a statement by the research society the American Psychological Association.

          3. ella says:

            Oh, so by saying, “…are sourced to non-scholarly opinion pieces written by religious fundamentalists.”, you are saying that…

            “Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of the Family Research Council, wrote in his 2004 article,…”

            …Family Research Council is an opinion piece? That their research is no more than opinion?

          4. J Clifford says:

            Ella, researchers with PhDs are perfectly capable of writing about their opinions, and are unfortunately also quite capable of confusing their opinions with objective research.

            Also, the borngay.procon.com web page you link to does not include that “2004 article” with the title “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. Where is it? Show us that research!

            The borngay.procon.com web page lists people’s arguments. It does not include actual research, just references to it.

            If you look at the actual article, which, by the way, was not published in 2004, was not published in any academic journal, and is not based upon any original research, but only Dailey’s interpretation of previous research, it never proves that children are more likely to be molested by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.

            In fact, even in his sloppy reasoning, Dailey never gets close to claiming that children are more often molested by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. Even the studies he cites indicates that the majority of child molestation incidents are heterosexual in nature, not homosexual.

          5. ella says:

            Since my response was rejected, could not post it, I have sent it to Irregular Times. Citations and references are provided with the study “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. For the cases represented, it cites how the results were derived from populations of heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            The “Family Research Council”‘s name is deceiving. It is not a dispassionate research body. It is a fundamentalist religious advocacy organization. Timothy J. Dailey may have a PhD, but it’s a PhD in Religion. See here for details: http://borngay.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=003820 .

          7. ella says:

            Yes. Are you saying because a person has a theological degree that he/she is not intelligent enough to decipher statistical facts? Or to accumulate factual evidence? Or are you saying that only people involved in homosexual activities are able to give an unbiased opinion, whether based on collected data/fact or not? Or do you have some studies, based on collected evidence, that are conducted by persons who have neither had any G/god oriented affiliation, nor homosexual experience?

          8. Jim Cook says:

            I am saying that a person with a theological degree has expertise in theology. Obviously I am not saying that only gay people can speak on subjects related to homosexuality. I am suggesting that someone using PhD letters to connote expertise in a subject unrelated to his degree is not being ethical in his connotation, and that clearly he is someone with an axe to grind, not someone engaging in dispassionate research.

            YOU made a factual claim, and the bulk of links to actual academic research on the subject that YOU have linked to yourself contradicts your claim. So I say again, thanks for that link.

          9. ella says:

            I only sent what I thought was a one link response to your question, giving both sides of the question an airing. I have in the past found studies, academic, that support my statement. I simply didn’t find it/them this time. If it contradicts my claim, then perhaps I gave it too fair a hearing. I don’t know that social affairs are outside a theological PhD, in that it is a degree that is deeply involved in the human experience. Had the person been a geologist or botanist I might agree. Still you asked for only one study and that was offered. I offered what you requested, and ultimately much more, to support my position. But I will let others, if they wish, read the evidence and judge for themselves. You try to win them all, even when you choose the opposite side. It doesn’t always work. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!