Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted on Jun 1, 2011 in government, homosexuality, morality, responding to arguments, separation of church and state | 278 comments

Catholic Charities and the Victim Card

I’ve briefly commented on Catholic charities in previous blog posts, but would like to focus the discussion in this post on charities that ‘play the victim card’ and distort issues relating to ‘forced closings.’ For example, Catholic charities within the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C. bill that was proposed. Catholics, in this incident and many others, claim that the government violates their religious freedoms and insist that religious exemptions be appropriated. When governments fail to meet the Catholics’ demands, charities close their doors, claim that they wanted to continue services, and blame the government for the closing. All of this, of course, is a giant smokescreen.

It might be easy here to jump on the no true scotsman bandwagon and claim that a charity that discriminates is not really a charity. Is this a fair claim? While many charities specialize in particular areas, many offer their services to the communities they serve without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Some/many Catholic charities, on the other hand, believe that letting homosexuals adopt children or providing services to homosexuals is advancing the ‘homosexual agenda,’ doing a disservice to children, or approving of the ‘homosexual lifestyle.’

Is this very charitable for a charity? If a charity is concerned with the welfare of children and neglects to let persons adopt children just because he/she is attracted to members of the same sex, the charity is not really ‘being all it can be’ and is more concerned about a dogmatic ideology than the welfare of children. It is, of course, be very reasonable to refuse adoption services to persons who aren’t fit to care for children, but it’s not the case that persons are unfit to care for children because of their sexual orientations. If charities are really concerned about children, they should allow homosexuals to adopt; doing otherwise is not what a charity should be in the business of doing.

If a charity really wants to operate under a dogmatic ideology, it can still operate, but it cannot justifiably complain if they receive government funding and then don’t want to ‘follow the rules.’ Receiving government funds comes with ‘consequences’ and expectations. Regardless of what principles the charity may hold, it still has to follow the law. If a group wants to, for example, exclude it from providing services to homosexuals, they can do so by not taking government money and operating as a private charity. A group can’t possibly, though, complain about governmental regulations if they take the money – if they don’t want to follow the rules associated with the money, don’t take the money.

This recent article, “Illinois Catholic Charities Forced out of Adoptions over Homosexual ‘Rights’” reflects much of what I have been saying. This article immediately starts this distortion with its loaded title and makes the Catholic charities sound like victims of a government which doesn’t ‘respect’ their beliefs. Notice the use of the word ‘forced’ in this title. The charities weren’t forced to close at all, but rather DECIDED to close because they wanted to exclude providing services to homosexuals even though they accepted government money.

Commenters in this article try, as I previously mentioned, to convey the message that since providing services to homosexuals is required for the charities to receive money, there is a violation of freedom of religion. This, though, is an outright lie. Charitable groups are free to run charities that are consistent with whatever beliefs that have, but in order to receive governmental funding, they need to play by the rules.

To further understand, imagine a religion that only included males and thought that women were inferior. Members of this religion decide to start a charitable group and receive governmental funding under the condition that they don’t discriminate against people. Later, after receiving funding, the group complains when the government threatens to stop funding them because they won’t provide services to women…and then claims that the government is violating their religious freedoms. Both situations are absurd.

Why should religious charities get special exemptions while secular charities must play by the rules? There is no abridgment to freedom of religion when a government fails to fund charities that fail to provide services to homosexuals or fail to offer special exemptions.

The real victims of charities closing are not the charities, but rather the people who would benefit from services that are done a disfavor by the discriminating charities, not the government which declined to give money to the religious charities. If a charitable group wants to discriminate against certain individuals, they simply should not accept governmental funds…and they can’t justifiably accept government funding and then make themselves look like victims when the government ceases funding them. If a charity accepts governmental funds, they must play by the rules.

  • GCT

    It’s a pretty common story…”You’re violating our religious freedoms if you don’t treat us special!”

  • a charity that discriminates is not really a charity. Is this a fair claim? I don’t think so. Youre asking a religious group to set aside something that is described as wrong, repeatedly, in it’s foundational document.Could they refuse to place a child in a family in which one or both parents is an admitted, serial adulterer?Notice the use of the word ‘forced’ in this titleBut requiring them to place kids with same-sex couples would “force” them to violate the moral code upon which their religion is based upon. How could it possibly be any other way?Why should religious charities get special exemptions while secular charities must play by the rules?Why can’t they leave Catholic charities alone and let non-religious groups and government agencies where it is legal place kids in same-sex relationships? Why create conflict? I guess dissent on this matter is somehow not allowed?I think these agencies did a good job for decades without this type of outside interference. Why push the issue now if its not part of some over-arching agenda?

  • Anonymous

    “I guess dissent on this matter is somehow not allowed?”That’s not dissent, JD. That’s bigotry. You are advocating government-funded bigotry towards homosexuals.If a charity wants government funding then the charity must obey the law. It’s that simple.

  • That’s not dissent, JD. That’s bigotry. You are advocating government-funded bigotry towards homosexualsHow? Additionally, wouldnt playing the bigot card so early in this discussion without spelling out one iota as to how my position constitutes bigotry, be considered complete and utter bigotry on your part? Bigot? After all, I am allowed to disagree, arent I? Or am I somehow obligated to run any opinions by you first?

  • Anonymous

    JD: “Why can’t they leave Catholic charities alone”?They did and do. But if they want government money then they have to obey the law. They’re free to continue running a charity. Maybe you should read Justin’s article again.JD: “How?”I would have thought that was obvious.By arguing that the government pay a group to discriminate against homosexuals.JD: (some nonsense) “…be considered complete and utter bigotry on your part? Bigot? “I am intolerant of intolerance.JD: “After all, I am allowed to disagree, arent I?”Sure, as long as the civilized world can laugh at your prejudice without you forcing the government to implement your prejudices.

  • JD, I think I was *extremely* charitable in this post and was very clear to indicate that the charities can still operate if they want, but they can’t take government funding if they disagree with the conditions required to follow in order to receive the money.Adultery is not a crime, of course, but if they have reasons to determine that someone is an unfit parent (would ‘serial adultery’ be a reason, I’m not sure…)Charities aren’t FORCED to do what they don’t want to do, as I noted, but if they don’t want to play by the rules (i.e. let homosexuals adopt), then they shouldn’t take the funding and can’t justifiably complain when their funds are taken.You talk about ‘leaving Catholic charities alone.’ The government isn’t pestering the charity, but rather it is the case that the charities have to agree to rules upon receiving g’vt funds. If the rules aren’t followed, they lose funding. The charities are not victims here. You miss the point when you say leave alone.”Why push the issue now,” in almost every case, is always a bad argument. Two wrongs or past wrongs don’t make a right. If someone was breaking the law for 50 years, a sudden ‘why didn’t you push the issue before/why push the issue now’ is no escape from whether or not something is legal. Here’s the solution, as I offered:Catholic charities can be free to not let homosexuals adopt, but they just can’t accept government funding if they do. Catholic charities clearly think that denying services to homosexuals is more important than helping children when they close their doors because of government rules that they must follow in order to receive funding.

  • David

    “I don’t think so. Youre asking a religious group to set aside something that is described as wrong, repeatedly, in it’s foundational document.”The foundation of Christianity is Jesus. He never said a word about homosexuality, right or wrong. The six verses that you think, repeatedly describe homosexuality as wrong, have varying interpretations, so that’s not as clear cut as you may think. And when you stack them up against the commands to love each other as yourself and the over 300 verses that speak to helping the poor and the needy, those six verses don’t seem as big a command as you want them to be. The Bible also speaks a few times about tattoos, do Catholic Charities screen those parents out too? Must the child be raised only in clothes of one fiber?The current outrage over homosexuality is disproportionate to the importance the Bible places on the issue, which is muddy at best. I think Anne Lamott said it best when she said “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”And Justin is correct, if Catholic Charities wants government money, then they must abide by government rules. If they want to continue to hate not love, then they need to do so outside the government teat. It’s not an issue of religious discrimination, it’s an issue of giving to Ceasar what is Ceasars.

  • Justin,When it comes to adoption, how could charities that are historically faith-based operate outside the realm of government? They can’t nowadays.Ultimately its the government that has to oversee, approve and monitor any adoptions that occur and such groups they cannot operate outside the sphere of government. I think it would be discriminatory if they refused to del with blacks or Asians, but that is not the case.When it has been shown that the number 1 reason that gays seek to leave behind the homosexual lifestyle is to heal emotional pain, then why should they have to be complicit in destructive personal behavior?

  • GCT

    “When it comes to adoption, how could charities that are historically faith-based operate outside the realm of government? They can’t nowadays.”Then, they must follow the rules. It’s as simple as that. Arguing that we should give religious charities special exemptions is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and is clear favoritism. Sorry, but we should treat all charities the same and if that offends the Catholic charities that they don’t get special privileges, then too bad. But, it’s not discrimination to treat them the same. The discrimination comes from their actions, and your argument to uphold their actions amount to your endorsement of discrimination against homosexuals – hence the charges (and well earned) of bigotry.

  • Anonymous

    JD: “I think it would be discriminatory if they refused to del with blacks or Asians…”So you think discrimination is just a race thing? In context, you seem to be saying that you can’t discriminate against homosexuals.

  • AVW

    JD – I’d like to point at that citing LifeSiteNews’s study on homosexuality is more than laughable. First, LifeSiteNews has a CLEAR bias and position AGAINST homosexuality, so it isn’t much of a stretch to see that they’d bias or publish faulty studies. Your bold assertions of “When it is shown…” is quite disappointing, as it shows you haven’t, in any way, critically examined the study and just accept the article at face value because it promotes your position (and clearly shows your utter lack of skepticism and search for truth).Let’s look at that study. First: Less than 200 subjects. Bordering on sample size error.But here’s the kicker.First, the sample size is far too small to generalize the way you are in implying that the majority of homosexuals that return/become heterosexual do so because of emotional pain is just nonsense. But let’s look at who conducted the study:People Can Change. The article cites this as a NFP NON-RELIGIOUS group. Orly, I ask myself? Well, there’s a bold lie and unveiling of a clear bias on LifeSiteNew’s AND People Can Change’s behalf, thus, invalidating any sort of credible data they may have had. Oh, but wait, you might say. “They AREN’T religious”. Let’s look. Here’s just a few blurbs from their Q&A page: “Then, armed with true information about what has worked for others, surrounded by a small number of supportive people who will encourage you and listen to you, and leaning on God for guidance, you are ready to work a program of major change. Follow the path we outline on this web site, or similar paths outlined in books like “Coming Out Straight,” or whatever path you feel God is leading you on.” and …”Richard and Jerry benefited from spiritual counseling that focused on forgiveness and healing of childhood emotional wounds while strengthening their bonds with God.” —Nope, that doesn’t sound religious at all and surely they wouldn’t have a bias against homosexuality. And clearly they are being truthful when they say they are a non-religious organization. Give me a break. LifeSiteNews is also highly biased and downright kooky. Reading their About Us, they talk about Secularists destroying natural law and trying to implement a NWO, etc. It’s a joke at best. Anyway, let’s get back to the study design: So, we survey 200 guys from a NFP RELIGIOUS organization that DEALS WITH GAYS WANTING TO BE STRAIGHT. It’s a shocker to see their survey results say they converted for RELIGIOUS reasons or other religiously motivated ideas (like emotional healing/thinking being gay is a sin, etc.) Next time, before you try making such an absurd assertion like “It has been shown/proven/whatever” about something like this, know what you’re talking about. Please. If the best you can muster is LifeSiteNews, try harder.

  • So you think discrimination is just a race thing?No, it could also be against short people for example.In context, you seem to be saying that you can’t discriminate against homosexuals No, that is what the government is saying. In this forum, we are referring to the adoption of children and that Catholic charities do not support such a move.Less than 200 subjects. Bordering on sample size errorPlease substantiate this claim. 77% of respondents chose “a desire to heal emotional hurts that respondents believe contributed to their same-sex attractions (SSA) to begin with” as the reason they wished to leave such a destructive lifestyle behind. Not 10%.we survey 200 guys from a NFP RELIGIOUS organization that DEALS WITH GAYS WANTING TO BE STRAIGHTHow does this invalidate the survey? If you can point me towards a study by agnostic/atheist groups that assist people who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle behind, then please link the study on this thread.Is it really that hard to believe that emotional pain is the numberr one reason that they seek to leave that type of lifestyle?Did the religious zealots over at the Department of Health and Human Sevices fake the data due to an extremist religious agenda when they published that “gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually”? LinkWhy are suicide rates of homosexuals in Norway, where gay marraige has been been legal for over a decade, so high?And likewise the Netherlands.Religious persecution?”The basic finding is that gay men in partnerships were eight times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual men. In contrast, although lesbian women in partnerships were 65% more likely to commit suicide, this was not statistically significant. This data for completed suicides is significant and rare. For the first time there is rather solid data that completed suicides – not just attempted suicides – are higher among partnered gay men than among heterosexual men (most of whom are partnered.) The authors of the paper comment that this factor of eight times more likely is remarkably high, higher than any known figures in the literature for attempted suicides for any group of homosexual men.” Link

  • I almost forgot about this one..The foundation of Christianity is Jesus. He never said a word about homosexuality, right or wrong“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:1-6Seems pretty clear to me.

  • Rick C.

    A lot of Christians couldn’t get less Christ-like if they tried. How douchey do you have to be to punish adoptee children for the state’s decision?

  • How douchey do you have to be to punish adoptee children for the state’s decision?Have you put this question to your local representative? If so, what was their reply?

  • JD, Rick is saying that the Catholics are punishing the children, not the state.

  • Did the state bother Catholic charities in the decades of the 50’s 60’s 70’s or 80’s or is such activism a relatively recent phenomenon?

  • Anonymous

    @ JD’s above post – It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not the state bothered them in the past. “Why bother now?” is a bad argument, and the past events have no bearing on the legality of such issues now.

  • It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not the state bothered them in the past. “Why bother now?” is a bad argument, and the past events have no bearing on the legality of such issues now@ the internet wuss who doesnt have the cahones to blog under a profile…If a system was working and children were being placed at a rate that was even lauded by the state than what the state was doing, then why bother them?Also, its not as if this is the only area of society where the radical gay agenda is expanding as anyone in the military knows. Previously, people had to conform to the standards of the military, now its the military that has to change for people.

  • AVW

    *^It was obviously the same as AVW. It was giving me problems with the profile selection (it refused to post my last message). And I see not how the gays wanting equal rights and to not be discriminated against is a “radical agenda”.

  • GCT

    I see JD is being dishonest as usual.It’s already been pointed out to him why his “gays can change and they are doing it for emotional reasons” is incorrect. It’s already been pointed out to him that the “unhealthy lifestyle” is a BS argument. It’s already been pointed out to him that his claim about Norway and the Netherlands is BS as well and why. Yet, he still clings to all of these arguments, just as creationists never discard any of their arguments when they are shown to be bunk? Why? Because they must be dishonest in order to continue to argue their agendas in the face of reality. And, then, people like JD have the nerve to claim that there some “radical homosexual agenda” out there?If homosexuals are prone to more suicides, it’s because of people like JD.”No, that is what the government is saying. In this forum, we are referring to the adoption of children and that Catholic charities do not support such a move.”Wow. Swing and a miss.”Did the state bother Catholic charities in the decades of the 50’s 60’s 70’s or 80’s or is such activism a relatively recent phenomenon?”IOW, it’s the state’s fault that they aren’t going to allow the Catholics to be bigoted and discriminating pieces of shit anymore! Boo hoo for the poor, oppressed Catholics that no longer get to discriminate and have special privileges.”f a system was working and children were being placed at a rate that was even lauded by the state than what the state was doing, then why bother them?”Because discrimination is illegal and wrong. It’s as simple as that. What if they denied you for being in an interracial marriage, which wouldn’t be that far fetched not too many years ago?”Also, its not as if this is the only area of society where the radical gay agenda is expanding as anyone in the military knows. Previously, people had to conform to the standards of the military, now its the military that has to change for people.”Wow, and now you want to talk about DADT? Because if the government can’t give funds to charities to discriminate it totally makes sense for the government to do it outright? Why do you hate gays so much?

  • GCT

    Wow, I just looked at the link JD provided for his statistic that gays are 2-3 times more likely to attempt suicide. I suggest that you all look at it to see just how dishonest and/or stupid JD really is.First of all, the study is from 1989 with some follow up studies done in 1991. Yes, that’s right, the data is 20 years old. Also, if you read you find some gems like this:”The report recommended that “mental health and youth service agencies can provide acceptance and support for young homosexuals, train their personnel on gay issues, and provide appropriate gay adult role models; schools can protect gay youth from abuse from their peers and provide accurate information about homosexuality in health curricula; families should accept their child and work toward educating themselves about the development and nature of homosexuality.”Yup, that’s right. The way to combat this is to teach about homosexuality and accept it, which is why bigoted homophobes like JD fight so hard against. IOW, they are trying to make the problem worse!There’s also this:”According to Kevin Berrill, Director of the Anti-Violence Project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at the time of the report’s release stated, “The increased risk of suicide facing these youth is linked to growing up in a society that teaches them to hide and to hate themselves. We welcome this report and hope it will lead to action that will save lives.”Yup, the reason for higher suicide rates 20 years ago was due to the abuse suffered at the hands of people like JD.Oh, and then there’s this as well:”Initially, however, the report was suppressed by the Bush administration under pressure from right-wing groups and by conservatives in Congress. After the findings, William Dannemeyer, who was at the time a conservative Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California, called for then-president Bush to “dismiss from public service all persons still employed who concocted this homosexual pledge of allegiance and sealed the lid on these misjudgments for good.” HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan wrote in a letter to Dannemeyer that the study “undermined the institution of the family.”That’s right. JD’s favorite political party tried to suppress this information and has fought against helping gays and even went so far as to try to get rid of anyone involved in the study so that they could continue to hate on gays and hope that they would kill themselves off in larger numbers. JD, you’re a real piece of work, you know that?

  • If homosexuals are prone to more suicides, it’s because of people like JDBreathtakingly stupid GCT. Even by the lofty, high bar that you set for yourself.”Now let’s look at the facts. We will define a tolerant society where homogamy or civil unions are recognized; here are six tolerant societies: Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands. Next we will define moderate religious society, where homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong, but not illegal: Ireland, USA, Italy, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay. And finally, we will define an intolerant society as one where homosexuality is illegal: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda.According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000. And the average male suicide rate for intolerant societies is unknown because as it turns out, none of them publicly report suicide rates. However, in searching for these unreported rates, I did find a study that reported primary indicators of high societal suicide rates that can be used to estimate them; perhaps one day I’ll see about doing so for these countries.One of the only countries where the specific issue has been studied is in the heavily secular and tolerant country of Norway where 20% of gay men between the ages of 16-24 attempt suicide at least once. It would appear highly unreasonable to attempt to blame either James Dobson or intolerant Southern Baptists for the self-destructive actions of young gay atheist Norwegians.” Link

  • While GCT grapples with the latest facts he has to deal with along with his gladiator outfit and strawmen he sets up that deal with statements I did not make nor positions that I endorse, I hope the other Homocritics here can take a step back for a moment and see what is truly going on here.If you wish to apply a slogan to your campaign, might I suggest ‘Gay Adoption uber alles‘?

  • GCT

    “Breathtakingly stupid GCT. Even by the lofty, high bar that you set for yourself.”Which is what the link YOU provided said. Wait for it…wait for it…Oh, and let’s look at your Norway data you dishonest POS. Not only is it from the 1990’s (the meta-analyses from 2006 and 2007 use data from the 90’s – when was gay marriage legalized?) but in it there are gems like this:”n 1995, at Calgary’s Gay Lines, I met a young gay Norwegian man working for a Swedish telephone manufacturer. Given that he had been involved with a GLB youth group in Oslo, I asked him about the GLB youth suicide problem in his country – after reporting on the situation in North America. He reported homophobia to be a problem as serious in Norway as it was in North America, that coming out problems were similar, and that a significant GLB youth suicide problems existed in his country.”See, you daft idiot? He’s specifically stating that the problems are related to the prevailing atmosphere that homophobes like you created in his country! Once again JD, you ignore everything of substance that I said and use derision as if it’s a cogent argument, then you throw up links that disprove what you are trying to say and have the temerity to act smugly and superior about it.”If you wish to apply a slogan to your campaign, might I suggest ‘Gay Adoption uber alles’?”And, this is where JD tries to link gays to nazis as he’s tried to do in the past.Face it JD, you are a homophobic bigot. You hate gays (did you marry one of them too?) and your hatred blinds you. I hope that one day you will learn how closed-minded you are. I was tempted to hope that you have a gay child, but I would fear for the life/well-being of that child having you as a father.

  • David

    “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”Matthew 19:1-6Seems pretty clear to me. “Yep, seems pretty clear he’s answering a question about husband and wives and marriage. Don’t see anything in there where he says homosexuality is wrong, abnormal or that loving gay couples can’t adopt children.I can see how a homophobe could twist it around to support his hatred, but that don’t mean it’s what Jesus said.

  • You hate gaysRight. I ‘hate gays’ so much that I provide a link to the archive of a columnist who is gay and always have since I started my blog.Why is one of the 14 followers I have gay? Isnt that disproportionate when compared to the overall population?You really need to take a chill GCT.

  • Anonymous

    JD said: “I hope the other Homocritics here can take a step back for a moment and see what is truly going on here.If you wish to apply a slogan to your campaign, might I suggest ‘Gay Adoption uber alles’?“”Homocritics?” “Gay Adoption uber alles”? What the hell are you going on about?

  • Don’t see anything in there where he says homosexuality is wrong, abnormal or that loving gay couples can’t adopt childrenHe wouldnt have to even entertain the thought becuase homosexuality was almost historically non-existant among Jews.”Homosexuality appears to be rare among Orthodox Jews [Orthodox Judaism forbids homosexuality], so much so that learned rabbis, the interpreters of Jewish law, usually allowed men to sleep in the same bed, because likelihood of sexual contact was considered negligible. Kinsey also found very low homosexual incidence among Orthodox Jews…” LinkDavid. Try very hard to substantiate your claim that any reservations that I may have concerning gay adoption is motivated by “hatred”.You saying so doesnt make it so.Your bigotry is exhibited by saying that my reservations are motivated by hatred without offering one single, solitary shred of evidence whatsoever.Bigot

  • Anonymous

    So you want the government to pay to discriminate against homosexual people because of love, JD? Is that it?

  • *Yawn*… I tire easily of this unmoderated, anything goes, kindergarten level nonsense. I just posted my reply over at my site. But if you comment over there, please come armed with FACTS or don’t come at all.

  • What JD means is: all y’all and y’all’s facts scare me so I going to hide on my blog where I can “moderate” the facts away. I’ll pretend to be bored so they can’t see that I’m scared.Maybe you should come back when you have a better reason to discriminate against people besides: ‘it’s just always been this way’.

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

  • Rick C.

    Ok, JD. Let’s have a look at your “facts”.

  • Rick C.

    For the “fact” that children of homosexual couples are worse at sport, you provided an Africa Christian Action link which quoted an 1996 article by Sotirios Sarantakos. What methodology was used to determine that children of homosexual couples were worse at sport?

  • Once again, Conservapedia is not a reliable source. It’s a waste of time, I think, to try to analyze commenters’ motives :While discussion is always welcome, let’s please try to keep it constructive.

  • David

    “He wouldnt have to even entertain the thought becuase homosexuality was almost historically non-existant among Jews.”So, then why even offer up the scripture as *clear* evidence that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality when you now admit that he did no such thing? You’ve just proved my point.”Try very hard to substantiate your claim that any reservations that I may have concerning gay adoption is motivated by “hatred”.”Anybody that attempts to misuse scripture to back up a claim that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality is either motivated by hatred, ignorance or just plain stupidity. Tell me which term you prefer.

  • Rick, babydoll…Prove it wrong. Its as simple as that

  • Douchebag Rick,I’ll make an exception and debate you on anything that I posited over at my blog.Run away Ricky boy. Run away!

  • No longer catholic

    Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people. Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is –more likely to suffer from depression-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression-more likely to abuse substances-more likely to contract STD’s-etcthan the group you belong to.Let’s see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD’s than white Americans. Hell, I think they might even be more likely to smoke cigarettes but I couldn’t find the data for that.It’s institutional intolerance of gays. If a religious group said that they were withdrawing from providing adoptions because they might have to place children with black families, I hope you’d have no problem roundly condemning that.You are a foul person, Jd. There’s a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word ‘bigot’ means something. It’s not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around. Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians. Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several. But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs. I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect. That is done at the cost of the services provided to children who more often than not have no adult guardians at all.

  • Rick C.

    It doesn’t even matter if a group of people are more likely to smoke or more likely to whatever, the charity should be dealing with the person in front of them not with their perception of the group the person belongs to.

  • Rickster,I really admire your use of the Run-and-Hide method of internet argumentation. It seems to serve you quite well.Since I asked this of Justin earlier and he seems too *ahem* busy, to answer this question then maybe I’ll have better luck with you?Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there.

  • Anonymous

    Jd.You best stop digging that hole. Your prejudice so big it visible from space. If the catholics want the government to fund them then they got to follow the government law. No two ways about it.

  • Please note that this is the 2nd time in as many days that I’m trying to get Rick to answer a simple question directly related to the subject of this thread.”Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there.”C’mon Rick. We all know that it couldnt be that youre a complete pussy and not interested in the truth whatsoever. So why not answer a simple, relevant question?

  • GCT

    “Right. I ‘hate gays’ so much that I provide a link to the archive of a columnist who is gay and always have since I started my blog.”Wow, you *know* a gay person? Well, that must mean that you can’t possibly be a bigot, right?”You really need to take a chill GCT.”And you need to stop trying to link gays to Hitler and nazis. You need to stop linking to Conservapedia and using sources that are old, outdated, wrong, and biased. You need to deal with the fact that your sources have been taken apart right in front of you, and that some of them don’t agree with what you claimed they did as I pointed out.”Your bigotry is exhibited by saying that my reservations are motivated by hatred without offering one single, solitary shred of evidence whatsoever.”The evidence is all over this page and your own blog. It’s been pointed out to you multiple times.”But if you comment over there, please come armed with FACTS or don’t come at all.”Meaning those you haven’t found excuses to ban so that you don’t have to deal with uncomfortable facts, reality, and people who don’t simply agree with you.”We all know that it couldnt be that youre a complete pussy…”Wow, and let’s add some misogynistic undertones to the discussion. Good job.

  • GCT

    Oh, and as to JD’s question about promiscuity, he’s going to hope you say “Yes” and then claim that it’s OK to discriminate against gays because he’s seen a study somewhere (on Conservapedia) that says that gays are more likely to be promiscuous, therefore they all are and it’s OK to not give any children to gays because they all sleep around without any care in the world.

  • Anonymous

    I have a feeling Curtis will flip from”Could an agency that places children discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous?”to”Could an agency that places children discriminate if one or both of the foster parents are potentially promiscuous?”Big difference. According to foreignpolicy.com, Jewish people have an average of 10 sexual partners in their lifetime. Are you about to imply that Jewish people should not be allowed to adopt? Because it looks like you’re heading in that direction, Curtis.Anyway, the correct answer to Curtis’ question is this: if your agency is funded by the government then your agency can only discriminate in ways that are legal.

  • GCT

    NLC,Over on JD’s blog, he’s claiming that the answer to the dilemma that African Americans may also face the same problems that he cites is basically that gays choose to be gay (i.e. that there are ex-gays but not ex-blacks – except for Michael Jackson I suppose). Seriously…I’m not pulling your leg.And, I’ve also noticed that JD is artfully dodging the point made above by Rick C that one has to deal with the person, not with the member group they may belong to. That JD seems so willing to do this is textbook stereotyping and bigotry. Yet, he claims that no one can point out instances of his bigotry when he’s plainly doing it by imparting the supposed faults of a subset of a community on the whole community.Just to be clear, I dispute most of his supposed statistics as being wrong and/or misconstrued. In particular, I would point out the ones I already debunked and the ones I pointed out were due to people like him, not due to the person being gay, except as some sort of victim blaming exercise.But, even if we did take all of JD’s arguments at fact value, it would still not negate the arguments for gays to have adoption rights. Just because some gays may be more apt to depression does not mean that all gays are more apt to depression, for just one example. IOW, JD has yet to put forth a compelling argument as to why gays should not be allowed to adopt and by extension why the Catholic church should be allowed to unlawfully discriminate against gays while also accepting government funds.

  • Mormons can do the same thing that JD is doing:Although the official LDS Church now views blacks as equal to whites, many Mormons previously did not (and some probably still do not). Imagine if a ‘reformed’ or ‘traditionalist’ Mormon group wanted to start a charity and received money from the government. When a black couple came in to adopt a child, the Mormons told the blacks that they don’t want to accommodate the ‘black lifestyle’ and said that a child needs white parents in order to be a dull individual. After this, the government told the group that they would need to allow blacks to adopt or they’d lose funding…and then the Mormons said that they were being oppressed and were forced to close. In defense of closing, the Mormons said that their beliefs about blacks are foundations to their faith and then listed many statistics showing that blacks are a ‘troubled group’ in many areas.The only difference in my analogy is race and Mormons instead of Catholics, but otherwise, it is spot on.

  • Rick C.

    JD, how about you answer this question first.Does a government-funded agency have to obey the law?I won’t bother calling you names but answer yes or no.

  • The word ‘potential’ in the phrase ‘potential foster parents’ means that they are not approved yet and are in the midst of going through the application process, nothing more.Will the third time be the charm? How about it Rick?Bock-bock-bock-BOOOOCK!

  • Rick C.

    JD, how about you answer this question first.Does a government-funded agency have to obey the law?I won’t bother calling you names but answer yes or no.

  • “Leaders of three Catholic dioceses — the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Joliet — took legal action today as their charities fight to continue their work in serving the best interests of thousands of needy children and families throughout the state.” LinkNotice that they are accused of discriminating by race yet no evidence of this is offered up at all.

  • Rick C.

    JD, does a government-funded agency have to obey the law? Yes or no?

  • GCT

    Wow, the Xian news wire gets the story wrong and writes a one-sided story in favor of the Catholics? Color me shocked.Also, it turns out that there’s a Lutheran child adoption agency which has turned away gay parents in the past and will now comply with the law because they think that helping children is more important than hating gays.LinkyThere’s also some good stuff in there about why the Catholics are being disruptive in their policies, even if they do refer to other agencies, etc.

  • Rick, I realize that for herd-mentality lemmings like yourself, criticizing from the balcony ala those two senior citizen muppets from the Muppet Show is sooo much fun and far easier than answering any direct questions concerning your position on a contraversial social issue. But I think its becoming quite apparent to anyone reading this thread, no matter what their opinion on the subject matter, that your intellect tank is reading below the EMPTY line and that you are a complete waste of space that nobody should listen to being that your street cred here is zero.Any attempts at changing the the topic by offering up a question of your own is a transparent as Justin’s inability to debate the topic on hand.Rick, pretty please, with sugar on it, answer the question…”Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there.”Your blatant pattern of evasion is becoming tiring.

  • In reply to your earlier question though Rick, it seems that the charity in question feels that, quote, “the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office and that the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act includes an express protection for the religious freedom of entities like Catholic Charities”.I wouldnt mind analyzing both the Human Rights Act and Relious Freedom Protection Act to see if there is language in there that would explain the position of Catholic charities in this matter.But, dont change the subject now Rick. I asked you first. Answer the question, 5th attmpt..”Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there.”

  • GCT

    JD’s tactic: ask a question that may or may not be related to the topic (usually isn’t or has already been covered), pretend that no one has ever answered it and don’t accept any answers except the one he wants, and either crow triumphantly if someone gives him the answer he wants or crow triumphantly that no one will answer his question unless he gets the answer he wants and therefore continue to avoid having to actually debate the topic. All done while complaining that no one wants to debate the topic with him. C’mon JD, the act is well-worn thin by now. I like your consistency, but it was a bad strategy the first time you tried it, oh so long ago, and it’s still a bad strategy. Also, your insistence on heaping scorn and abuse on others is more juvenile than erudite, especially when that scorn and abuse is unaccompanied by actual arguments, an ability to debate the topic at hand, and/or logic and facts that actually support your position.

  • Rick C.

    JD, does a government-funded agency have to obey the law? Yes or no?

  • Rick C.

    You want a yes or no answer to your irrelevant question. I want a yes or no answer to my relevant question.

  • Rick C.

    Aw forget it, I want to see the next step in JD’s master plan so for this purpose I answerYES.

  • Rick C.

    So now JD, you have to answer my yes or no question.

  • In order to more fully examine the stance that Catholic Charities has adopted, I think that a more thorough examination of the wording of the Illinois Human Rights Act and the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act in order to see what they actually say and then take it from there.But before we proceed, just so I understand you correctly, your ARE of the opinion that an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) CAN discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Correct?

  • Rick C.

    “Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there.”My answer to this question is yes.Now answer this – must a government funded agency obey the law?

  • Anonymous

    I think that a more thorough examination of the wording of the Illinois Human Rights Act and the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act in order to see what they actually say and then take it from there.You are not a lawyer, Curtis. You examining that would be a waste of time.

  • Now since an agency can discriminate based on promiscuity, the right-wing homophobes over at Psychology Today had this to say recently…”I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, “No.” LinkSo apparently monogamy is being redefined as it has always been understood.An ancient study done in England (2010) showed that none of those in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. LinkApparently the hate-filled religious zealots at San Francisco State University’s Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality thought the study worthy of inclusion in their Spring 2010 newsletter.Likewise, a “Dutch study…found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.” LinkSo do you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases?

  • Hey Anon.You don’t even have the cahones to create a profile, or even a name. Arguing with a complete putz like you would be a waste of time

  • Rick C.

    I said an agency COULD discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous.I’m sure an agency could discriminate against races and class status. In fact, the agencies probably do.Not that I think this discrimination id right or wrong or the correct thing to do.Someone already mentioned what you would do if I answered.And you did it.Anonymous said: “I have a feeling Curtis will flip from”Could an agency that places children discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous?”to”Could an agency that places children discriminate if one or both of the foster parents are potentially promiscuous?”Big difference.”

  • Anonymous

    Here’s a logic course for you, curtis.”are promiscuous” does not equal “potentially promiscuous“Human beings are “potentially promiscuous”. It’s hard to believe that after more than one person predicted your failure in logic you still went through with it. We called you out, you said that wasn’t your logic and you still went through with it. What’s wrong with you?As for your links. Did you even read them? “Is it cheating if both partners agree to be non-monogamous?”You fail.Time to wake up and look in the mirror. You’re a bigot, curtis.

  • Rick C.

    JD, do you believe a government-funded agency must obey the law? Yes or no?

  • Anonymous

    Rick, curtis failed so hard I don’t think he’ll be back.

  • I’m sure an agency could discriminate against races and class status. In fact, the agencies probably doBut we arent talking about that. I don’t think anyone here would suggest as such.I’m completely flummoxed that you are so absolutely stupid as to read as ambiguous the question “your ARE of the opinion that an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) CAN discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Correct?”How could this possibly be misconsTrued as ‘ability’ rather than as a source of criteria??

  • Anonymous

    English language. Do you speak it, curtis? Read back at how carefully Rick answered the question.You should know the difference between “can I leave the room?” and “may I leave the room?”You failed.”is promiscuous” does not equal “potentially promiscuous”

  • Is it cheating if both partners agree to be non-monogamousNice bait and swith from “promiscuity” to “that which is considered cheating between parties in a relationship”.Youre still my intellectual bitch you no name, no cahones, homocritic fool.

  • Joe

    You’re still avoiding a question Rick asked you, curtis.JD, do you believe a government-funded agency must obey the law? Yes or no? You can call me Joe.

  • Joe

    I’ve been re-reading this thread and noting every time you take a stereotype of a group of people and apply it to every member of that group, curits.Your comments are a good example of prejudice and bigotry, curtis.

  • I’ve been re-reading this thread and noting every time you take a stereotype of a group of people and apply it to every member of that groupBut I never said that it does or should apply to every member of a group.I merely asked in my entry timestamped 9:40 if “you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases?”I’ll tell you what, simply show me that heterosexual married couples are anywhere near the same as same sex couples in terms of promiscuity, specifically in the average number of sex partners per year and over the course of a lifetime and I’ll call the whole thing off and concede the point. Deal?

  • Anonymous

    you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of Jewish or black applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases (while the government pays for the agency to run)?

  • Mark Edie

    There’s not really enough data to compare heterosexual married couples to homosexual married couples because so few countries allow same-sex marriage or these countries have not allowed same-sex marriage long enough to create reliable data. The prejudice JD Curtis has against homosexuals is wholly negative, not just for the people around JD Curtis but for society itself.While growing up in a social climate where you are getting this strong stereotypes about what you are supposed to be, and then you see the government making legislation denying you rights, and confirming this ideas, you start believing them to inevitable traits you must accept. JD Curtis’s reasoning, if it can be called that, often lies on unsupported assumptions. He spent a lot of time trying to stereotype homosexuals as promiscuous but didn’t offer any reasons why his reasoning should not apply to the more promiscuous minority races. Or why a stereotype of an applicant should be examined instead of evaluating the applicant. Or why the agency should continue to collect funds from the government when the conditions for the funds to be given are not met.

  • There’s not really enough data to compare heterosexual married couples to homosexual married couples because so few countries allow same-sex marriage or these countries have not allowed same-sex marriage long enough to create reliable dataThis is verifiably incorrect. Up above I cited an Engish study and a Dutch study which were not hard to find. Additionally, I could cite this source which pegs the rate of “non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships” at anywhere betweeen 75%-95%. Then again, we must take into consideration the aformentioned redefinition of monogamy as “serial monogamy” or “emotional monogamy” as well. I’m not to up on this subject but it was quite easy to find.The prejudice JD Curtis has against homosexuals is wholly negative, not just for the people around JD Curtis but for society itselfThanks for bringing this up. Earlier I raised the points that, “I ‘hate gays’ so much that I provide a link to the archive of a columnist who is gay and always have since I started my blog.” And also asked “Why is one of the 14 followers I have gay? Isnt that disproportionate when compared to the overall population?”Not that I expected any of the free-speech bigots/homocritics to critically analyze these points and respond to them. Perhaps we arent talking about hate here and it’s something that has less to do with predjudice/hatred/homophobia/bigotry and more to to with inconvenient truths backed by empirical evidence?While growing up in a social climate where you are getting this strong stereotypes about what you are supposed to be, and then you see the government making legislation denying you rights, and confirming this ideas, you start believing them to inevitable traits you must acceptWhat rights are being denied by the government? How is the government ‘confirming ideas’?JD Curtis’s reasoning, if it can be called that, often lies on unsupported assumptionsAre we reading the same thread? I have now cited three different source and have yet to see any cited by those who hold to an opposing viewpoint which I believe to be rooted in emotionalism over what makes me FEEL good and political correctness rather than scientific and empirical evidence.He spent a lot of time trying to stereotype homosexuals as promiscuous but didn’t offer any reasons why his reasoning should not apply to the more promiscuous minority racesMore precisely, I have offered up various studies hich indicate non-momogany rates of anywhere between 75% and 100% of one control group and the opposing viewpoint has not offered up one scintilla of evidence to refute it. Neither were any statistics offered up by anybody concerning “the more promiscuous minority races” and with good reason… It would have been devastatingly stupid to change the subject from sexual orientation to race and not have the ability to cite various support groups for those struggling with being an “ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.”Or why a stereotype of an applicant should be examined instead of evaluating the applicantGee, maybe the 3rd time I post this question will be the charm…”Do you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases?”

  • Joe

    I could cite this source which pegs Anon said “homosexual married couples” which this study is not about. You’re comparing apples and oranges.with being an “ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.You seem to be saying you shouldn’t discriminate against racial minorities because they can’t help being not white.

  • Anonymous

    Holy cow, JD. It would have been devastatingly stupid to change the subject from sexual orientation to race and not have the ability to cite various support groups for those struggling with being an “ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.”You must know there ARE actual support groups for racial minorities to help them with the difficulties they face. Now answer the question. If racial minorities are more sexually promiscuous why shouldn’t your reasoning be applied to them. And where have you shown that having promiscuous parents is worse than living in an orphanage?You seem to assume that not only is homosexuality wrong but somehow sexual orientation can be changed. Why should the government pay for your bigotry?

  • You must know there ARE actual support groups for racial minorities to help them with the difficulties they faceHoly Cow nameless, faceless, clueless idiot! Where is the group that helps them deal with any member of th aforementioned groups with being a former member of said group?Now answer the question. If racial minorities are more sexually promiscuous why shouldn’t your reasoning be applied to themAre the statistics you are hiding and still havent cited anywhere near the 75%-100% non-monogamy in the above studies that I have cited? Do you even know? If not, then shouldnt you actually think first before posting and shouldnt you make this information readily available? Or did you graduate from the Don Quixote School of Argumentation and thus your unparalleled level of ineptitude is then easily understandable?And where have you shown that having promiscuous parents is worse than living in an orphanage?Define ‘promiscuous’ in this instance. Are we talking about an average of eight different sex partners per year outside of the ‘committed’ relationship? Where is your data that makes an orphanage worse and what type of orphanage are we talking about? You brought it up so I assume you would know but I don’t think that you do.You seem to assume that not only is homosexuality wrong but somehow sexual orientation can be changedExample 1Example 2Tell me young lad or laddess, exactly how much actual thought was required for you to base your best argument upon no less an authority than a catchy Lady Gaga video? There are countless stories of people leaving such a lifestyle behind. Would your blind, bigoted ignorance force the aforementioned examples from opting for heterosexuality? Adolph?Why should the government pay for your bigotry?I am in no way, shape or form a bigot and I have called repeatedly for one shred of evidence whatsoever that I am and I’m still waiting for it. Not that you were listening at all as you seem quite comfortable in your biases. Bigot.However, generally speaking, the government should no more fund any sort of bigotry than it apparently already has in your case given your obvious public school level of complete ignorance, incompetence and mental handicap.

  • Anon said “homosexual married couples” which this study is not about. You’re comparing apples and orangesAnd now the burden is on you to prove that by merely sprinkling the word ‘marriage” on gay unions, that it automatically = greater levels of monogamy. Me personally? I’m not prone to such ‘magical thinking’.You seem to be saying you shouldn’t discriminate against racial minorities because they can’t help being not whiteThe fact that I didnt write anything remotely like that would serve to invalidate your tortured speculation. Although you might want to consider the morality of writing such slander as you wallow about in the particular stench of your False Accusation Bigotry.

  • Anonymous

    I am in no way, shape or form a bigot and I have called repeatedly for one shred of evidence whatsoever that I am and I’m still waiting for it. Not that you were listening at all as you seem quite comfortable in your biases. Bigot.This thread is the evidence. You’re the same as my religious cousin who says black people shouldn’t have the same rights as white people but also says no-one has ever proved he’s a bigot.

  • Chris

    And now the burden is on you to prove that by merely sprinkling the word ‘marriage” on gay unions, that it automatically = greater levels of monogamy. Me personally? I’m not prone to such ‘magical thinking’.If you are married, I’d consider you a hypocrite. I’ll take that back if you are not married.

  • This thread is the evidenceWhere? What specifically did I write? Unless the definition of bigotry has changed to ‘Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot’, then how do I even remotely fit the criteria?You really are as hopelessly stupid as your are highly bigoted and vapid.

  • GCT

    JD,It’s already been pointed out to you, multiple times, in this thread alone, why you are a bigot. Your emphasis on painting every member of a group with the same brush as the stereotyped subset that you imagine they all must be is textbook bigotry. I’d add that your reliance on sources like WND to prove what you already think you know about gays is more evidence. Being gay is not a choice. Did you choose to be hetero, to be attracted to women (Caribbean black women apparently)?Will you ever answer Rick’s question?”So do you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases?”Breathtakingly stupid, even by your standards (if I can paraphrase someone I hold in very low esteem). If they don’t have the resources to do their jobs in regards to all applicants, then they shouldn’t be doing this job.”But I never said that it does or should apply to every member of a group.”So, it is not your stance that some gays may be more promiscuous that straight people so therefore no gays should get married/be allowed to adopt? C’mon, quit lying.”free-speech bigots/homocritics”Let me get this straight. We’re allowing you to argue, but we’re free-speech critics. We’re saying that the Catholics aren’t allowed to unlawfully discriminate, and that somehow makes us free-speech critics? We’re standing up for the rights of gays to adopt/marry/etc and that somehow makes us “homocritics”? This is even more breathtakingly stupid than the stuff above.

  • I did address Rick’s question. Justin, could you check your SPAM filter? I saw it posted here for a minute or two but then it was gone. Thanks.

  • GCT

    “Now since an agency can discriminate based on promiscuity, the right-wing homophobes over at Psychology Today had this to say recently……So apparently monogamy is being redefined as it has always been understood….”Looked at the link and I’m unimpressed. This was a blog article for one. Secondly, the plural of anecdote is not “data” and if it were, the comments alone from multiple gay people looking for traditionally defined monogamy would be enough. Further, the author clearly states that this is an issue with them being men, not being gay.”An ancient study done in England (2010) showed that none of those in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity.Apparently the hate-filled religious zealots at San Francisco State University’s Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality thought the study worthy of inclusion in their Spring 2010″Yup, looked at this too. Didn’t you read it? It was a study of 8 gay men. 8. That’s it. From a study involving 8 gay men you’re going to generalize about all gays and say that no gays can adopt? What about women? If you look at the studies, men are more promiscuous than women, so therefore men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt and only women should. Therefore only lesbian couples should be allowed, right? Somehow I don’t think you’ll agree.”Likewise, a “Dutch study…found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.””Your link also points out that as the gay community is becoming more accepted the numbers are trending in the direction of more closely aligning with hetero couple’s numbers. Also, once again, it’s a specifically male study. Your argument seems to be that men are more likely to be promiscuous, not that homosexuals are.”Additionally, I could cite this source which pegs the rate of “non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships” at anywhere betweeen 75%-95%.”Cite please. How did they go about their methodology? Was it 8 gay male couples, like the other study you cited?

  • GCT

    “I did address Rick’s question. Justin, could you check your SPAM filter? I saw it posted here for a minute or two but then it was gone. Thanks.”Post it again. It shouldn’t be too hard to write “Yes” or “No.”

  • GCT

    Justin,I just had a long response to JD’s sources eaten up. It appeared and now it is gone. I think the SPAM filter got me too. And, since it’s not a simple “Yes” or “No” post, I probably can’t re-create it very easily. Can you fish it out of the filter…and get JD’s too while you’re at it to see if he really did answer the question or weasel out like he normally does.

  • I haven’t read every comment on this page but here’s my opinion.I don’t care who the Catholics discriminate against as long as they are not accepting taxpayers’ money. Groups by their very nature are discriminatory. And there’s nothing wrong with that.But once you are funded by taxpayers then the group must obey laws and regulations that stem from that. If this agency doesn’t want to do that then no more taxpayers money for them.

  • Sorry for the spam filter picking up some posts. I restored one post that was blocked by the filter – and only one was there.

  • GCT

    Thanks for restoring that Justin. My spam filter catches stuff too, so I understand.But, if there was only 1 in there, where is JD’s phantom reply to Rick’s question? Perhaps he’ll fill us in with a “Yes” or “No” sometime soon?

  • I don’t see my reply up above but it went something like this…Douchebag Rick,Since it seems you are quite concerned about Catholic charities following “the law” as you put it.It would seem that Catholic charities believes that it is exempt from having to place children with homosexual couples and this is through not one but two seperate pieces of legislation. the first would be the “Illinois Human Rights Act [which] exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office” and also the “new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act [which] includes an express protection for the religious freedom of entities like Catholic Charities”. LinkNow, please explain to me why Illinois Catholic Charities is not protected by either of these two pieces of legislation.You brought it up Copernicus, now please explain why. I await your reply.

  • Anonymous

    How does the Illinois Human Rights Act and Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act possibly apply?Have you read them?Here’s the text of the Illinois Human Rights Acthttp://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2266&ChapterID=64I implore you to find a relevant passage and explain how to applies.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the text of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Acthttp://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09600SB1716ham001&GA=96&SessionId=76&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=&DocNum=1716&GAID=10&SessionI implore you to find a relevant passage and explain how to applies. I believe you will be looking in vain. You have been lied to.

  • Lets recap the conversation so far for any dimwitted participants who seem to be sleepblogging.A. I asked “When it comes to adoption, how could charities that are historically faith-based operate outside the realm of government?” 11 days ago and nobody has effectively answered this yet.B. I asked that AVW substantiate her claim that the sample size in the “#1 Reason that men leave the homosexual lifestyle is to heal emotional pain” study and she has not done so yet.C. I further asked her (AVW) if “the religious zealots over at the Department of Health and Human Sevices fake[d] the data due to an extremist religious agenda when they published that “gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually”? and she has yet to reply.D. I further asked “Why are suicide rates of homosexuals in Norway, where gay marraige has been been legal for over a decade, so high?(and likewise the Netherlands.) and nobody has addressed this question at all.E. When David stated “The foundation of Christianity is Jesus. He never said a word about homosexuality, right or wrong” and I pointed out that Jesus clearly stated “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” and his only retort was a second grade level “B-b-b-b-ut that doesnt say it’s WRONG!” and by his own metric, then beastiality and and peadophilia must be A-OK in his book because Jesus didnt speak out against those things specifically either. (Cluelessly ignoring Old Testament admonishments against all of these behaviors)F. When I pointed out the FACT that “According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000”, nobody disputed this in the slightest and none of the homocritics to date has offered to explain why they wish a more secular society where gay marraige is legal despite the risk of doubling homosexual suicide rates.G. I have asked a couple of times why, if any reservations I have against gay adoption are motivated by “hate”, then why do I link to the archive of a gay columnist over at my blog and why is one of my 14 followers gay? And yet none of the free speech bigots cares to explain this phenomenon whatsoever.H. I addressed No Longer Catholic’s emotional plea they attempted to pass off as legitimate argument on it’s own thread on my blog but they didnt have the brains/guts/cahones to refute a single point that I made.I. I had to ask Douchebag Rick the question “Could an agency that places children (faith-based or secular) discriminate if one or both of the potential foster parents are promiscuous? Please try your level best to answer this question in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ type of format and then we’ll take it from there” 6 frickin times and none of the enlightened “free-thinkers” on this blog called him out for her evasiveness. In the end, he still stupidly messed up the question.J. Joe stated that “every time you (JD) take a stereotype of a group of people and apply it to every member of that group” when I never stated any such thing.

  • Continued…K. I have cited no fewer than 4 different studies that peg non-monogamy rates in long-term homosexual relationships at anywhere from 75% to 100% and yet the opposite side has not offered up one study of their own to refute these numbers.L. At least twice on this thread have people with the opposing viewpoint tried to change the topic from “sexual orientation” to “race” and nobody has been able to cite one single “support group[s] for those struggling with being an “ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.” despite me asking this question multiple timesM. At least twice on this thread the opposing viewpoint has stated that minorities are more promiscuous and yet they havent cited a single study to back up this assertion and I think that this is a stereotype that the opposing viewpoint is falsley reinforcing.N. I have asked how, “by merely sprinkling the word ‘marriage” on gay unions, that it automatically = greater levels of monogamy.” yet nobody has bothered to answer this.O. I have asked at least 3 times for one shred of evidence that I am a bigot and none has been forthcoming.P. We’re starting to run out of letters in the alphabet people. Is any of the above untrue?

  • Anonymous

    JD,The majority of your points have already been addressed or are not applicable.Please pay attention to your spelling and grammar.

  • Which ones were addressed Anon?

  • Commenters, please stop hurling personal attacks.JD, people aren’t surveying this thread to the extent that you presumably are. Don’t expect all commenters to come back or answer your questions.

  • Chuck Conners

    The rate of HIV/AIDS diagnosis for black women (45.5/100,000 women) was about 23 times the rate for white women (2.0/100,000).ChlamydiaThe CDC states on their FAQs page, “the greater the number of sex partners, the greater the risk of infection”. The chlamydia rate measures the cases of chlamydia per 100,000 person in each group. Black Women: 1906/100,000 White Women: 249/100,000SyphilisThe syphilis rate measures the rate of syphilis case per 100,000 persons of the same group. Black Women: 5.6/100,000 White Women: 0.4/100,000Stats from the CDC.You asked for some stats.Now, JD, think very carefully. Higher rates of sexually transmitted infections was a reason why you thought homosexual people should be turned away from adoption agencies. Why doesn’t your logic apply to black women.

  • GCT

    JD,Are you going to answer Rick’s question or not?”When it comes to adoption, how could charities that are historically faith-based operate outside the realm of government?”Sorry, thought that was rhetorical. I don’t think they can, which is simply the nature of the beast. It has nothing to do with anything though.B was addressed previously by myself and some others, yet you’ve trotted it out here again as if it’s still a good source. You need to be more intellectually honest, which I know is hard for ideologues like yourself.C was answered, and as it turns out, it’s homophobes (or homocritics if you prefer) like you that make life harder for gays as minorities.D was also addressed, where I pointed out the study is old and doesn’t say what you claim it does. Now you are once again trotting it out as if no one has rebutted it? Where is your integrity?E David answered you…but no hint of that from you.F was addressed, again by me.G was addressed by multiple people, including me, yet you claim no one has even talked about it?H was addressed by others. And, no one went to your blog to play in your sandbox, but we tore them a new one here. Besides, your response wasn’t really any sort of response, so you’ve yet to actually address what NLC said.I And you have yet to answer the question posed to you. D’oh. Regardless, the question was answered and you showed that you were being duplicitous.J It’s exactly what you have been doing all thread long.K The studies were shown to be methodologically flawed to support the conclusions you are generating from them, and that was done by me. Yet, you claim no one has addressed them? Again, you are lying.L is a non-sequitor. Being gay is not a choice. Second time I’ve asked this: Did you choose to be hetero? Yes or no?M I’ll try and find some data on that. Yet, if that were the case (hypothetically) would you also argue against minority adoptions? Yes or no?N This is due to the normalization of the culture around gays. Once gays are less part of the fringes of society, we see a lot of the typical “issues” with marginalized groups going away. In fact, some of the sources that you yourself have cited have pointed out the trends are going towards this, which you seem to have missed. Why do you cite sources that don’t agree with you or have points that you seem wholly unaware of?O is a straight up lie. I’ve explained it to you quite a few times now as have a couple other people. You simply ignore that we’ve said anything and continue to claim that no one has said anything. It’s lying, plain and simple.P Yes, almost all of it, as I’ve pointed out once again. I predict that you will continue to ignore it and claim that no one is addressing your “points.”

  • Higher rates of sexually transmitted infections was a reason why you thought homosexual people should be turned away from adoption agencies. Why doesn’t your logic apply to black womenThat was only one area of concern out of many. The more important statistics I cited dealt with non-monogamy rates. You didnt run across any of those for comparative purposes, did you?

  • GCT

    Third time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?Second time:If it were the case that certain groups were found to be less monogamous than others would you argue against them being able to adopt as well?

  • Joe

    GCT said:“Second time:”This might be the second time you’ve asked but it must be the tenth time a similar question has been asked“If it were the case that certain groups were found to be less monogamous than others would you argue against them being able to adopt as well?”No “if” about it. The statistics have already been quoted that racial minorities are less monogamous. Some of JD’s sources actually do argue that minorities should not be allowed to adopt childrenSee this article about a source JD quoted:http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/23/6861

  • Rick C.

    It’s strange that JD won’t answer this as he said monogamy was a “more important” area. So why does the “not monogamous enough” defense work for homosexuals and not African Americans or American Indians?

  • Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?I believe a wide variety of factors go into one’s sexual orientation.That being said, it’s undeniable that a homosexual lifestyle can be left behind. why does the “not monogamous enough” defense work for homosexuals and not African Americans or American Indians?Is this the same ‘Rick” that has yet to cite a single source to back up a single thing you’ve said?

  • Rick C.

    JD, did you read the article Joe linked to entitled “Anti-Gay “Expert” Would Consider Banning Adoptions By Native Americans“? This article is about one of YOUR sources. Did you miss the CDC statistics? Why does the “not monogamous enough” defense work for homosexuals and not African Americans or American Indians?And quote the where in the law you think allows the Catholic agency to discriminate in the way they are and continue to be funded by the government.

  • Rick C.

    it’s undeniable that a homosexual lifestyle can be left behindJD, GCT wasn’t asking about lifestyle. He was asking about orientation. GCT, it doesn’t matter if homosexuality is inherent or somehow chosen. If the Catholics want government money they have to follow the laws that come with accepting that money whether homosexuality is inherent or not.

  • GCT

    Fourth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?Third time (just by me):If it were the case that certain groups were found to be less monogamous than others would you argue against them being able to adopt as well?I’d also like to point out that on JD’s blog, he’s defending Herman Cain’s stance that he would not want a Muslim on his staff. It’s more textbook bigotry, only this time pointed at Muslims. Since there are Islamic terrorists, that means that all Muslims are terrorists. Some Muslims want Sharia Law, therefore all do. This makes it OK to say that Muslims – all Muslims – are unwelcome, apparently.

  • Anonymous

    curtis, one of your sources would like to “[ban] Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse.“These are two of the same reasons for which you wanted to deny gay people adoption.Which races would you ban from adopting? Or is it just gay people?

  • Anonymous

    You’re all looking at the wrong things. What about violence?I’m sure violence is overwhelming committed by males, not just in this society, but in others, and not just now, but in the distant past. We should ban adoption by males.Don’t amazed that JD Curtis doesn’t think he’s bigoted. Bigots rarely think they are bigots. “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see”

  • Chuck Conners

    JD gets exposed. Runs.

  • curtis,one of your sources would like to “[ban] Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse.”Thats news to me nameless, faceless, brainless wonder. Did I actually ever advocate this position that you attribute to me?Which races would you ban from adopting?How about we start with pussies who can’t put name next to what they write and then take it from there? They have to be the worst.You’re all looking at the wrong things. What about violence?Actually, I already posted about this.”Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.” LinkCould you point to astudy that shows that nomosexual couples are less inclined to be violent?I’m sure violence is overwhelming committed by males, not just in this society, but in others, and not just now, but in the distant pastWhy don’t we compare hmosexual couples with heterosexual ones in order to have an apples to apples comparison? It couldnt be because you are too completely stupid to figure that out, so why are you behaving in such a clueless manner?Don’t amazed that JD Curtis doesn’t think he’s bigoted. Bigots rarely think they are bigots. “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see”I “don’t amazed” that not a single specific example has been cited of my nonexistant bigotry despite having asked for one multiple times.Bigot.

  • Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?I already answered this, bigot.If it were the case that certain groups were found to be less monogamous than others would you argue against them being able to adopt as well?Not without you defining ‘less monogamous’. For example, do non-monogamy rates in couples that you refer to begin to approach 75%-100% across the board?I’d also like to point out that on JD’s blog, he’s defending Herman Cain’s stance that he would not want a Muslim on his staffActually, Cain was asked if he would be comfortable having a Muslim on hs staff. One of the first signs of a Free Speech Bigot such as GCT is to twist someone’s words. “Not wanting” is different from “comfort” and Cain has already indicted that having a Muslim on his staff is within the realm of possibility. Not outside it.Bigot.

  • quote the where in the law you think allows the Catholic agency to discriminate in the way they are and continue to be funded by the governmentNo Rick. You were the one who asked if I thought they should obey the law and I merely asked if you understood the law and if you could show me where they were not complying with the law.A question that you have not only failed, but miserably so.If you have at all demonstrated that you understand anything other than exactly zero concerning any laws that you are concerned about, just tell me the timestamped entry up above where you did so.Other wise, your argument basically amounts to..Rick: Don’t you think they should obey the law?Me: I don’t know. What does the law state that you are referencing?Rick: Look it up yourself and tell me. D-u-u-uuh! Eye iz nots stoopid!

  • Chuck Conners

    Did I actually ever advocate this position that you attribute to me?He didn’t attribute the position to you just to one of your sources. “He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. “They would tend to hang around each other,” Rekers testified. “So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are … doing the same sorts of things.”“This is YOUR source. This is your source following your logic to its end.

  • Anonymous

    I already answered this, bigot.“No, you didn’t. You responded. Responding is different than answering. By the way, I love it that you want to discriminate against minorities and equate gay people with Nazis but you call everyone else bigots.

  • Thanks for clearing that up Chuck.So I guess the answer then is ‘no’. I never advocated anything that has to do with race.As in ‘no’, Dick has not demonstrated that he knows anything other than absolute zero about any “law” that he is allegedly so concerned with.As in ‘no’, GTC is NOT an apologist for Islam, but rather someone who depicts their prophet Mohammed engaged in the rape of a child using LEGO characters on his blog.No, you didn’t. You responded. Responding is different than answeringIf GCT is too stupid to figure out that there seems to be alot of agreement out there that a wide variety of factors, biological, how one is raised and what type of environment was involved, in forming one’s sexual preference thats his problem (and yours as well in that you were also too stupid to figure it out.)By the way, I love it that you want to discriminate against minorities and equate gay people with Nazis but you call everyone else bigotsBTW Bigot, I love how you just lied through your teeth, taking a blog entry concerning the disproportionately gay hierarchy of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and that somehow means that I “equate gay people with Nazis”. Please don’t mention that this assertion is supported by no less than William L. Sheer, whose eyewitness account, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the standard for which other history books on that time period are measured. I’ll tell you what Bald-Faced Liar of a Bigot.. Just show me the relative statement from me in which I “equate gay people with Nazis” and I’ll..A. Close my entire blog and go away forever, andB. Personally eat your s#!t every single day for the rest of my life. Deal?

  • Anonymous

    JD Curtis: “Gay Adoption uber alles”

  • Now explain how this “equates gays with Nazis”Gay adoption uber alles means gay adoption above everythingJust prove that all of the supporters of gay adoption here and elsewhere are gay and you win!Either that or prove that a song written in 1797 was Nazi in origin and I readily concede the point.Youre even more stupid than one former blogger I used to call Tinkbot the Stinkpot. HA!

  • German

    In 1945, after the end of World War II, singing Das Lied der Deutschen and other symbols of Nazi Germany were banned. You insert “Gay adoption” into the first line and lie about it not being a well-known symbol of Nazi Germany. It’s like if a dubbed you a Stoßtruppen and argued that it’s just German for Shock Troop and nothing to do with Nazi Germany. It is hard to find you talking about homosexuality without making references to Pink Swastikas and Pink Hands, and Fascists. Lying about it only makes it worse.

  • Anonymous

    JD on Homosexuality: “I think it’s a lifestyle choice made in response by somebody working out their Daddy Issues.””traditional marriage verboten!“”We’re screwed as a society if this continues. “

  • Anonapuss,Here’s the link to the aforementioned Tinkbell’s (a/k/a Tink-Tank-Tunk with the junk in the trunk) blog. A more intellectually vapid website you will not find on the entire web, I assure you. But such stupidity seems to be about your speed and I would encourage you to deposit your unique Pearls of Wisdom over there. Lord knows she could use the support and you will be among your intellectual peers as like no time previous in your life since you piddled in the preschool sandbox. Come to think of it, given the level of discourse over there, you’ll probably find it suprisingly similar to that time of your life.

  • Hey stupid ass,Are those my words or Chuck Colson’s?Do you really wish to remove any doubt as to how completely stupid you really are?I think it’s a lifestyle choice made in response by somebody working out their Daddy IssuesIt certainly may be. But more likely, I believe that its the result of a variety of factors.We’re screwed as a society if this continuesStupid ass, you were getting around to mentioning that I made this statement immediatly after pointing out a plan to teach “fisting” to middle school kids, werent you?Might I now consider your arguments on the positive effects of teaching underage school children about such practices?

  • Anonymous

    I’m still checking out JD’s sources.Did you know Paul Cameron was kicked out of the American Psychological Association in 1983 after distorting research on homosexuality?

  • In 1945, after the end of World War II, singing Das Lied der Deutschen and other symbols of Nazi Germany were banned. You insert “Gay adoption” into the first line and lie about it not being a well-known symbol of Nazi GermanyIt’s a song that predates the Nazi party by about a century. Sorry asshole, but facts are facts. Just ask Kaiser Willie.It’s like if a dubbed you a Stoßtruppen and argued that it’s just German for Shock Troop and nothing to do with Nazi GermanyIts like if youre grasping at staws, attributing a statement to me that I never made.It is hard to find you talking about homosexuality without making references to Pink Swastikas and Pink Hands, and FascistsYet I do not do this everytime or even often. When blogger Coco Loco refers to the radical gay agenda as Gay Inc., is that OK for him to do so or should he run it by a self-appointed censor such as yourself when he does so?Lying about it only makes it worseAgreed, especially since you are attributing to me a statement that I never made. Hypocrisy at its finest.

  • Anonymous

    Wait!JD Curtis says “Gay Adoption uber alles” and “traditional marriage verboten!” are not references to Nazi Germany?JD Curtis’ new slogan “Lying Uber Alles”

  • Wait!Saying that Deutschlandlied is somehow exclusively a Nazi song and WAS NOT written in 1797..ANDAttributing words to me that were written by Chuck Colson is sinking to new, previously unplumbed depths of intellectual dishonesty.”Lying uber alles” indeed.

  • Rick C.

    The swastika pre-dates even the Hindus. You can find Sumerian pottery with swastika decorations. But if you make references to swastika’s, no matter how hard you try you are never going to be able to get away fromthe NAZI associations.Same thing here.

  • The swastika pre-dates even the Hindus. You can find Sumerian pottery with swastika decorations. But if you make references to swastika’s, no matter how hard you try you are never going to be able to get away fromthe NAZI associationsDick? Did I use the term swastika even once on this thread? Or even once in the last two years for that matter?I do recall a blogging about a book directly concerning the third reicha while back in which the author chose that word in it’s title, but I have absolutely zero control over the choice of a book title that was made years ago.Any chance I’ll be getting that explanation concerning your interpretation of the “law” anytime in this lifetime Dick? 4th attemptThis is why you are a complete pussy Rick and you wouldnt last 5 minutes on my blog. Over there, I ask that people back up their assertions with FACTS, retract them or take a hike. You’d have been banned 15X over by now.

  • Anonymous

    “But if you make references to swastika’s… Same thing here.”Settle down. Rick didn’t say you made references to swastikas. He liken your attempt to explain “uber alles” to trying to explain swastikas in the same manner.

  • Anonymous

    Should be “likened” not “liken” in my last comment.

  • What’s this, a Catholic troll jamming up this blog with his worthless filth?Let me rewind back to the start of this mess:JD Curtis said… “Youre asking a religious group to set aside something that is described as wrong, repeatedly, in it’s foundational document.””But requiring them to place kids with same-sex couples would “force” them to violate the moral code upon which their religion is based upon. How could it possibly be any other way?””Why can’t they leave Catholic charities alone and let non-religious groups and government agencies where it is legal place kids in same-sex relationships? Why create conflict? I guess dissent on this matter is somehow not allowed?I think these agencies did a good job for decades without this type of outside interference. Why push the issue now if its not part of some over-arching agenda?”JD, you are a liar, pure and simple. The ONLY thing Justin said in his blog entry was that Catholic charities should not receive government funding if they discriminate against gays. Nothing more or less. And that’s the way it should be. Indeed, why should Catholic charities even need government funding, considering how massive and rich the Roman Catholic Church has been. Why are you defending unjust and illogical policies by LYING about the criticism of those policies?If this had been my blog, you would have been banned long ago. You are a fraud and so is your contemptible religion. Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

  • Rick didn’t say you made references to swastikas. He liken your attempt to explain “uber alles” to trying to explain swastikas in the same mannerAnd Rick’s example demonstrates that he’s as lazy in history as he is in argumentation. I’m not calling gays swastika bearers or anything remotely like that.It’s all reminicent of an idiot like Sam Harris trying to argue that Hitler was a Christian because the German Wermacht had belt buckles with the words Gott mitt uns (God is with us) when an any idiot with a computer can find such belt buckles for sale online from the 1800’s when those words were part of the Kaiser’s Imperial standard.

  • JD, you are a liar, pure and simpleAnd two cam play that game. Dale, I am calling you a liar. That is of course, unless you can point out where I have lied. For example…If you needed any further proof that you are a lyng idiot, I’m not even Catholic and I’ve never stated as such. Not that a verifiable liar such as yourself would be concerned with anything like FACTS.Liar.

  • Anonymous

    JD Curtis pretends his use of the phrase “Uber Alles” had nothing to do with Nazis. Let’s have a look at the first ten google results for the phrase (some results are given more than once):Wikipedia page – mentions it’s connection to the Nazis“California Uber Alles” – A song that compares Governor Jerry Brown to a Nazi.”Profits über Alles!” – Corporations and Nazi Germany.”Doherty Über Alles” – Pete Doherty in trouble because of his use of the phrase in Germany “taboo in Germany because of their Nazi associations.””Amerika Über Alles” – Compares America to Nazi Germany”Chilean president says sorry to Germany for writing Nazi slogan in Berlin guest book” – What was the offensive part of the slogan? Uber Alles.As anyone can see, JD Curtis is either lying or incredibly misguided. No-one is that stupid, not even JD, therefore JD is lying.

  • As anyone can see, JD Curtis is either lying or incredibly misguided. No-one is that stupid, not even JD, therefore JD is lyingThats your interpretation of a phrase, nothing more.If we examine at the title, ‘Gay Adoption uber alles’, it has to do with supporters of gay adoption, which arent anywhere near 100% gay themselves in their own respective sexual orientations (unless you can show otherwise *snicker*). It’s in reference to intolerant BIGOTS like yourself that will have no other way except that gay adoption be carried out and anyone who dares have any reservations about it is immediately demonized as a homophobe or hate filled person without ever producing a single shred of empirical evidence to dispute even one point that was raised by me or anyone else that might have reservations.Of course, one can never, ever, apply any sort of critical examination of your own argumentive techniques because to do so would reveal how much you have in common with Nazi techniques that demand that you villify the opposition. Period. I’m 100% certain not a single commenter here is the least bit familiar with who Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen are and how like mindless lemmings you are uncritically following their plan that was laid out in The Overhauling of Straight America. Quote…”At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.” LinkCan I ask that a single example that I am motivated by hate be produced again or can we all just accept that there will be absolutely none forthcoming?

  • Anonymous

    because to do so would reveal how much you have in common with Nazi techniques that demand that you villify the opposition.You just can’t stop comparing people to Nazis, can you?

  • Anonymous

    According the CDC, black women are much less monogamous than their white counterparts.You want to discriminate against homosexuals because you claim they are less monogamous. Why does your logic not apply to black women?

  • philaegle

    “Why does your logic not apply to black women?”cos blacks wouldn’t choose to be blacks but queers choose to be queer.No other reason. like Jd says, there’s no help groups for blacks but there’s Christian groups to stop homosexuality.

  • JD,I just want to ask you, since you repeatedly insist that you are not a bigot, whether adoption is the only thing you have a problem with. What about gay marriage? What about gays ordained in the ministry? Are you personally fine with these things? I suspect (and expect) that the adoption issue is not isolated and belongs to an overarching pattern of bigoted thinking.

  • Kei

    I came to see this after hearing the radio show.JD Curtis:I’m 100% certain not a single commenter here is the least bit familiar with who Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen areThen you are wrong. Just like you’ve been wrong about a lot of things. Your sources are discredited or biased. Your arguments are based in bigotry. Are you trying to use the “Rules for Radicals”? You seem to vilify anyone who dares to disagree with you.

  • JD, are you sock puppetting now? Seriously? Your e-mail address, before the @ and the website, is the same as the commenter “philaegle.” That would be a tremendous coincidence.

  • You just can’t stop comparing people to Nazis, can you?I thought you were going to show how youre NOT a liar and demonstrate how I equate gays with Nazis. If you like the moniker of “demonstrable liar”, then who am I to object?According the CDC, black women are much less monogamous than their white counterpartsFor the umpteenth time, do non-monogamy rates by the group that you allegedly looked up begin to approach anywhere near the 75%-100% rate?I suspect (and expect) that the adoption issue is not isolated and belongs to an overarching pattern of bigoted thinkingMich, would you mind pointing out how I am a bigot? I’m quite certain that no dictionary in the English speaking world would define bigotry as mere “disagreement”. Please? Maybe you’ll be the first one to offer up concrete evidence that I’m a bigot after only asking for such about 17 times on this thread alone?If you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever, then please demonstrate that you yourself are not engaging in bigoted behaviour by labeling someone as such without having any ability of demonstrating that they are.Then you are wrongHow am I wrong? By directly quoting the manner in which they advised on how to cut off dissent about a particular issue?Simply saying that I’m wrong does not make me wrong any more than calling me a bigot simply makes it so.Bigot.

  • Justin,The first time I saw somebody use the moniker ‘philaegle” was during a hacking attempt about 2 months ago on my blog.If you dig into my archive, you would see that the very first couple of entries I made (several years ago) was under the moniker ‘philaegle’, but I quickly changed it to JD Curtis and never went back.After the aforementioned hacking attempt in which the perpretrator used “philaegle” in an attempt to gain access to my account, blogger realized something was amiss and shut down the entire blog. I had to call them for a code in which to unlock it.If you have any information as to who actually did use ‘philaegle’ in the above entry timestamped 7:59, please email it to me so I can forward it to the proper people.

  • “Maybe you’ll be the first one to offer up concrete evidence that I’m a bigot after only asking for such about 17 times on this thread alone?”To expand on anonymous’s comment “This thread is the evidence.” Your comments on this thread are the evidence. We can not see into your mind. Our opinions of you are informed by the comments you post. I don’t care if you are a bigot or not but you have continually missed the point.If Catholic charities agree to receive money from the state, they have to play by the state’s rules.It’s not like the Catholic church is low on money. They are free to discriminate in any manner they want – provided they are not receiving money from the state.

  • Let me get this straight,A verifiable homophobic, racist bigot who has the distinction of being one of the few people who has ever been banned from my blog because of repeated sock-puppetry under various monikers which basically boiled down to them repeatedly calling me a bigot and refusing to back up the statement with one shred of evidence, is now lecturing me that “this thread” is proof of my alleged bigotry and yet (again, predictably) they make no reference to anything I have stated specifically in which we can analyze to see if it fits the textbook definition of the word “bigotry” as it appears in any common dictionary in the English speaking world.Do I have this about right? Bigot?

  • Do I have this about right?No, you have it wrong because that’s not actually true. I’m genuinely interested in how you think I’m a “verifiable homophobic, racist bigot” and would love to hear how you came to that conclusion.

  • JD,You respond,”Mich, would you mind pointing out how I am a bigot? I’m quite certain that no dictionary in the English speaking world would define bigotry as mere “disagreement”. Please? Maybe you’ll be the first one to offer up concrete evidence that I’m a bigot after only asking for such about 17 times on this thread alone?”Would you mind actually answer the simple questions I put to you? My only interest in asking was for the sake of clarity, so that we all know where you stand on the issue of homosexuality generally. After all, bigotry – if that word indeed applies to you – is often not an isolated incident but is informed by a larger world view. So please be honest enough to state in unambiguous language whether or not you personally think it is fine for gay couples to become legally married, and whether or not you are personally ok with gays being ordained in ministry. If you answer in the negative for these two questions, we will have reason to believe that your stance on the particular issue of adoption is not independent and is in fact informed by a general disdain for homosexuals.Please be honest, now.Peace.

  • Anonymous

    Kei said about JD:”You seem to vilify anyone who dares to disagree with you.“I think it’s more of an attempt to destroy words. If he calls everyone bigots over and over eventually the word means less and less. Then when he gets called a bigot it’ll mean less. It’s pointless to talk to him. He dodges questions. Makes baseless accusations. He can’t understand that not everyone in group X is a caricature of what group X is. He’s like the person who wouldn’t hire a African American and say the reason is they get arrested more. And we’d all know the real reason.Let me tell you this guy. He’s white. He’s under educated. He’s probably a talk-radio fan. He’s got almost nothing and he’s desperately afraid of losing that. As white male heterosexual Christian he feels he should be top of the pile.I bet he LOVES this attention. Maybe now his life can have some meaning! He’s getting back at those damn homosexual fascists! Wanting equality? Why don’t they know their place? When he says “Why create conflict?” “Why change?” and “why push the issue?” he means “Why don’t these people know their place?”

  • I’m sorry Mich, but I did not make my first foray into this thread by applying a highly negative label to you based on your point of view.Please explain how you made the giant leap to your statement of fact that I am a bigot and please list what definition of bigotry you are using along with any criteria you considered when arriving at this conclusion.Also, “If you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever, then please demonstrate that you yourself are not engaging in bigoted behaviour by labeling someone as such without having any ability of demonstrating that they are”. (2X)Please note that I’m not calling you a bigot at this point Mich. I’m merely pointing out that intolerance for opposing viewpoints that manifests itself by the definitive action of affixing negative stereotypes to people you disagree with when you cannot show that the person qualifies as the highly-negative stereotypical label that you chose actually does, by definition, qualify as bigotry.you have it wrong because that’s not actually trueI’m sorry, but I’ve been waiting since late August of 2010 when you began posting under the first of at least three different online personalities in which you repeatedly made the thus far unfounded assertion that I am a “bigot” and yet to date, you havent offered up any proof whatsoever. Any day now would be just fine.No wonder you blog is a veritable wasteland. It seems that even like-minded people on your side are quite creeped out at tthe idea of someone whose personal hatred causes them to commit a misdemanor and adopt an online personality obsessed with the object of their hate.Try to have a nice day anyway though.Bigot ;-)

  • Anonymous

    michadelic never called you a bigot, curtis.

  • GCT

    JD,Fifth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.”Not without you defining ‘less monogamous’. For example, do non-monogamy rates in couples that you refer to begin to approach 75%-100% across the board?”Those rates only apply to a small subset of the gay population…specifically 8 gay male couples that were used in a small study. That you wish to apply that small, biased sample to the whole of homosexuals is rather dodgy, to say the least. Of course, this was already pointed out to you, and you’ve ignored it so that you can continue to use your 75-100% figure. Did you think no one would notice that your source and your argument was discredited?Either way, it seems that you have answered that question at least. You would only advocate not allowing gay couples to adopt, and you’ll find whatever “fact” you can to support your already made conclusion that they should not adopt. Tell me how this is not a bigoted stance?”As in ‘no’, GTC is NOT an apologist for Islam, but rather someone who depicts their prophet Mohammed engaged in the rape of a child using LEGO characters on his blog.”And you object to that? No you don’t.”I’ll tell you what Bald-Faced Liar of a Bigot.. Just show me the relative statement from me in which I “equate gay people with Nazis” and I’ll..”Pink swastika…on your blog…go eat sh*t.”Anonapuss,”Can you knock it off with the misogyny?”Are those my words or Chuck Colson’s?”Were you not aware of what your own sources said before you posted them?”It’s all reminicent of an idiot like Sam Harris trying to argue that Hitler was a Christian…”He was, although not a very good one.”That is of course, unless you can point out where I have lied.”Your repeated use of disputed sources that have been shown to be dodgy in this very thread (and the way you claim they mean X when they don’t, even after it’s been pointed out to you) is intellectually dishonest and simply lying. Your insistence that no one has made arguments to rebut yours, that no one has answered your sources, and that no one has even attempted to point out your bigotry is also a flat out lie.”If we examine at the title, ‘Gay Adoption uber alles’, it has to do with supporters of gay adoption…”Yup, us supporters of gay rights are all Nazis, eh?”For the umpteenth time, do non-monogamy rates by the group that you allegedly looked up begin to approach anywhere near the 75%-100% rate?”For the umpteenth time, it’s already been pointed out to you what is wrong with this statistic. Why do you continue to use this statistic in a misleading way that is not supported by the study the way you claim it is? You’re not claiming that those 8 male gay couples should be disallowed from adoption, you’re claiming this statistic is true across the board and that no gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Do you not see the problem with that?

  • GCT

    “I’m sorry Mich, but I did not make my first foray into this thread by applying a highly negative label to you based on your point of view.”And you call everyone else stupid and bad at reading comprehension?”Please explain how you made the giant leap to your statement of fact that I am a bigot and please list what definition of bigotry you are using along with any criteria you considered when arriving at this conclusion.”Please explain how you made the leap to the conclusion of someone asking you to further clarify your views as being an attack on your person. I do think you protest too much.”Also, “If you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever, then please demonstrate that you yourself are not engaging in bigoted behaviour by labeling someone as such without having any ability of demonstrating that they are”. (2X)”Um, maybe because we’re only talking about you and your behavior, not making judgments about entire groups like you do?

  • Unstoppable Conan

    The state of Illinois is violating the religious freedom of the Catholics by not giving them taxpayer dollars to use in the promotion of Catholic doctrines. (sarcasm)

  • michadelic never called you a bigot, curtisActually, Mich made reference to “an overarching pattern of bigoted thinking” on my part. If you would like to show where bigoted thinking is within the realm of the tolerant and open-minded, then please do. Otherwise bigots hold such views. Like yourself for instance.Bigot.

  • GCT

    JD,Sixth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.First Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • The above cited example of 8 people showed 100% non-monogamy, not 75%. FAIL.GCT, take my above answer to your question and lets analyze it.

  • Anonymous

    8 person non-random sample size?Talk about dishonest!

  • Anonymous

    “michadelic never called you a bigot, curtisActually, Mich made reference to “an overarching pattern of bigoted thinking” on my part. “Read what he said again. He never called you a bigot.

  • Anonymous

    head over to curtis’ blog and read his new post about how Latinos won’t speak English and how they discriminate against him by pretending not to understand him. (Read it before he edits it!)

  • Mich speculated that..”I suspect (and expect) that the adoption issue is not isolated and belongs to an overarching pattern of bigoted thinking”Why can’t I ask Mich why they expect that the adoption issue is not isolated and belongs to an overarching pattern of bigoted thinking? If Mich is not basing opinions about my views in their own prejudices, preconceived notions and bigotry, then Mich doesnt have a single thing to worry about.Youre not trying to (characteristically with your own proven bigotry) stifle my freedom of expression to ask fair questions, are you? Confirmed liar of a Bigot?

  • Yongary

    You can say what you want but I can’t help what it makes you look like and how it shapes people’s opinions of you.(Since there’s more than one anonymous person I’ve chosen a temporary name, Yongary.)

  • Anonymous

    standing up against discrimination against minorities does not make one a bigot, curtis.this whole act of yours where everyone is bigoted against white christian heterosexuals is reprehensible. to pretend a 8 person non-random sample represents an entire group is dishonest.

  • head over to curtis’ blog and read his new post about how Latinos won’t speak English and how they discriminate against him by pretending not to understand him. (Read it before he edits it!)The true sign of a complete intellectual pussy is such posts as this by a nameless, faceless wuss that doesnt even have the cahones to blog under a profile. It’s all reminiscent of the biggest sissy on the entire playground who couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag and yet squealed with glee the loudest when one would occur.I’m not going to edit a thing nor do I think I should. Anyone is welcome to blog over there and state their opinion.I guess when one is a confirmed liar, then telling three more lies (i.e. #1. I never said they discriminate against me, but that certain Latinos are prejudiced #2. I never state that that they pretend not understand me, just that their prejudices prevent them from even listening to me in the first place and #3. I never stated that “Latins won’t speak English” but only certain ones refuse to do so) Why not tell a few more whoppers? Bigot.

  • JD,For all your verbosity you could have answered two yes/no questions. Did you forget to do so? I find that hard to believe. It seems that you are quite purposefully dodging some very straightforward questions, which gives me a lot of reason to believe that adoption is not the only issue with you. You also don’t like the idea of gays marrying. Now, if you were really concerned about encouraging monogamy among gays, you would be for gay marriage. I’d also be willing to bet that you’d leave your church (assuming you go) in an instant if you found out the minister was gay. So please, JD, prove me wrong then and tell everyone that you are fine with gay marriage and ordination and that adoption is an isolated issue for you. It shouldn’t be hard. Then again, if you had any intention of coming clean with your pretenses you’d have done so already and not dodged my questions.

  • GCT

    JD,”The above cited example of 8 people showed 100% non-monogamy, not 75%. FAIL.”The cited figures of 75% to 100% are derived from this one study of 8 male gay couples. FAIL right back at ya.Seventh time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Second Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • GCT

    “The true sign of a complete intellectual pussy is such posts as this by a nameless, faceless wuss that doesnt even have the cahones to blog under a profile. It’s all reminiscent of the biggest sissy…”Can you stop with the macho, male posturing and the misogynistic overtones and insults?”Anyone is welcome to blog over there and state their opinion.”This also happens to be a lie since you’ve banned just about everyone who disagrees with you.

  • Anonymous

    curtis: “Anyone is welcome to blog over there and state their opinion.”As long as they know their place…

  • For all your verbosity you could have answered two yes/no questionsMich, I’ve been blogging on a very public site for several years now and you’ll have to pardon me for not wanting to do your homework for you.Simply utilize the search field on my blog or Google to find out that which you want to know and we’ll take it from there.However, before answering any of your questions, please tell me ((3rdX)…Why do you seem to have have this perception that my views are part of an over-arching bigoted mentality? Feel free to cite whatever definition of bigotry that you are utilizing and what criteria you comnsidered. Also..”If you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever, then please demonstrate that you yourself are not engaging in bigoted behaviour by labeling someone as such without having any ability of demonstrating that they are”.standing up against discrimination against minorities does not make one a bigotI’d like to thank you for your sincere offer of help. Not that I really need it or anything, the putzes on this blog that operate on a sub-Wikipedia level are nothing and their arguments arent even coherent, never mind logical.And since I’m a lone minority here and every other commenter is opposed to my viewpoint, what will be your first act to fight against the bigotry I am currently experiencing?Pointing out to GCT that I referenced multiple studies and not just the 8 person one that he is harping about?Demanding that Rick answer a question that has been put to him multiple times?Condeming verifiable lies concerning statements attributed to me that I never made?Of course if by “minorities” you really meant that you like “only standing up for minorities that I happen to agree with ideologically”, then such selective, sanctimonious bigotry couched as freedom fighting bravery is only par for the course in this Romper Room of a playpen known as Justin’s blog.

  • Yongary

    JD is continuing his “oh, who will stand up and protect white christian heterosexuals?” act. The picture at the top of this page is appropriate. The majority saying “Help! we’re being oppressed!” JD’s discredited statistics don’t matter. Take the state’s money and obey the state’s rules.

  • Gotta LOVE that JD.June 9, 2011, 9:40 PM: JD, in keeping with his let’s-monitor-everyone’s-bedroom outlook, links (again) to an article in Psychology Today to support his “thesis” that promiscuity is an inescapable side-effect of homosexuality. (As usual, JD focuses exclusively on gay men, never lesbians… take what you will from that.)Here are just a couple of excerpts from that very Psychology Today article:”It’s not appropriate to judge couples for behavior that society does not believe to be “proper” for any relationship.””This debate is not about polygamy—which involves including another person permanently—but about episodic experiences. It’s about openness, honesty and commitment to the contract that two people make. Heterosexuals have a lot to learn from gay couples about this.”Does anyone here believe that JD actually reads what he links to? One wonders why he thinks we should.………He keeps repeating this question: “Do you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants? Why not let other agencies handle such cases?” FALSE CHOICE, anyone?………And then there’s this bit of class: Anon: Which races would you ban from adopting?JD: How about we start with pussies who can’t put name next to what they write and then take it from there?SO, confronted with the fact that his own “logic” based on “potential for promiscuity” leads to racial discrimination, JD calls people pussies. Even though the host here pointedly asked that “Commenters, please stop hurling personal attacks.” I’d say about 35% of JD’s content since then has been personal attacks: “stupid ass”, “Bald-Faced Liar of a Bigot”, “Youre [sic] even more stupid”, “teach ‘fisting’ to middle school kids”, “you are a complete pussy”, “intellectual pussy”, “faceless wuss”… Really, it’s a shocker that NO-ONE has taken such a charming fellow up on his invitation to argue this topic on HIS blog. (0 comments on that post)Note to Justin: rules without an enforcement mechanism aren’t really rules.Ban that bitch.

  • Anonymous

    “Do you really think that Catholic charities has the time, resources and interest to monitor the sex lives of homosexual applicants?”Has anyone asked JD why Catholics should be monitoring anyone’s sex life? Why is it only homosexual people’s sex lives that the Catholics must monitor?Good comment, GentleSkeptic but you let yourself down with the very last word. You don’t want to end up sinking down to JD’s level.

  • Yongary

    “potential for promiscuity”? It might have already been said but don’t human beings in general have a potential of promiscuity?

  • Which races would you ban from adopting?Do I even have to mention that the only ones bringing up banning adoption by race are the bigots? I’ve never broached the subject once and neither would I like to because it would be breattakingly stupid to even attempt to argue.it’s a shocker that NO-ONE has taken such a charming fellow up on his invitation to argue this topic on HIS blogTone is not truth anymore than advocating morality is bigoted.Why is it only homosexual people’s sex lives that the Catholics must monitor?I agree. After umpteen days on this thread I’m still awaiting one sorced citation that shows monogamy rates of homosexual couples along with their average number of sex partners per year to be anywhere close to married, heterosexual couples.I wonder why that is?

  • Yongary

    If promiscuity is your excuse for banning adoption for same-sex couples then why are you not for the banning of minority races from adopting since they are more promiscuous?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never broached the subject once and neither would I like to because it would be breattakingly stupid to even attempt to argue.Really? That’s not what one of your sources think.He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. “They would tend to hang around each other,” Rekers testified. “So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are … doing the same sorts of things.”

  • Yongary

    “because it would be breattakingly stupid to even attempt to argue.”Why? It’s YOUR logic. Why do you call your own logic stupid? To “Why is it only homosexual people’s sex lives that the Catholics must monitor?”Curtis answered: “I agree.”You want to pry into everyone’s bedrooms?

  • Do I even have to mention that the only ones bringing up banning adoption by race are the bigots?No, the one bringing up adoption by race is George Rekers, whom you cited. I’ve never broached the subject once and neither would I like to because it would be breattakingly stupid to even attempt to argue.Therefore JD admits that his sources are breathtakingly stupid. Tone is not truthLucky for you! Regardless, I never said it was. Respect for your host’s request is simple politeness, nothing more.…You don’t want to end up sinking down to JD’s level.Perhaps. The draw of the alliteration was too strong. In any case, I’d have to sink a good deal farther to catch up (down?) with Msr. Curtis.

  • JD Curtis said to me… “If you needed any further proof that you are a lyng idiot, I’m not even Catholic and I’ve never stated as such.”Sorry, you don’t get to cover your @$$ by denying your are Catholic after spending so much time not only acting like one here, but defending a particularly unjust and irrational policy of Catholic charities and expecting the government to fund those charities in defiance of actual government law. You should never, ever defend something so dishonorable, so grow up!And that was always the issue, not your anti-gay extremism. Not your obsession with defending Catholic charities. If they would just get off the government teat and live within their means, taking donations only from fellow Catholics, their credibility would only be enhanced.

  • “…you are a lying idiot…”Ah! I missed one. More righteous class from the Christian defender of morality.Moderator?After umpteen days on this thread I’m still awaiting one sorced [sic] citation that shows monogamy rates of homosexual couples along with their average number of sex partners per year…Further evidence that JD doesn’t see individuals, only groups and their tendencies. Operational bigotry.

  • That’s not what one of your sources thinkI never mentioned race. This fell sqaurely in the domain of the bigots on this thread. You could never prove otherwise if you had a million years to do so.If promiscuity is your excuse for banning adoption for same-sex couples then why are you not for the banning of minority races from adopting since they are more promiscuous?Because I’m not thinking in terms of race as a racist such as yourself apparently does.The homophobic, right wing, religious zealots over at the National Institutes of Health found that about 16% of the 466 homosexuals in their study said they were “in a mutually monogamous relationship” LinkFrom the hate-filled Bible-thumpers at San Diego State University…”Whereas monogamy is highly valued among lesbian and heterosexual couples, non-monogamy is often an accepted part of gay male culture (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983: Peplau et al.. 2004). For example. Blumstein and Schwartz emphasized the importance of impersonal sex with strangers (“tricking”) as follows(p. 295): “But the trick mentality allows many men to have sex without emotional involvement. This is why gay male couples tolerate very high rates of non-monogamy.” Researchers in the United Kingdom found that the majority of gay male couples had a specific agreement about sex outside their relationship (Hickson et al.. 1992).” Link I would like to ask those who are arguing for race based discrimination to cite the numbers in comparison to married, heterosexual couples.

  • Anonymous

    about 16% of the 466 homosexuals in their study said they were “in a mutually monogamous relationship”So?

  • Anonymous

    Because I’m not thinking in terms of race as a racist such as yourself apparently does.Are you admitting you are a homophobe?

  • “Gay men’s sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of “monogamy without fidelity.” A study of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a “primary partner.” Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners “had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . .” For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years. And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.” Link

  • Yongary

    “A study of gay men attending circuit parties…”Hardly a random sample.

  • Yongary

    “Because I’m not thinking in terms of race as a racist such as yourself apparently does.”Have you visited your own blog?

  • “…in 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay couples and found a 100% infidelity rate after 5 years. They concluded that non-monogamy was the norm in the gay community.More recently, in 2003, a Canadian study titled “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples,” revealed that three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous. Here, the openly gay professor conducting the study concluded that “gay culture allows men to explore different, more successful, forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.” Link

  • Anonymous

    LOL, this is too much!curtis says thinking about race is racist and then goes to his own blog and blogs about how discriminated against he is because he’s white!You couldn’t make this stuff up!

  • “Research shows there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate of 4.5 percent cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 85 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples. Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where same-sex unions or marriages were made legal, reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex “marriage.” This indicates that even in the most “gay friendly” localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. As a typical example, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. In Sweden, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. In the Netherlands, where “gay marriage ” is legal, only 2.8 percent of the homosexual and lesbian population have registered their unions as “married.” In other words, 97 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in the Netherlands chose not to get “married.” Link

  • Anonymous

    curtis has gone into anti-same-sex marriage cut and paste mode.What does all this have to do with anything?

  • Yongary

    Let’s see.-Study not a random sample-Study from early 1980’s-Out of context statics from a foreign study.-Mysterious foreign study quoted from a web-page called “His Name JESUS”Are you going to post anything relevant, JD?

  • Kei

    To JD Curtis about the introduction of race into the topic:They assumed you would think racism is bad.Your arguments are the same as the arguments that racists make. The logic is the same.They thought you would be able to make the connection and be able to see how prejudiced you are.It saddens me that you have so little self-awareness.

  • They assumed you would think racism is badAnd theres absolutely zero reason to think otherwise. If you disagree, then why?Your arguments are the same as the arguments that racists make. The logic is the sameNo, they are not. For the 15th time, what are the non-monogamy rates that they say are so high? 75%? 100%?They thought you would be able to make the connection and be able to see how prejudiced you areThey thought they could change the topic from sexual identity to race. Yet I’ve yet to meet an ex-negro, an ex-caucasian or an ex-native American.It saddens me that you have so little self-awarenessIt saddens me that you cannot comprehend the term ‘bait and switch’

  • Anonymous

    why are you still quoting that rate? It was discredited ages ago. Quit being dishonest.

  • Anonymous

    you’re saying if we could change race, you would be prejudiced against certain races.

  • Anonymous

    I’m still laughing at JD’s posting about being discriminated against because he’s white.I’m surprised you never used the phrase “reverse-racism”!

  • Chuck

    It saddens me that you cannot comprehend the term ‘bait and switch’“Oh I know. This thread used to be about a government-funded agency who would shut down and abandon children rather than have to obey the law. Someone else came in and posted a whole bunch of anti-same-sex marriage “facts”, started likening people who were anti-discrimintation to Nazis and then ranted about monogamy.

  • GCT

    Eighth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Third Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • GCT

    “The homophobic, right wing, religious zealots over at the National Institutes of Health found that about 16% of the 466 homosexuals in their study said they were “in a mutually monogamous relationship” Link”Here we go again.This doesn’t indicate what JD seems to imply that it does. This study is of 500 or so gay or bisexual men that are college aged and/or in college and it’s a study about STD infection rates and the rates of unprotected sex (which is the “risky behavior” talked about). At the time of the study, 16% were in committed relationships. Big deal. This, by no means, means that we can extrapolate to the wider gay community, of all ages, of all sexes, of all geographic areas (this was done in Boston). In short, this is not a datum that tells us anything about whether gay couples can or will choose to be monogamous.

  • GCT

    “Whereas monogamy is highly valued among lesbian and heterosexual couples, non-monogamy is often an accepted part of gay male culture (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983: Peplau et al.. 2004). For example. Blumstein and Schwartz emphasized the importance of impersonal sex with strangers (“tricking”) as follows(p. 295): “But the trick mentality allows many men to have sex without emotional involvement. This is why gay male couples tolerate very high rates of non-monogamy.” Researchers in the United Kingdom found that the majority of gay male couples had a specific agreement about sex outside their relationship (Hickson et al.. 1992).”Again, this is misleading (imagine that). There are no concrete numbers that speak to the instance of how non-monogamous couples are in these studies except a small study from 1988 that claimed that about 50% of the gay male relationships were non-monogamous (hardly close the 75%-100% figure continually cited). It’s an old study for one – it’s also not necessarily from a representative sample (only 74 couples and no indication of how they were selected or for what). A lot of it talks about agreements for monogamy, not actual rates of how well people follow monogamy.Also, it quite directly points out that lesbian women are very monogamous, which dents JD’s stance that homosexuals are monogamous as a group (still imparting supposed traits of subgroups onto the whole I see). Also, as was previously pointed out from a different source of JD’s was the fact that this seems to stem from an issue of men being less monogamous than women, not gay men particularly.

  • GCT

    “Gay men’s sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of “monogamy without fidelity.” A study of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a “primary partner.” Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners “had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . .” For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years. And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.”First of all, the link is from a Catholic website, which is hardly unbiased.Second of all, the circuit party is not a random sampling, the stats given are due to self-reporting which is inherently problematic, this is all focused (once again) on gay men (one must wonder why JD is so fixated on gay men), and the studies actually cited (they also cite some op eds) are very old (1984 and 1973). Those are not good data to use because the normalization of homosexuality has a stabilizing effect on homosexual society, which was already noted in other sources that JD provided. (Note, it was shown to him that once again his sources did not support what he claimed they did, and this was one of those cases.)

  • GCT

    “…in 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay couples and found a 100% infidelity rate after 5 years. They concluded that non-monogamy was the norm in the gay community.More recently, in 2003, a Canadian study titled “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples,” revealed that three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous. Here, the openly gay professor conducting the study concluded that “gay culture allows men to explore different, more successful, forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”First off, this is from Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay organization. Second, they don’t even link to McWhirter and Mattison. They link to NARTH, another anti-gay organization. Can we trust either of them to be un-biased and tell the truth? Apparently not:It turns out that McWhirter and Mattison did not use a representative sample, instead using only people they knew from their circle of friends in San Diego.Also, the Canadian study (if one follows the link from FotF) shows that the author comes right out and says that it’s not a representative sample.So, does JD even look at the sources he uses before spewing them on the page? Doubtful. It’s more likely he simply goes to his favorite anti-gay websites which publish all these amazing “facts” without ever checking to see if they are correct. This is one more reason to believe that JD is in fact bigoted towards homosexuals. He’s more than willing to believe anything said about them, no matter the source, so long as it confirms his already held bias that they are bad, promiscuous, etc.

  • GCT

    “Research shows there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate of 4.5 percent cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 85 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.Surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples.Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where same-sex unions or marriages were made legal, reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex “marriage.” This indicates that even in the most “gay friendly” localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. As a typical example, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. In Sweden, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. In the Netherlands, where “gay marriage ” is legal, only 2.8 percent of the homosexual and lesbian population have registered their unions as “married.” In other words, 97 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in the Netherlands chose not to get “married.”What research is this? There is none in the link, which goes to a “Prophetic ministry” that is very obviously Xian and very obviously anti-gay. One more source down the tubes.

  • For some perspective on what’s going on here—no-one needs it, I know—you can visit this post by JD. (There’s another one here that just happens to be another reaction to Justin’s blog: GO Justin!) In these posts, JD hauls out the same Monogamy & Promiscuity Test to argue for withholding marriage from gay people. (He even links to the same Psychology Today article that suggests that straight married folks have a lot to learn from the gays about communication and openness.) So it really isn’t just about adoption.The trick JD is playing is to link promiscuity and gayness, so that whatever he wishes to withhold from gay people is justified by their inherent promiscuity. The problem, of course, is that he isn’t willing to subject other groups (or individuals) to the same kind of monogamy test, and he isn’t willing to consider eligibility for gays that pass his monogamy test, so it really isn’t about the purity, it’s about the gay: he’s just couching it in terms of purity. He says he’s opposed to promiscuity, but he’s really just opposed to the gay. That he won’t just take a stand on his real issue suggests—dare I say it?—rank bigotry.Take this exchange: I asked JD “Is it your desire to withhold marriage from gay people because they are gay, or to withhold marriage from promiscuous people because they are promiscuous?“After some hedging, and before dropping off completely, JD responds thusly: “Promiscuous couples, whether they be straight or gay, make a sham out of the institution of marriage as commonly understood for centuries here in the west.”Note that he doesn’t really answer the question. He just states his (religious) opinion about “what marriage is.” His whole argument is a tautology.And yet, in today’s post, supported by not one, but TWO opinion pieces from that bastion of scientific integrity, the Baptist Press, JD actually whines that “no amount of logical argumentation will ever persuade an ardent supporter of gay marriage that they are, like the white supremacists of the 1960’s, attempting to remake the idea of marriage into ‘their own narrow social cause'” and that “it’s much easier to demonize an opponent for temporary political gain than engage in meaningful dialogue.”Because, you know, calling people pussies is so meaningful.

  • But here’s the kicker, another hallmark of JD’s shoddy research. That first BP opinion piece presented in JDs post contains this nugget:As David Blankenhorn sagely pointed out in his book, “The Future of Marriage,” some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals.David Blankenhorn. That’s who Glenn Stanton turned to for “sage” insight. Now, many of you may not know that David Blankenhorn was a star witness for the “defending marriage” side in the prop 8 trial in California last year. He was, in fact one of only two witnesses for the defendant-intervenors that actually made it to the stand, after four others withdrew. Here’s what Mr. Blankenhorn said on the witness stand, under oath:We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.He actually wrote this down IN “The Future of Marriage”—the book Mr Stanton consulted—as well.Blankenhorn “also believes that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would probably be good for the couples and their children” and “offered no explanation for his seemingly divergent views.” (link)However, by the time Blankenhorn finished at least seven hours of testimony on Wednesday, it was not clear that he had aided the defense cause.  Not only had he conceded several plaintiff points, including that same-sex marriage would potentially reduce the divorce rate.  He had also given the impression that his testimony was largely the fruit of deep soul-searching, not the articulation of scientific conclusions. …Blankenhorn’s main points on direct examination were overshadowed by his questionable credentials, his demeanor, and the contradictory statements he made on the stand. …He has never written a peer-reviewed article on the effects of same-sex marriage nor, by his own admission, studied any of the legal cases in which the United States Supreme Court has declared marriage a fundamental right.  No college or university has ever employed him to teach.(link/recommended reading)Really: it’s the blind leading the bigots.

  • It’s also worth taking a trip through a dialogue of ACTUALLY-somewhat-reasonable conservative thinkers and commenters over at The Corner, where Mr. Stanton’s Baptist Press rant was cross-posted… and not as well-received. (Actually, we have to assume it was well-received on the Baptist PRess, because they don’t allow comments.)

  • Kei

    The problem, of course, is that he isn’t willing to subject other groups (or individuals) to the same kind of monogamy test, and he isn’t willing to consider eligibility for gays that pass his monogamy test, so it really isn’t about the purity, it’s about the gay: he’s just couching it in terms of purity. He says he’s opposed to promiscuity, but he’s really just opposed to the gay.“Couldn’t have said it better.

  • I just cited two studies up above that have 100% and 75% non-monogamy rates.How were they discredited?I put up an entry on gay marraige on my blog. Anyone is welcome to comment there. Except bigots like JC Birthner whose unnatural and vitriolic hatred of blacks makes me want to throw up.

  • Anonymous

    “Except bigots like JC Birthner whose unnatural and vitriolic hatred of blacks makes me want to throw up.”I’ve been to this Birthner blog and on it JD Curtis comes out and says he’s going to make up stuff in an effort to get Birthner to sue him because he want to met him in court!

  • The problem, of course, is that he isn’t willing to subject other groups (or individuals) to the same kind of monogamy test, and he isn’t willing to consider eligibility for gaysWe’re over 200 comments into this and I think you are all now just beginning to accept the extremely high rates of non=monogamy amoung gay couples that I’ve cited numerous times.The mistake here is that you think this is the argument. I havent even begun.For instance, we have barely even scratched the surface on domestic violence amongst homosexual relationships. From the gay bashing national Institutes of Health…”The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.” LinkFrom notoriously hate driven and bigoted American College of Pediatricians..”research has demonstrated considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships. Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.” Link

  • Anonymous

    JD said: “I havent even begun.”When are you going to start?

  • At 218 comments, I think that we’re quite started.

  • Chuck

    JD – you say 95% of same-sex couples are not violent therefore all same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt?

  • JD Curtis said: “From notoriously hate driven and bigoted American College of Pediatricians..”The American College of Pediatricians was started by Joseph Zanga when the American Academy of Pediatrics started endorsing LGBT adoption.This organisation does no research and was created to push Zanga’s beliefs; “that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.”

  • Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, made the following statement regarding the American College of Pediatricians on April 15, 2010: “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

  • The National Criminal Victimization Survey was done by The Family Research Institute.FRI is a small “faith-based” organization which seeks to influence the political debate in the United States.It is run by Paul Cameron after he was ejected from the American Psychological Association for ethics violations – “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research“.Canadian Psychological Association condemned FRI saying Cameron “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism“.According to Gregory M. Herek, a critical review of the Cameron group’s sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. Herek concludes,an empirical study manifesting even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group’s surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire. Because the data are essentially meaningless, it is not surprising that they have been virtually ignored by the scientific community.”

  • GCT

    Ninth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Fourth Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • GCT

    “I just cited two studies up above that have 100% and 75% non-monogamy rates.How were they discredited?”I discredited them in my comments. I went to your sources and showed why they are flawed. That you are continually ignoring these comments shows rank intellectual dishonesty.”I put up an entry on gay marraige on my blog. Anyone is welcome to comment there.”Anyone, except for the vast majority of people who disagree with you. Those people you find reasons to ban, usually by making up rules on the fly or putting words in their mouths that you can then object to (as in my case). Face it, you’ve made your bed on your blog and turned it into an echo chamber, and now no one cares to go there and be subjected to your arbitrary and heavy handed moderation. We also see through your not-so-clever ruse. You wish to steer the conversation away from a venue where you can’t control the dialog, because you’re not doing so well here.

  • I must state that I feel a bit dirty addressing a point raised by a confirmed xenophobe like JC Birthner whose acerbic hatred of the Jewish people knows no bounds. But..It is run by Paul Cameron after he was ejected from the American Psychological Association for ethics violations – “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research”.Canadian Psychological Association condemned FRI saying Cameron “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”What exactly was the specific research that was rejected by these two organizations? If you answer “no specific research was cited whatsoever” then award yourself the matzo ball award for the anti-semite that you really are.JD – you say 95% of same-sex couples are not violent therefore all same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt?Chuck, my bitch…I know math is hard, but please try to concentrate on the following numbers.”0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships.”Based on these numbers that you apparently don’t dispute at all, a child is how many more times likely to experience domestic violence in same-sex couples as opposed to traditional ones?Call your 7th grade math teacher if you get hung up on that mathematics stuff.

  • Chuck

    JD said “From the gay bashing national Institutes of Health…” Look closer at the page. The report is by the Family Research Institute. The Institute of Health does not endorse this paper.Here’s more on the Family Research Institute:In the past the F.R.I. has advocated facial tattoos for AIDS victims and the castration, deportation to a former leper colony, and even extermination of homosexuals.

  • Chuck

    What on Earth?After reading that the numbers are fabricated you still use them?What’s wrong with you?

  • Anonymous

    In the past the F.R.I. has advocated facial tattoos for AIDS victims and the castration, deportation to a former leper colony, and even extermination of homosexuals.That’s JD’s kind of people. Betcha JD knows the numbers are fake but will quote them again anyway.

  • Anonymous

    “What exactly was the specific research that was rejected by these two organizations?”In the case of the C.Psy.A. – All research. In 1996 they released this press release:Public Statement – Paul Cameron on HomosexualityThe Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. (August 1996)

  • GCT

    Here’s a link that disputes some of Cameron’s so-called statistic on same-sex domestic abuse. In this, he mis-characterizes the abuse suffered by the participants as being same-sex while he is actually combining abuse suffered by women and men in opposite sex relationships with same-sex.

  • GCT

    Tenth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Fifth Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • The mistake here is that you think this is the argument. I haven’t even begun. For instance, we have barely even scratched the surface on domestic violence amongst homosexual relationships.JD, really. Read this slowly and try to understand.The government will no longer discriminate against gay people in matters of adoption solely because they are gay. They can reject would-be adopters because they are unstable, non-monogamous, or have a history of domestic violence—in other words, are “unfit”—but not because they are gay. The same criteria for rejection apply to straight people. Gay people are not inherently “unfit” to adopt.You can falsely and probabilistically link gay people to any shitty thing you want, and those shitty things, considered in isolation, may well be cause for rejection of a petition to adopt a child from the state. What’s not a valid cause for rejection is simply being gay. This means that charities that receive funding from the state are also prohibited from discriminating against the gay solely because they are gay.What is so hard to understand about that, if being gay isn’t really the problem?Based on these numbers that you apparently don’t dispute at all, a child is how many more times likely to experience domestic violence in same-sex couples as opposed to traditional ones?Note the slippery wording here. Again. “A child” is “X times more likely to experience domestic violence” in a same-sex household. (The “answer” JD is looking for is—depending on which of his “studies” you believe—either “two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples” OR “24 times as likely for dykes and 131 times as likely for fags.”) But what does his question actually mean? The child will be a witness, or a victim? He doesn’t say. The child will somehow “experience” the same violence that men and women in the “studies” experienced.But even if we accept these ‘statistics’ on domestic violence (which we don’t, since “the data are essentially meaningless”), 94–95% of gay people would still be eligible to adopt if the criteria is non-violence.Again: JD says it’s about the violence, but it really is just about the gay. But he’ll never say so, because that’s so obviously bigoted,and JD is, like, totally rational and only interested in “meaningful dialogue.”

  • S.G.

    “Black females experienced domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced domestic violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.”Rennison, M. and W. Welchans. Intimate Partner Violence. U.S. Department of Justice.JD Curtis, would it be bigoted to prevent black people from adopting since they experience 22 times more domestic abuse? Or should we look at the individuals applying for the adoption and not the minorities they belong to?

  • How many of the males and females cited in the study experienced abuse while in same sex relationships? Start with the black men and take it from there.Racist.

  • Anonymous

    So JD, you are saying we should “look at the individuals applying for the adoption and not the minorities they belong to?”

  • Anonymous

    How many of the males and females cited in the study experienced abuse while in same sex relationships?None.

  • Why are we wasting out time here comparing race when I couldnt care less about it and its not even germane to the discussion?Where are all of the studies that show same sex couples to have = or < rates of domestic violence?Where are all of the studies that show that same sex couples have = or < non-monogamy rates than traditional marriage?Whay is this such a state secret?What was it that Richard Dawkins said about “Absence of evidence”?

  • NoneLink please”A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study.A 1985 study of 1109 lesbians by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they had been abused by a female partner.Coleman, in a 1990 study of 90 lesbians reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence.The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Domestic Abuse Fact Sheet states that “11% of women in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner”.A study published in The Journal of Family Violence reported among its participants that “Emotional abuse was reported by 83%” of its participants.A study of 113 lesbians reported (1994) that 41% said they had been abused in one or more relationships.The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”A study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.” Link

  • Anonymous

    Because it shows how bigoted you are. The same arguments you use against one minority is rejected by you when used against another minority.It exposes you as a bigot.

  • Oh Bigot!Link please!

  • Anonymous

    Look for your comment at June 21, 2011 9:24 PM.

  • Anonymous

    JD Curtis wants to disallow same-sex adoption based on this logic:”Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.”When asked “JD Curtis, would it be bigoted to prevent black people from adopting since they experience 22 times more domestic abuse? “He answered “Racist”And proved he was bigoted against homosexuals.

  • Why do you hate all of the battered lesbian women Bigot? Why?!Don’t you want to expose the problem rather than hush it up? The things that your unparalleled bigotry makes you do.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, JD! A cut and paste from Conservpedia. A bastion of lies, misquotes and misleading nonsense. Good work. Is this you, JD Curtis?

  • Anonymous

    That’s going a bit too far, other anonymous person. It was cut and pasted from Conservepedia to Yahoo and slightly altered to make harder to actually find the studies it’s talking about. If past is any indicator, they are likely to be discredited just as everything else JD was stated turned out to be.

  • JD: Can you please answer the charge of special pleading that my commenters are levying against you? You cite statistics for problems encountered by homosexuals and presumably use this as reason for charities to deny adoption services to homosexuals. Following this logic, you would also, if you were to be consistent, have to apply these same standards to other minority groups. For example, if minority group “x” has a very high crime rate, divorce rate, etc, (when compared to whites, for example) should they be not allowed to adopt?

  • GCT

    Eleventh time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Sixth Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • GCT

    I love how JD’s new list re-uses some statistics that have already been discredited. He doesn’t care about honesty. He doesn’t care about correctness. He doesn’t care about the gays except in the sense of making sure they are discriminated against. It’s rank dishonesty for him to affect his supposed concern for homosexuals when he’s obviously part of the problem (as discussed in one of the sources that he brought to the discussion).He’ll continue to act as if he doesn’t get it in regards to the special pleading charge. He’ll continue to ignore the very clear explanations that have been put to him, like Gentle Skeptic’s, and simply prove what GS said in the process. He doesn’t care. All he cares about is hating on the gays.

  • Can you please answer the charge of special pleading that my commenters are levying against you?Justin, I’ve already answered GCT’s question.If you are sincere in having reasonable dialog on your blog, might I suggest that you follow through on your “Don’t be anonymous. Put a legitimate name next to a comment; stand by your opinion” credo and eliminate anonymous commenting in order to reduce the amount of sock-pupptry here? Just a suggestion.You cite statistics for problems encountered by homosexuals and presumably use this as reason for charities to deny adoption services to homosexuals. Following this logic, you would also, if you were to be consistent, have to apply these same standards to other minority groupsJustin, this is what I meant by saying that I havent even begun yet. While the Free Speech Bigots are claiming statistics are discredited without actually discrediting them..Where are all of the studies that show same sex couples to have = or < rates of domestic violence?Where are all of the studies that show that same sex couples have = or < non-monogamy rates than traditional marriage?This is of course, before we move on to instances of severe mental health disorders between the two groups and other metrics that we can then compare.Why is this information a state secret?Why is it hidden from view?

  • Chuck

    A 1985 study of 1109 lesbians by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of the respondents indicated that they had been abused by a female partner.I bet you didn’t read the piece. Besides the fact it’s from 1985, the authors mention their own sampling bias. It’s not a scientfic study. It was done at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

  • Chuck Conners

    While the Free Speech Bigots are claiming statistics are discredited without actually discrediting them..You shouldn’t lie when people can go back and read previous comments, it makes you look like a liar.You can see in previous comments, how and why the statistics are false or discredited or unlikely to be true.

  • Chuck

    Justin, I’ve already answered GCT’s question.Reread Justin’s comment on special pleading.”You cite statistics for problems encountered by homosexuals and presumably use this as reason for charities to deny adoption services to homosexuals. Following this logic, you would also, if you were to be consistent, have to apply these same standards to other minority groups. For example, if minority group “x” has a very high crime rate, divorce rate, etc, (when compared to whites, for example) should they be not allowed to adopt?

  • Chuck

    And I’d like a proper answer to this question:“JD Curtis, would it be bigoted to prevent black people from adopting since they experience 22 times more domestic abuse?”

  • GCT

    JD has yet to answer either of these questions:Twelfth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Seventh Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?I will grant, however, that he did answer the question I posed about whether he would discriminate, and he said that he would only discriminate against gays. This is because he hates gays, plain and simple.

  • GCT

    “While the Free Speech Bigots are claiming statistics are discredited without actually discrediting them.”Can you explain how we are free speech bigots for disagreeing with you? Oh, and as Chuck points out, your sources have been discredited. I’ve done quite a bit of looking at each individual link and showing why it lacks in support for your position and/or why we shouldn’t take it seriously.Also, once again I’ll point out that my predictions were right. You’re still acting like you don’t get it in regards to the special pleading and you’re still ignoring GS’s very simple explanation. No matter how many statistics you trot out to show how evil, wicked, whatever gays are in statistical numbers, the argument is really about whether groups should be allowed to discriminate against individual gays, not against the stereotypes. That you insist on attributing the stereotypes onto all gays is nothing short of bigotry. You wanted the proof that you are a bigot (something else you continue to ignore) and it’s all over the place. You’re prejudging all gays by the misleading statistics that you pull from your anti-gay websites and uncritically accept because they confirm what you want to be true. It’s actually rather disgusting.

  • Justin, I’ve already answered GCT’s question.False/redirect.If you are sincere in having reasonable dialog on your blog, might I suggest that you follow through on your “Don’t be anonymous. Put a legitimate name next to a comment; stand by your opinion” credoFalse standard; distraction. Anonymous commenters have been manifestly reasonable.Where are all of the studies that show same sex couples to have = or < rates of domestic violence? Where are all of the studies that show that same sex couples have = or < non-monogamy rates than traditional marriage? This is of course, before we move on to instances of severe mental health disorders between the two groups and other metrics that we can then compare.For fuck’s sake.Attempt #2: ADOPTION AGENCIES WEIGH THE FITNESS OF APPLICANTS.They will ask a battery of questions to determine criminal history, family history, physical and mental health… heck, see for yourself. Here’s a sample:1. Have you ever been arrested for an offense other than a traffic infraction?2. Are you currently on probation or parole?3. Have you ever been investigated for allegations of child neglect or abuse?4. Have you ever been reported for allegations of domestic violence?Here are some questions you WON’T find on prospective adopter questionnairres, though JD wishes you would:5. Where are all of the studies that show same sex couples to have = or < rates of domestic violence?6. Where are all of the studies that show that same sex couples have = or < non-monogamy rates than traditional marriage?7. Hey: are you guys fags, or what?8. Why do you fags have such high rates of domestic violence and disease and mental health issues and stuff?Hey JD: did you know that they even adopt to UNMARRIED COUPLES? So much for the Morality Police.Personally, I just wish we were all as interested in meaningful, reasonable dialogue as JD is.

  • Maybe this will help. (It won’t)JD, here’s a hypothetical. In this thought experiment, we will assume the following:1. 92% of gay men and women are literally physically incapable of monogamy.2. 87 % of gay men and women are uncontrollably physically violent when in relationships.3. 91 % of gay men and women are substance abusers.4. 84 % of gay men and women have been arrested on criminal charges.5. 95 % of gay men and women are clinically depressed and/or suicidal.6. 88 % of gay men and women are straight-up retarded.Now.A lesbian couple would like to adopt. As it happens, they are in the minority for every single category above. They’ve been together for 16 years. They are monogamous, educated professionals with no history of violence. They are substance-free, mentally, financially and emotionally stable with no criminal record—not even a parking ticket—and they are not retarded. Additionally, they’ve already raised two children, one from one partner’s former marriage, the other orphaned when one partner’s brother and his wife were killed in a car accident, leaving lesbian aunt as legal guardian.On what grounds shall the state refuse to release a child into their custody?

  • Anonymous

    Careful, GentleSkeptic, curtis doesn’t know the difference between facts and made-up statistics.

  • Where are all of the studies that show same sex couples to have = or < rates of domestic violence?Where are all of the studies that show that same sex couples have = or < non-monogamy rates than traditional marriage?Why arent I allowed to see the domestic violence link concerning blacks to see if this included blacks involved in same sex relationships?This is of course, before we move on to instances of severe mental health disorders between the two groups and other metrics that we can then compare.Why is this information a state secret?Why is it hidden from view?

  • Anonymous

    Why arent I allowed to see the domestic violence link concerning blacks to see if this included blacks involved in same sex relationships?It’s not hidden. Do your own research. You’ll find that there were no same-sex incidents in that survey.”Black females experienced domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced domestic violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.”Why is this information a state secret?Why is it hidden from view?Stop being melodramatic. Read a book or something. It’s not some secret. Nothing is hidden. So far, every metric also applies to other minorities. We see right through your act.

  • Anonymous

    JD, when are you going to use a metric that can’t easily apply to racial minorities?And the information isn’t hidden, it’s just not on Conservapedia.By the way, Google has taken a stance on gay marriage. Enter the phrase “gay marriage” into Google to see it.

  • Anonymous

    “a metric that can’t easily apply to racial minorities?“The difference is gay people might have sex with members of their own sex. And JD Curtis is a homophobic bigot.He whimpers his “B..b..b… homosexuals!” nonsense and everyone can tell it’s just bigotry.His bullshit attempts to justify his bigotry are often plain lies but he repeats them anyway because he can not stop the hate bubbling up to the surface. You can see it in the sexist insults he uses “Pussy” “Bitch”, etc.But all his bullshit doesn’t matter.What this guy ignores is this Catholic adoption agency can still continue, it just fails to meet the legal requirements to be government funded.Don’t fall for his attempts to move the goalposts.I hope someone close to him reveals they are gay so he can see that we are just people. Not perfect angels, not evil devils, just people. I hope in the future we can point to this thread and be glad that there are no more bigots like JD Curtis.

  • GCT

    JD has yet to answer either of these questions:Thirteenth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Eighth Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?For someone who insults others for not answering his questions, I wonder how he rationalizes not being able to answer these simple questions.

  • S.G.

    “Black females experienced domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced domestic violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.”Rennison, M. and W. Welchans. Intimate Partner Violence. U.S. Department of Justice.JD Curtis, would it be bigoted to prevent black people from adopting since they experience 22 times more domestic abuse? Or should we look at the individuals applying for the adoption and not the minorities they belong to?

  • Chuck

    What on Earth?After reading that the numbers are fabricated you still use them?What’s wrong with you?

  • GCT

    Ninth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.Fourth Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • Kei

    The problem, of course, is that he isn’t willing to subject other groups (or individuals) to the same kind of monogamy test, and he isn’t willing to consider eligibility for gays that pass his monogamy test, so it really isn’t about the purity, it’s about the gay: he’s just couching it in terms of purity. He says he’s opposed to promiscuity, but he’s really just opposed to the gay.“Couldn’t have said it better.

  • GCT

    “…in 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay couples and found a 100% infidelity rate after 5 years. They concluded that non-monogamy was the norm in the gay community.More recently, in 2003, a Canadian study titled “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples,” revealed that three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous. Here, the openly gay professor conducting the study concluded that “gay culture allows men to explore different, more successful, forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”First off, this is from Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay organization. Second, they don’t even link to McWhirter and Mattison. They link to NARTH, another anti-gay organization. Can we trust either of them to be un-biased and tell the truth? Apparently not:It turns out that McWhirter and Mattison did not use a representative sample, instead using only people they knew from their circle of friends in San Diego.Also, the Canadian study (if one follows the link from FotF) shows that the author comes right out and says that it’s not a representative sample.So, does JD even look at the sources he uses before spewing them on the page? Doubtful. It’s more likely he simply goes to his favorite anti-gay websites which publish all these amazing “facts” without ever checking to see if they are correct. This is one more reason to believe that JD is in fact bigoted towards homosexuals. He’s more than willing to believe anything said about them, no matter the source, so long as it confirms his already held bias that they are bad, promiscuous, etc.

  • They assumed you would think racism is badAnd theres absolutely zero reason to think otherwise. If you disagree, then why?Your arguments are the same as the arguments that racists make. The logic is the sameNo, they are not. For the 15th time, what are the non-monogamy rates that they say are so high? 75%? 100%?They thought you would be able to make the connection and be able to see how prejudiced you areThey thought they could change the topic from sexual identity to race. Yet I’ve yet to meet an ex-negro, an ex-caucasian or an ex-native American.It saddens me that you have so little self-awarenessIt saddens me that you cannot comprehend the term ‘bait and switch’

  • “Research shows there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate of 4.5 percent cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 85 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples. Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where same-sex unions or marriages were made legal, reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex “marriage.” This indicates that even in the most “gay friendly” localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. As a typical example, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. In Sweden, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. In the Netherlands, where “gay marriage ” is legal, only 2.8 percent of the homosexual and lesbian population have registered their unions as “married.” In other words, 97 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in the Netherlands chose not to get “married.” Link

  • JD Curtis said to me… “If you needed any further proof that you are a lyng idiot, I’m not even Catholic and I’ve never stated as such.”Sorry, you don’t get to cover your @$$ by denying your are Catholic after spending so much time not only acting like one here, but defending a particularly unjust and irrational policy of Catholic charities and expecting the government to fund those charities in defiance of actual government law. You should never, ever defend something so dishonorable, so grow up!And that was always the issue, not your anti-gay extremism. Not your obsession with defending Catholic charities. If they would just get off the government teat and live within their means, taking donations only from fellow Catholics, their credibility would only be enhanced.

  • JD,For all your verbosity you could have answered two yes/no questions. Did you forget to do so? I find that hard to believe. It seems that you are quite purposefully dodging some very straightforward questions, which gives me a lot of reason to believe that adoption is not the only issue with you. You also don’t like the idea of gays marrying. Now, if you were really concerned about encouraging monogamy among gays, you would be for gay marriage. I’d also be willing to bet that you’d leave your church (assuming you go) in an instant if you found out the minister was gay. So please, JD, prove me wrong then and tell everyone that you are fine with gay marriage and ordination and that adoption is an isolated issue for you. It shouldn’t be hard. Then again, if you had any intention of coming clean with your pretenses you’d have done so already and not dodged my questions.

  • GCT

    JD,Sixth time:Did you choose to be hetero, yes or no?You have not answered this question, even though you incorrectly claim that you have.First Time (although it is based on a comment I’ve made multiple times already):If I were to take a non-random sample of 8 people and find that 75% of them had some specific trait, would I be safe to conclude that 75% of the general population had that same trait?

  • Anonymous

    michadelic never called you a bigot, curtis.

  • Unstoppable Conan

    The state of Illinois is violating the religious freedom of the Catholics by not giving them taxpayer dollars to use in the promotion of Catholic doctrines. (sarcasm)

  • JD,You respond,”Mich, would you mind pointing out how I am a bigot? I’m quite certain that no dictionary in the English speaking world would define bigotry as mere “disagreement”. Please? Maybe you’ll be the first one to offer up concrete evidence that I’m a bigot after only asking for such about 17 times on this thread alone?”Would you mind actually answer the simple questions I put to you? My only interest in asking was for the sake of clarity, so that we all know where you stand on the issue of homosexuality generally. After all, bigotry – if that word indeed applies to you – is often not an isolated incident but is informed by a larger world view. So please be honest enough to state in unambiguous language whether or not you personally think it is fine for gay couples to become legally married, and whether or not you are personally ok with gays being ordained in ministry. If you answer in the negative for these two questions, we will have reason to believe that your stance on the particular issue of adoption is not independent and is in fact informed by a general disdain for homosexuals.Please be honest, now.Peace.

  • Justin,The first time I saw somebody use the moniker ‘philaegle” was during a hacking attempt about 2 months ago on my blog.If you dig into my archive, you would see that the very first couple of entries I made (several years ago) was under the moniker ‘philaegle’, but I quickly changed it to JD Curtis and never went back.After the aforementioned hacking attempt in which the perpretrator used “philaegle” in an attempt to gain access to my account, blogger realized something was amiss and shut down the entire blog. I had to call them for a code in which to unlock it.If you have any information as to who actually did use ‘philaegle’ in the above entry timestamped 7:59, please email it to me so I can forward it to the proper people.

  • philaegle

    “Why does your logic not apply to black women?”cos blacks wouldn’t choose to be blacks but queers choose to be queer.No other reason. like Jd says, there’s no help groups for blacks but there’s Christian groups to stop homosexuality.

  • Anonymous

    JD Curtis pretends his use of the phrase “Uber Alles” had nothing to do with Nazis. Let’s have a look at the first ten google results for the phrase (some results are given more than once):Wikipedia page – mentions it’s connection to the Nazis“California Uber Alles” – A song that compares Governor Jerry Brown to a Nazi.”Profits über Alles!” – Corporations and Nazi Germany.”Doherty Über Alles” – Pete Doherty in trouble because of his use of the phrase in Germany “taboo in Germany because of their Nazi associations.””Amerika Über Alles” – Compares America to Nazi Germany”Chilean president says sorry to Germany for writing Nazi slogan in Berlin guest book” – What was the offensive part of the slogan? Uber Alles.As anyone can see, JD Curtis is either lying or incredibly misguided. No-one is that stupid, not even JD, therefore JD is lying.