Sunday, January 29, 2012

Atty Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption

Article by By Todd Starnes/TWITTER

A 15-year-old Wisconsin boy who wrote an op-ed opposing gay adoptions was censored, threatened with suspension and called ignorant by the superintendent of the Shawano School District, according to an attorney representing the child.

Mathew Staver, the founder of the Liberty Counsel, sent a letter to Superintendent Todd Carlson demanding an apology for “Its unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation” of Brandon Wegner.

Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt.

Wegner used Bible passages to defend his argument, including Scripture that called homosexuality a sin.

You can read Wegner’s editorial by clicking here.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.

“The superintendent called him ignorant and said he had the power to suspend him,” Staver said. “He’s using his position to bully this student. This is absolutely the epitome of intolerance.”

Staver said the boy’s parents were never notified.

At one point, Staver said the superintendent gave him a chance to say he regretted writing the column.

“When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he ‘had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,’” Staver said.

At that point, Staver said the superintendent told the boy that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to.”

The superintendent allegedly told Wegner that he was personally offended by Wegner’s column.

FOX News & Commentary offered Carlson a chance to address the allegations. He refused to submit to questions, but did say he would send a statement. That statement never arrived.

Staver said Wegner was not trying to cause problems or pick a fight.

“He was asked to write an article in the newspaper overseen by a faculty adviser,” he said, suspecting the superintendent was specifically outraged over the Bible verses Wegner had used.

“The superintendent wants everyone to accept homosexuality as normative and homosexual adoption as something that should be standard practices,” Staver said. “In doing so, he’s belittling the views and the biblical views of many people across this country. He is playing a zero-sum game. He’s not interested in dialogue. He wants to cram his view down the throat of everyone else and will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.”

Staver said an apology from the superintendent may not suffice – and they may consider taking legal action.

“It was a very intimidating situation for this 15-year-old boy,” he said.”It was uncalled for. He crossed the line. It’s absolutely outrageous and he needs to apologize for his actions.”

My impression was that poor kid was interrogated by a wannabe gestapo agent. Where does that man get off treating a kid like that? And not notifying the parents?  Oh, hell no!  If that were my kid, you had better believe all hell would have broken loose.  I don't tolerate anyone hurting or messing with my kids, and I am sure I am not alone.

Does that "moron" not recall that we live in a country where there is Freedom of Speech!  It's in the constitution, so who is he calling a "moron?" Right?  Maybe he should educate himself before calling a student some inflammatory remark.

And so what if a gay couple was offended, big deal, get over it and grow up. Not everyone on this great earth agrees with their lifestyle, and the kid has a right to voice his own opinion.  He seems to have good head on his shoulders, displays wisdom and common-sense. I believe he did a superb job. 

The only bully in this whole scenario is the superintendent.  I believe he should be fired, but that's just my opinion.  


Magpie said...

I can’t click through the link to Wegner’s op-ed so all of the below is predicated on the fact I haven’t read it…

Free speech often offends.
It should be allowed regardless (some would argue… especially if it offends).
If the issue was deemed fit for debate… then everyone had better be ready to get an opinion they don’t like.
If opinions expressed don’t fall under defamation or vilification then there is no issue. Fair?


“Wegner used Bible passages to defend his argument, including Scripture that called homosexuality a sin.”

That is arguably approaching vilification.
Calling something sinful is not a rational argument, and it’s a short step away from hate speech.

It’s certainly the opinion of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church.
You think I like it when Phelps says "God hates Australia, land of the sodomite damned! The fag-infested land of Australia is burning. The fire of God's wrath is sending hundreds of those filthy Australian beasts straight to hell! We at Westboro Baptist Church are rejoicing, and we are praying that the dear Lord would burn many more Australians alive!" and gets away with it under the guise of free speech?
And that’s only a small tirade compared to what he says about America.

The fault’s not Wegner’s. He has been raised that way, obviously, and that is his honest opinion. He shouldn’t be stood over for it.
OF COURSE someone might say that. It’s a common belief. They must have known someone might write that. Very dumb to invite the op-ed.

“ “The superintendent ... He is playing a zero-sum game. He’s not interested in dialogue. He wants to cram his view down the throat of everyone else and will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.” “

Yeah that’s a fair accusation.

But the same could be said of people who oppose gay rights on religious grounds.

When you say “so what if a gay couple was offended, big deal, get over it and grow up”….
what you’re basically saying is….
“look, my holy book of 2000+ year old Mesopotamian tribal tales says who YOU have sex with is MY business and is wrong and you are bad people destined to suffer for all eternity in Hell. Have a nice day”

Offending is seldom any big deal.
Being offended is rarely so small.

Always On Watch said...

The point of that page of the student newspaper is to put opposing views side-by-side. Indeed, the gay couple has nothing to complain about: both views were presented. It is in that manner that critical thinking occurs and is promoted.

Both stories were pulled, but I've read nothing that indicates that the pro-gay-adoption student was confronted in any way.

As for the superintendent, he was way, way out of line.

Now, the school does have the prerogative to pull both op-eds. But to go after a student because a gay couple complained is beyond the pale. That gay couple has a vested interest.

So, what is the superintendent trying to promote? That students shouldn't express any views that are not pc? And would that superintendent have had such a fit if an anti-gay Muslim had written the essay?

Silverfiddle said...

Magpie: A religious argument is valid when one is defending one's point of view. I do grant you it is ineffective in arguing with nonbelievers, but the boy was within his rights to argue from an enduring and ancient standard.

We're probably pretty much in agreement on the free speech aspect so I'm not aiming this at you, but people need to be reminded that they do not have a right to not be offended.

Indeed if you are a religious person, you're offended daily.

jez said...

1) Wegner's freedom of speech does not require any publication, including this lowly school newsletter, to publish his work unedited.

2) If the article broke any rules, it's the editor's responsibility. It is the faculty advisor who oversees the newspaper who should have been hauled over the coals, not the student.

3) Don't be thoughtlessly loyal to this boy just because he's a christian: the article is awful. It waffles on for however many words it is, circling around just two points (both specious: "it's already illegal in lots of places", and "my religion says its icky") like an unsightly clump of hair circles around a draining bath-plug.

4) I see the boy reproduced the Levitican death penalty for homosexuals, twice. You might get moist-eyed at the youngster quoting the bible like this, but why did he quote it twice? Is it possible that this was calculated to offend?

dmarks said...

Sorry, I believe in freedom of the press. The school is the publisher of the school newspaper, and as such anything it does in regards to its content is an expression of the First Amendment.

Jez makes a good point "Wegner's freedom of speech does not require any publication, including this lowly school newsletter, to publish his work unedited."

Just like no one has the right to force the New York Times to publish their letter. It's their freedom of the press to choose to print, or not print, such submissions.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez and Dmarks make good points.

Rather than a free speech issue, this is more accurately an example of state-sponsored groupthink powered by political correctness.

The school opened up the debate and then screamed when someone departed from orthodoxy. The inartfullness or poor quality of the speech does not matter.

The state sponsored school mafia have taken it upon themselves to "get our minds right" on the issues they hold dear, and I applaud every act like this of kicking against the goad.

dmarks said...

Silver: Exactly. Just because this is OK under rather ancient and rock solid principles of freedom of the press, does not mean it was the best thing to do.

jez said...

"The inartfullness or poor quality of the speech does not matter."

Disagree. If religious speech such as lev 20:13 is protected, then the difference between protected speech and incitement to violence comes down to precisely that: quality and artfulness.

Put another way, illegal & inciteful speech is possible purely by quoting the bible or qur'ran. Therefore we do require that even Christians, even while announcing Biblical views, take some care.

WomanHonorThyself said...

say good bye to free speech girl..what a sick world! Have a great week my friend!:-)

Leticia said...

Magpie, I'll try to work on the link. Sorry about that. Believe it or not I do agree with most of what you said. The boy was asked to write his opinion, so he shouldn't have been reprimanded. There were two points of view but the gay couple chose to complain about the Christian boy, why? Because he opposed gay adoption and pointed out the cons. There is nothing wrong with using the Bible for examples, that's what he believed in.

And don't get me started on the Westboro Church nutties, they are complete and total loons filled with hate. Christians do not behave that way. Disgusting people. You will those type of people are in all parts of society.

AOW, what I hate is that poor boy was subjected to hours of interrogation and his parents were never notified. He was asked to write his opinion and then because of ONE complaint, all this mess came to pass.

Silver, I also tend to shy away from using the bible as an example to non-believers, but sometimes it is the only way. It's a bit of a toss up on how you approach people. I have to agree that most "religious" people do get offended quite often.

Jez, apparently the op-ed was fine with everyone until the gay couple complained. I support this boy, not only because he is a Christian but because his right to freedom of speech was trampled on by the administration, mainly, the superintendent. How he treated that young man was deplorable. And that alone, would engage my sympathy and support. I do not like anyone hurting kids.

dmarks, they totally disregarded his right to freedom of speech and that is not acceptable. But then to interrogate him as he were some criminal was totally out of line.

Leticia said...

Magpie, try the link now. It's working. :)

Jez, this was a high school article written by 15-year-old kid, no one is even talking about the young lady who wrote the opposing point-of-view, because, what? The gay couple and apparently the superintendent agreed with her? What a mess. Poor kid.

Angel, I know. Christians are being silenced in so many ways.

Liberalmann said...

Yeah, "Christians are being silenced in so many ways." Lol!!! Homophobes.

Ducky's here said...

Hmm, advocating the enlightened position of putting gays to death might be considered inappropriate by normals. Especially in a school paper.

Ducky's here said...

And so what if a gay couple was offended, big deal, get over it and grow up.

Maybe the little thumper punk needs to grow up.

Jersey McJones said...


Did you read those two cited articles?

Brandon Wegner writes a heart-felt and honest piece, while Maddie Marquarte writes an exposition of the disparity between American orphans and those who can and wish to adopt.

I would suggest you all read those two pieces again. You may change your mind about of thing or two.


Leticia said...

LiberalM, you are hilarious! You prove nothing, other than the fact that you excel at blabbering. I am sure the definition of "Christian" is way beyond your mental ability to comprehend the meaning.

Ducky, if it was any other ordinary book I don't believe people would have been in such an uproar. Maybe if he had quoted words from the Quran, none of this would be happening. As far as I can tell, we still have the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I am happy that there are kids that are not afraid to speak up about their faith in Jehovah God.

Jersey, yes I did. My whole point of this post was how he was treated at the school for voicing his opinion. I am against gays adopting, but that's not a shocker to anyone who reads my blog. The boy was unfairly accused and mistreated.

That's not acceptable.

Ducky's here said...

No Leticia, when you include a verse from Leviticus advocating putting gays to death in an environment where violence against gays is a problem you get your butt kicked.

If that statement came from another source the reaction would quite correctly be the same.

Magpie said...

Drawing the line between free speech and hate speech has to be the most arbitrary tasks people can do in a social context.

I can grant that people have a right to express their view in terms of ‘X is a sin’.
But calling for someone to be put to death, for who they are as a community, is a bridge too far. That is hate speech.
I don’t care if it’s in the Koran or the Bible or the New Age Book of the Doobywacky. It’s hate speech.

I understand the intellectual argument that says nothing should be off limits if we are to have true freedom of speech, that no-one has a right not to be offended.

The trouble with that argument is that it is usually mounted from a position of safety.
i.e. I happen not to be the target.
I won’t be in that synagogue outside which skinheads are screaming “die Jew”. I won’t be beaten to death by homophobic thugs. I’m not the unbeliever in the Muslim community that decides infidels can no longer be suffered to live.
Violence sometimes comes out of nowhere, but specific group-focussed hate-based violence generally does not. Someone somewhere said ‘those people are bad, anyone who looks or acts that way is bad’.

If we stop and consider how life-destroyingly terrifying that must be, then hate speech being permitted for the benefit of absolute the protection of free speech ceases to be a benign principle.

Then we have a right to ask ourselves “What the heck happened to standing up for people? What the heck happened to protecting those who cannot protect themselves? Are we that cold that intellectual niceties mean more to us than the life and death of our neighbours?”

And according to that I’d stand up for Wegner (though not for what he wrote). He shouldn’t have been treated that way because the attitudes he espouses are not his fault. He’s been taught to think that way.
And after all is said and done, he’s a kid, not a politician.
And if they didn’t see this problem coming when the opened the floor for an op-ed like that, then they’re profoundly stupid.

jez said...

"Jez, apparently the op-ed was fine with everyone until the gay couple complained."
they were plausibly the first people to read it except Wegner himself.

"I support this boy, not only because he is a Christian but because his right to freedom of speech was trampled on by the administration, mainly, the superintendent."
this isn't a freedom of speech issue, see my first point.

"How he treated that young man was deplorable. And that alone, would engage my sympathy and support. I do not like anyone hurting kids."
agreed, see my second point.

"Jez, this was a high school article written by 15-year-old kid, no one is even talking about the young lady who wrote the opposing point-of-view, because, what?"
Because her piece, even if you disagree with it, is not offensive. It doesn't mention the idea that anybody should be put to death because of their sexuality, for example.
Are you actually unable to see why quoting Leviticus 20:13 twice would be upsetting to a homosexual person, or are you just pretending?

Always On Watch said...

Were not these two students invited to write face-off essays?

If the school didn't want controversy, why did they invite this particular face off?

Like it or not, citing religious objections (Leviticus) is fair game in a values debate. Yes, some will see citing those verses as offensive. But, hey, the essay topic itself (both sides) is offensive in the eyes of opposing sides.

Frankly, I'm not sure that students in this age group can effectively debate such a thorny topic, which is, on its face, one involving moral issues that stem from faith-based matters.

jez said...

Always: were you offended by Marquardt's column?

Was it possible (or even difficult) to write Wegner's piece without wallowing in the ugliest book of the old testament? Why quote that horrific verse twice?

It's quite plausible that Wegner intended mischief.

Leticia said...

Ducky, are sure about that? No one likes to offend the Muslims. And I honestly feel that boy had used the Quran instead of the Holy Bible, we wouldn't be discussing this issue.

Magpie, that's what I became angry about, that poor kids was interrogated like some kind vile criminal, when it was the school that asked him to write his view-point. I am curious as to how his parents reacted? I know, I would have raised all kinds of hell.

Jez, glad we agreed and some aspects. He may have used the Leviticus scripture as an example, but all sin is worthy of death, no sin is greater than another. The bible is clear the penalties of sin. It is not hate speech, it is a fact and it is the truth.

I don't believe Wegner intended any kind of mischief, he used scripture to back up his view.

People just took it the wrong way.

AOW, I also found it inappropriate to bring up such an adult topic to debate. What does gay adoption have to do with normal school curriculum? Not a darn thing.

These kind of topics are not suited for kids.

Debbie said...

He has no right to free speech? They will need to 'get his mind right', perhaps a strict program of PC ...

Right Truth

Leticia said...

Debbie, if it will help, but I doubt it.

Liberalmann said...

Leticia said..."...I am sure the definition of "Christian" is way beyond your mental ability to comprehend the meaning."

Typical arrogant responsefrom a so called Christian whose posts prove hypocrisies each day.

Lisa said...

Here is a reasonto be agianst gay adoption
and here's another

Jersey McJones said...

Too many years ago, when I was in grade school art class, we had this project in which we were pretty much free to paint anything and it would be put up around the school.

There was this kid, I forgot his name, but I knew him a little. he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box, but he wasn't a bad kid. He painted a picture that he thought was based on the original Led Zeppelin album cover. Probably from watching old World at War shows, he put a swastika on the Zeppelin.

Now, mind you, this kid had noooooo idea what he had done. I mean, he'd have been hard-pressed to tell you who the president was at the time. But man 'o man did he get in trouble. His parents were called in, and there was a big kerfuffle at the school... bla, bla, bla... Then, of course, the poor kid, everyone realizing he'd bumbled into this mess, further marginalized him.

But the press never got involved, it didn't become some political football, it was all handled locally. Even then, it was poorly handled. The kid didn't know any better.

Now, if this kid, the one mentioned in Leticia's piece, actually knew what he was doing, and did it anyway, then he deserves whatever he gets. Hate is bad. Everyone should agree on that.


Leticia said...

Liberalm, no, I am not a hypocrite. I stand firm in what I believe in, regardless of opposition and will not back down. You insult me and many other conservative bloggers a lot. Do you expect us to be quiet and allow you to spew your hateful rhetoric and just sit there and do nothing? How is that being a hypocrite and arrogant? Christians aren't doormats, we are not pushovers and we are most certainly not wimps. We do fight back and we will defend ourselves. If you expected me to remain quiet then you are sadly mistaken. I don't care that you laugh at me or my posts, I welcome it. Why? Because you are entitled to your opinion and I won't ever prevent you from saying anything. Just don't expect me to be quiet, because that's not going to happen.


Jersey, first of all, that poor kid you mentioned, yikes!

I don't believe he (Wegner) intended any malice or hate towards gays, just his view point on why gay adoption wasn't a good idea.

I know I have said this many times before but Christians do not hate gays, it is the lifestyle. Because in the bible homosexuality is mentioned as sin. But then again, so is stealing, murder and adultery, etc.

And all sin is worthy of death, however, through the precious blood of Jesus Christ, sin was wiped away. Because Jesus chose and took all sin upon Himself and gave us a way to have a personal relationship with God the Father, our creator. We were redeemed by His blood. And it is only through Jesus that we can be with the Father.

Ducky's here said...

Lisa, tie a can on it. Are you willing to state that only gay adopters are abusive?

Get real.

jez said...

Lisa: Here's a reason why your comment is unconvincing. An abused child's attacker is most likely to be its own parent, but please don't use that as an argument to separate all children from their biological parents.

Responsible adoption agencies do a real dog and pony show investigating potential adoptive parents, and monitoring them once they've taken a child. I don't know what happened in Boston but if you're suggesting that sexuality is an adequate alternative to making proper inquiries, you're not only wrong but you're dangerously irresponsible. Please never make any important decision ever again. ;)

Jersey McJones said...

Well, Leticia, the kid may not have meant to do wrong, but talking about how gays should be put to death, or lying about what Jesus said on the matter (he in fact said nothing), and then insisting we are a "Christian society" (really? has he watched TV lately?) and so therefore gay people adopting is an "abomination" is really over the top rhetoric. Though I think the school over-reacted in it's actions with the child, the flap over the article itself is well-deserved. What the kid wrote was indeed hateful, or at the very least mean-spirited.

I'll say this, though - it was so poorly written, it only goes to prove that people who hold his position are probably not the most literate or intelligent bunch on the whole.


Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Well, I suppose those "opinions" are just right out.

Can't have opinions which oppose GOWP belief systems, can we now?


Check my The Usual Suspects list.

Leticia said...

Jersey, you must remember this boy is only 15 not some professional writer. I think he did a great job and so did the young lady who wrote the opposing view-point.

BZ, nope, we can't.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Did you see that I added you to my The Usual Suspects blogroll?


Leticia said...

BZ, I am, indeed, honored!! Yay!

Teresa said...

The boy was asked to write an article on a controversial subject. He wrote it and the school's paper published it. The time for the superintendent or a teacher to complain was before the article was published.

The people who support gay adoptions are clueless as to what psychological ramifications a child who doesn't have two parents who are of different genders, male and female, can harm the child while growing up. Its not a matter of whether the gay couple has a capacity to love or is caring, it is a matter of what is best for the child. Studies have shown that children do best when they have two parents where one is female and the other is male.

Z said...

there is no freedom of speech unless the left agrees with you, Leticia..right? Heck, there's not even freedom of thought, considering the kinds of profs we have in our colleges today.

Lisa said...

There will never be a world without prejudice or judgment, The best we can do is to teach our kids that it's wrong to judge others and to accept people for who they are, but it will always be there like it or not.
There are people and mostly straight men who have a hard time accepting male gay behavior even if they had sex in the privacy of their bedroom,but we will never convince everyone to accept it.
I don't even think because of religion as some people just have a hard time with it.
There was alot of stigma too with aids.

People judge others all the time. Liberals do it all the time,lol!!!!

jez said...

"The people who support gay adoptions are clueless as to what psychological ramifications a child who doesn't have two parents who are of different genders, male and female, can harm the child while growing up."

I can entertain that idea (without conceding it): what if the alternative isn't a straight family, but an orphanage? There are an excess of children in care, housing them all with straight families is not a practical option as far as I know. So to represent a win, gay adoptions only have to work better than care homes.

"Studies have shown that children do best when they have two parents where one is female and the other is male."

Please could you cite or link to these studies.

Leticia said...

Teresa, spot-on! I couldn't agree more. Kids need two parents of the opposite sex. I am sure I just opened up a can of worms with that, but that's my opinion and how I feel.

Z, the Left are intolerant with anyone that opposes their views. I agree.

Lisa, most liberals are very quick to judge, and can get quite ugly if anyone has an opposing view, especially Christians, because we tend to be on opposite sides on almost every issue.

Jez, ScienceDaily (June 10, 2010) — The differences in mothers' and fathers' interactions with their children, particularly in play situations, may influence toddlers' associations of specific behaviors with male and female genders. According to Eric Lindsey from Penn State Berks in the US, and his colleagues, context, gender of the parent and gender of the child combine in a complex pattern to shape parent-child interaction.

Teresa said...

Jez - Here is a link to one study

Leticia said...

Thanks, Teresa.

jez said...

Leticia, Teresa, thanks.

I don't think either of those articles come close to justifying "Studies have shown that children do best when they have two parents where one is female and the other is male." -- I am unaware of any study actually showing this. Claims that studies show this, however, are everywhere.

Leticia's shows that young children play differently with their father than they do with their mother. However, it doesn't attach any great importance or benefit to this.

Teresa's study identifies the benefits of two-parent families where the parents are married, and where the parents are biological. Biological parents are not an option for children in need of adoption. By all means let gays who want to adopt get married first, I'm not stopping them.
Meanwhile, from the same source, consider this article about the difficulties of living in care.

Teresa said...


Homosexuals can never be truly married whether or not some states have claimed they are able to under that state's policies. You are asking, no I mean demanding that I recognize and support something that is an anathema and harmful to the very idea of marriage and the children in the end. Two gays can never truly be married because it is impossible for them to procreate naturally. Even an infertile couple has that possibility present because of the very nature of the act. Homosexuals perverse the sexual act when they engage in sexual relations. Having two loving parents of different sexes gives the child the emotional balance of both parents (mars and venus) which they need to form a healthy life both psychologically and physically. Homosexual couples eliminate the possibility of nurturing kids properly and in a healthy fashion when they remove one sex from the equation.

jez said...

"You are asking, no I mean demanding that I recognize and support something that is an anathema and harmful to the very idea of marriage and the children in the end."

I asked / demanded nothing of the sort. I asked for specific studies to back up

"Studies have shown that children do best when they have two parents where one is female and the other is male."

If there are no studies that say that (I mean really say that), I suggest you don't use the phrase "studies have shown", since there already exist phrases such as "I think" and "My opinion is" which are more appropriate.

Teresa said...

"By all means let gays who want to adopt get married first, I'm not stopping them."

That is exactly what you stated Jez. That has strong implications if not demands that I should allow homosexuals to marry when then that is an impossibility in and of itself.

jez said...

By "by all means" I mean: you have my full permission to recognise gay marriage.
The point being, this "unmarried" objection to gay adoption is thanks to you, or your political lobby. It's a bit rich to list "not married" as an obstacle to gays adopting when it is within your power to lift that obstacle.

Marriage is a social construct, your definitional game is mere obstinacy, not a genuine difficulty. As we speak there are different types of "marriage" in operation in different cultures around the world. This claimed "impossibility" is a feint.

"Even an infertile couple has that possibility [to procreate] present because of the very nature of the act."
Depends how infertile we're talking. Would you let a woman marry after a hysterectomy? Will you admit that there is no possibility of procreation for her?

Teresa said...


No matter what facts are presented you have proven both in the present and the past, that your ideology trumps facts. So believe what you want to because of your preconceived wants and feelings but don't dare declare that the one report I found was deficient in the way it came up with results just because you disagree with the conclusion. So believe what you're going to believe based on your opinions and politically motivated non-scientific "studies" but I base my conclusions on what is best for the kids based on facts and research, and not on opinions or feelings.

Teresa said...

Your political lobby is responsible for countless innocents deaths and the break up of numerous families in our culture. Your political lobby is responsible for keeping countless Americans poor as to promote a big government agenda based on dependency instead of promoting freedom.

Will you recognize that the woman before having the hysterectomy had the possibility of procreating naturally versus a homosexual who didn't have that as a possibility before or after having a hysterectomy?

jez said...

Didn't declare your report deficient, I have no issue with its findings, it just doesn't say what you think it does.

MK said...

That is a really brave boy. Takes a lot to stand up for your beliefs when being persecuted by power-mad liberal fascists.

jez said...

I assume Teressa's last two links are substantially the same, I read through the online version and started the PDF, and they at least start off only slightly different.

I'm afraid I am going to have to declare it deficient, but certainly not "just because [I] disagree with the conclusion." If you're disappointed by this declaration, please take note of the extensive justification for it below: it is not merely partisan on my part, it is seriously flawed.

Having helpfully reminded the reader of what to look out for (sample size, presentation bias etc.) when skeptically reading through any scientific study, Dailey promptly suffers an acute attack of amnesia, as he seems to have no recollection of these pitfalls as he deals with surveys which call homosexual families into question. Apparently sampling issues are not worth mentioning when it comes to gay promiscuity, incest and sexual identity confusion.

And when he's not being a selective skeptic, he lapses into what I can only interpret as downright dishonesty. Read his paragraphs on "reduced life span." Now read the cited work's abstract. If, like me, you were surprised that these life expectancy results were projections based on speculative assumptions, the results of computer models seeded with data from an unnamed Canadian urban center from the years 1987–1992, the very peak of the AIDS epidemic, then you might also join me in wondering why Dailey didn't mention any of this. I mean, it's all interesting stuff. It's relevant. He's not making any particular effort at brevity. Why omit it?
Maybe he feels his point is punchier and more convincing without all of those distracting facts.
Maybe he's lying through his teeth. At the very least this is a marked change in style from the opening remarks about homosexual parenting research, which were admirably scrupulous and detailed.

About 2/3 of the way through, from "A political agenda: redefining marriage" through to "Children need a mom and a dad" he drops all pretense at writing any sort of technical review and all but admits that what he's writing is a jumped up editorial. One particularly ludicrous statement jumped out:

"Similarly, an organism needs a critical mass of healthy cells to survive, and--as every oncologist knows--the fewer abnormal cells the better."

This is a charming metaphor wherein our homosexual brothers and sisters are likened to cancerous cells. Leaving the issue of poor taste to one side, this metaphor doesn't even work the way he intends -- the human body relies on a variety of different cell types working together. Some of them may be in a minority (of comparative size to, say, the homosexual minority), but despite that you cannot function without, eg. lymph cells.
In fact, in a human, the human cells form a minority of less than 10%. Sounds like a joke, but it isn't: over 90% of the cells in your body are microbes.
So, Dailey would say, goodbye every human cell in your body. You're a minority, an abnormality, a cancer, and the microbe (silent) majority are better off without you.

The metaphor isn't too bad, it actually rather appeals to my senses of scale and humanity once you recognise that societies, like bodies, thrive and rely on variation and diversity. A politics which imposes too much conformity is as dangerous as the medicine that tries to weed out my lymph system in the mistaken belief that it's abnormal and dangerous.

Leticia said...

Jez, read this link and let me know what you think.

It is a bit long, but I am curious to know your reaction.

Teresa said...


Liberals don't believe in diversity of opinion and they most certainly don't recognize the natural differences between men and women versus males with males or females with females. You are the ones forcing gay "marriage" which is a non entity, making it up out of thin air to advance so-called equality. Men with men together or women and women are not equal to man and woman together. And, it is unjust to equate the two. Actually "same-sex marriage" argument is discriminatory and renders the meaning of marriage meaningless.

Your opinion is deficient in my opinion. Your claim that the reports were "deficient" doesn't make them deficient since your ideology blinds you to reality.

Teresa said...


I will not be responding to Malcolm. I don't deal with people who change the rules to fit their agenda and won't admit when they've been wrong. I will not deal with all liberal liars who are liberal fascists anymore. That pretty much covers most if not all the liberals.

jez said...

Leticia: that's the same article I just commented on for Teresa! See my overly long response above if you want. ;)

speaking of overly long responses...
Teresa: Maybe I'm not a liberal, but I do believe in diversity of opinion and never claimed not to recognize the natural differences between men and women versus males with males or females with females. Of course they're different, I just don't presume that different must be bad. You are the ones forcing gay couples away from marriage. Gay marriage is not made up out of thin air, there is a palpable demand for it from gay people; it arises from that. Gays ask for it, the state must determine whether to accede or decline, and a responsible state must be able to justify its decision. A state dedicated to separation from religion, like yours, must be able to justify its decision without reference to any particular religion.
No two relationships are identical. No two couples of whatever combination of genders is equal. So what? Marriage neither demands nor asserts that level of conformity. The state is in the business of recognising couples who have pledged a sufficient level of permanent and faithful commitment to one another. I would argue that it is unjust for the state to restrict the makeup of marriages, in general. For example anti-miscegenation laws are, in my opinion, unjust. (Not to draw some boring equivalence between race and gender, just illustrating the general with a particular). There are obvious exceptions: the state must legitimately demand that both parties give adult consent, for example.

The same-sex marriage argument does not rob "marriage" of meaning. Your link defines marriage (poetically rather than legally) as

"the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together."

We can keep all of that, just replace "a man and a woman" with "two parties". Nothing else need change. (Unfortunately I do have to ride over terms like "spiritual level" which are, for me, entirely vacuous, and for anyone impossible to closely define -- ironic given that you're the one arguing about maintaining definition and meaning, ha!)

My opinion may be deficient in your opinion, and it might be fun for you to make that point but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. I don't believe that my opinion or ideology magically makes Dailey deficient, I believe it is deficient on its own terms, and I took the trouble to point out a few ways in which it falls short. If you could tell me where the problems lie with my commentary on Dailey, that would be useful. Can you do that?

Teresa said...

Gay marriage has been conjured up out of thin air to fit so-called needs. Does "gay marriage" have some historical significance to it? Can you point to the historical background which supports "gay marriage"? Or when did progressives think it up out of thin air?Possibly more recently (within last 30 years or so?) as opposed to traditional marriage which has been around since the beginning of creation.

"You are the ones forcing gay couples away from marriage."

You are the ones who can't recognize that you altering the very meaning, perverting the meaning of words like liberals often do, to fit some propaganda claimed in the name of "fairness" when two homosexuals will never be equal to two heterosexuals because it an impossibility for two homosexuals to procreate naturally. But you people are committing the ultimate unjust unfairness by rendering the the term "marriage" meaningless, demeaning it to the point of deconstructing the very meaning and changing its very essence, altering its meaning to fit some feeling or want which is perceived as a need by liberals today. Feelings rule your lives instead of reality and truth. I prefer to live in truth and reality and not rely on my feelings or what feels good to determine what is a "right" or what is "fair".

jez said...

"Gay marriage has been conjured up out of thin air to fit so-called needs."

That seems fine. Marriage is a tool. You might say that it was, like the Sabbath, created for man, not man for marriage.
Do you think that we're not supposed to address our needs?

"Does "gay marriage" have some historical significance to it?"

a) why does that matter, and b) sure, there have certainly been ceremonies for male couples consensually entering a familial relationship.

"traditional marriage which has been around since the beginning of creation."

Now come on, even if I let the creation thing slide (did Cro-Magnons have weddings?) we certainly do marriage a lot differently since Genesis (polygamy, child bride etc.).

"You are the ones who can't recognize that you altering the very meaning"
I addressed this in my last remark. Are you even reading me? If not, who are you really angry at?

"Feelings rule your lives instead of reality and truth. I prefer to live in truth and reality and not rely on my feelings or what feels good to determine what is a "right" or what is "fair"."

Now this is interesting. I suppose you're right, I am governed by conscience which is a feeling. It is also primitive and unable to guide me through a sufficiently complicated moral problem, which is where "thought" takes over. But that thought basically just strives to be consistent with the feelings of conscience.

Your religion is, I posit, also guided by feeling. Your decision to be a catholic is not the result of maths or science, surely. And the history of the church is a 2000 year exercise in striving for consistency, just like I do. Frankly, it's clearly been an uphill struggle -- it's pretty obvious by now that consistency out of reach given christianity's foundations.

I don't expect I'll ever achieve consistency either, but I like my chances better than yours even with your 2000 year head start.