Tag Archive | National Organization For Marriage

Censorship, Redux

On April 17 2012, I posted this. Now, WinteryKnight has done it again. I tried to post a comment on this article. The comment was as follows:

No one has ever argued that *all* same-sex couples make good parents; just that *some* do. Of course some gay parents do a bad job, just like some straight parents do a bad job. We shouldn’t be saying that children should be raised by straight rather than gay parents, but that they should be raised by good rather than bad parents.

It should also be noted that Mark Regnerus is very explicit to note that his study does not show causation between parents being gay and children having problems; but merely correlation. He says: “The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation.” and “This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy.

As for this: “Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true” – here’s what Regnerus himself has to say on the subject: “Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions.

How large a part of the total of same-sex families are planned, long-term, and stable remains to be seen. But that part is getting bigger.

This comment was automatically deleted. I didn’t even see “your comment is awaiting moderation”. I can only assume that Wintery Knight is automatically discarding all my comments. How disappointing.

Over on the NOM website, I tried to post a comment on an article here. My comment was a response to another comment made by Randy E King (comment #13). His comment was this:

As my college Statistics Professor pointed out:

“Mathematics is a theory; not a fact”

So by insisting that the governing component of marriage be changed from (1) man and (1) woman to (2) consenting adults you have changed the basis for marriage from a scientific fact into a scientific theory.

Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.

I responded with this:

Randy E King said: “Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.”

Germ Theory:
the concept that all infectious and contagious diseases are caused by living microorganisms. The science of bacteriology developed after establishment of this theory. Also called pathogenic theory of medicine.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germ+theory

Atomic Theory:
the concept that all matter is composed of submicroscopic atoms that are in turn composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons. A chemical element is identified by the number of protons in its atoms.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/atomic+theory

Kinetic Theory of Gases:
a theory that gases consist of small particles in random motion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinetic+theory+of+gases

I could go on and on and on. Are these all quicksand as well?

This time, I did see the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message. However, shortly after that, my comment was gone. This can only mean that someone intentionally disapproved the comment – but why? I don’t understand why people don’t allow these types of comments. If anyone is in contact with either Wintery Knight or NOM, please ask them why my comments are not allowed. Thanks.

Advertisements

NOM, Obama, and Race

The National Organization for Marriage blog makes a lot of posts; sometimes up to five a day. But if you start going back through them from now (June 5) to mid-may, you notice something…odd. I’m not going to talk about gay marriage here; that’s not relevant right now. But here’s a list of titles of selected blog posts NOM has made:

June 5 – Black Pastors Demand Meeting with Obama Over Gay Marriage
June 4 – Boston Herald: Many Black Pastors Remain Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage
June 1 – Black Minnesota Pastor Who Flipped on Marriage Now Risks Losing His Church
May 31 – Video: Black Church Leaders Say Gay Marriage Not a Civil Right
May 31 – Video: Black Church & Civil Rights Leaders Convene Press Conference Opposing President on Gay Marriage
May 24 – An Open Letter from a Black Pastor to Pres. Obama on Same-Sex Marriage
May 23 – Florida Sun Sentinel: “Many Black Voters Unhappy with Obama Over Same-Sex Marriage”
May 23 – Round-Up: Even More Black Pastors Speak Out Against Obama’s Marriage Switch
May 22 – Video: African American Pastors and Civil Rights Ministers Condemn President Obama on Marriage
May 22 – Star Parker: Obama’s SSM Support Forces Black Churches To Choose Priorities
May 22 – Christian Post: African-American Pastors Call on Obama to Reconsider Gay Marriage Stance
May 21 – BET Opines Against Coalition of African Americans Pastors
May 21 – Rev. Owens and Other Black Pastors Condemn Obama’s Gay Marriage Support
May 18 – OneNewsNow: Black Clergy Challenge Obama on Gay Marriage
May 18 – AP: Memphis Black Pastors Condemn Obama’s Gay Marriage Support

Here’s the million dollar question: why is it relevant that the people mentioned in these articles are black? The answer is: it’s not. So why is NOM drawing attention to the race of these people? Why not just have headlines that read “Pastors Demand Meeting with Obama Over Gay Marriage”, or “Minnesota Pastor Who Flipped on Marriage Now Risks Losing His Church”? Many of these articles also mention president Obama, who is also black, and this makes race relevant…right? Wrong. There’s no reason to mention that some people who disagree with Obama on same-sex marriage are the same race as him. Plus, he’s half black, and half white. So why doesn’t NOM also publish articles titled “White pastor objects to Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Stance”?

I’m not going to draw any conclusions from this, although I hope the reason isn’t what I think it is; rather, I’m going to post a link to this article on the NOM blog and let them explain why they keep mentioning race – that is, if they even let the comment go up. Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher are welcome to explain their tactics.