Comments on: And the award for the most extreme, outrageous headline goes to… https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:44:06 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: David Blakeslee https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/#comment-26889 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:44:06 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=3592#comment-26889 @ Warren,
the comparison is not the gay activists and absurd assertions; it is with other religious bigots (white, Muslim and fundamentalist).
We are members of a troubled community.

]]> By: PianoManKugie https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/#comment-26888 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:47:24 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=3592#comment-26888 Somehow I feel that before electricity, before telegraphs, etc. there were same sex relationships, there were mass murders, and there were people who tried to connect two things that happened at the same time in history but had no common factor. This is nothing new. If the opinions of this person had the coercive force of law behind them, that would be something to fight against. Hopefully most people will simply ignore such talk. The people to be most wary of are Pharisees. The external Law and Letter may fall to pieces, but the work of the Spirit cannot be deterred one way or the other. Law, as good as it is, is used by sin to promote rebellion (i.e. “wet paint, do not touch”).

]]> By: Warren https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/#comment-26887 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:27:34 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=3592#comment-26887 I posted this because I am stunned by the lengths people will go to promote their views. I do not know any comparable rhetoric from gay groups but I assume there is some.
What actually happens however, is that the position becomes less persuasive. I cannot imagine anyone reading that news release on gay marriage and mass murder and thinking, ‘hey he has a point there.’
I show these kind of things in my classes to students and they generally tear these things apart we use them as indicators of how not to engage in rhetoric. I do not know the person who did this; he may be a nice guy. But the rhetoric and logic here is troubling at best. The only relief is that the purported “connection” is so absurd that I suspect very few people will be swayed by it.

]]> By: Jayhuck https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/#comment-26886 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:33:11 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=3592#comment-26886

It is reasonable, and certainly not bigoted, given the track record of the last 40 years to be cautious about broadening the definition of marriage.

That’s not to say that some bigoted people, and I’m not including you in this David B., don’t use excuses like this to rationalize their bigotry – if that makes sense. It eases some people’s guilt to say, well, its only rational to be cautious, etc, etc….
Regardless, though, civil marriage is a right that should be made available to gay couples. Keeping gay couples from such a right can only, in my opinion, hurt gay people, gay families and societies in the long run – because gay couples and gay families are not going away. And the number of gay couples raising children is only likely to grow.

]]> By: David Blakeslee https://wthrockmorton.com/2009/04/09/and-the-award-for-the-most-extreme-outrageous-headline-goes-to/#comment-26885 Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:55:48 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=3592#comment-26885 Tim, Dave G and Jayhuck,
I assume the studies you cite, in part have to do with comparing single heterosexual mothers (divorced) with single (SSA) mothers…and that there is no significant difference between these two groups.
These groups were measured, as I recall, using self-reports; a not very accurate means of assessment (cf. HRC criticism of Spitzer).
As this topic has been incredibly politicized in the last 5 years, I am doubting that a reasonable study will be done using more objective tools and a longitudinal analysis (the most accurate, which exposed the pervasive risks posed to children of divorce).
It is reasonable, and certainly not bigoted, given the track record of the last 40 years to be cautious about broadening the definition of marriage.
Serial monogamy in multiple heterosexual unions has not been good for children.
Maybe the Catholics had it right (with their own flaws of course), having a strict definition of marriage that was difficult for even heterosexuals to keep.

]]>