Video: It's not anti-gay nastiness that fuels violence. No, no -- it's lesbi-love
Attention, Rosie O'Donnell: One of your kids is going to commit a violent crime. Or at least that is what one would rightfully assume from listening to the unbelievably hurtful non sequiturs of one Mat Staver:
But on the flip side: Mat's logic means that gay dads must be extra fab at keeping their own progeny out of jail. So we'll just set up an exchange program wherein lesbians will raise the criminals and gay boys will raise the wardens. It'll all work out Mat. Don't you worry your purty wittle conservative head, you silver fox you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I must go lock my window so that those little Etheridge children won't crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon, and then kick my arse.
CPAC: Marriage Equality Will Create a Generation of Violent Criminals [Right Wing Watch]
**For more CPAC videos, check out Right Wing Watch.
Calling Mat Staver a silver fox is an insult to all the silver foxes of the world.
Good Gawd this people are nuts they will say and do anything to keep us from being married - sad!
Posted by: Alonzo | Feb 26, 2009 6:40:30 PM
You can probably walk into any church and ask every single one of them what their relationship with their father was, and probably half of them would say that they (literally or figuratively) had no father. And, the reason that he said that "you don't have to read a thousand studies", is because there are absolutely none of those studies that show that kids raised by loving same-sex couples has any more predisposition to committing violent offenses than any kids raised by so called "loving christian mothers and fathers."
If there was any study that supported his contention, then he and every jackass like him would know it, and shout it from every pulpit and street corner everywhere. So he has to twist one specious claim into the lie that his entire movement is based on. And, JUST ASK HIM WHERE HIS LOVING (he called him abusive) FATHER WAS! Wait a minute... maybe that is why he is the way that he is today!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 26, 2009 6:56:52 PM
Cherrypicking at its best. Maybe you should also ask these criminals if they were poor or abused or neglected as children. The correlation, Mr. Staver, is not direct, there are many factors involved in a person becoming a violent offender. And further, is it possible that someone in a two-parent (regardless of gender) family will be less likely to become a violent offender? What a hack.
Posted by: SammySeattle | Feb 26, 2009 6:57:21 PM
I bet this guy thinks he's very reasonable too. Why is it that so many of these anti-gay speakers commit such obvious logical fallacies? His reasoning is that because some people have no father, that must be the cause of their lawlessness. I was looking at the previous article on Mr. Heath and noticed that both men are using this same logical fallacy. The fallacy is called: post hoc ergo propter hoc (before this therefore because of this [latin]). No doubt they wouldn't care because their opinion is not based on reason but emotion (read: fear).
Posted by: DanM | Feb 26, 2009 8:52:08 PM
All of those violent criminals had no fathers? Wow, I was unaware they'd already perfected pathogenesis. I must strive to better keep up with the news.
BTW, could somebody explain to Staver the concept of "Correlation does not imply causation"?
Posted by: Buffy | Feb 26, 2009 11:02:32 PM
Good grief, where do they find these people?
As a child up until I was about 7 years old my dad was in the Navy and was out to sea for up to 6 months at a time. So I guess you could say then I didn't have a father.
After the age of 7 my mom and dad got divorced and I really never saw my dad after that. I definitely didn't have a father then.
I've never been a violent offender. So how do I fit into that study? Oh wait... raised by a single mother. He would probably say that's what made me gay.
Posted by: David | Feb 27, 2009 1:20:42 AM
DanM, I am of the opinion that these guys know exactly what they are doing. They finesse their "logic" to fit their argument. There are no facts that support their intended purpose, so they fabricate, spin, twist and outright lie as a means to support their fallacious points. There is nothing honest about their mistakes, and, quite the opposite, everything about their "logic" is purposefully dishonest.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 27, 2009 2:34:41 AM
/ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
Posted by: Dugan Johnson | Feb 27, 2009 10:31:30 AM
Dugan: That's a convenient def. However, this inclusive one comes from a little dictionary known as Webster's:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 27, 2009 11:16:40 AM
I can't help but wonder if people who grew up in a divorce family or with an absent father take offense at this junk.
Posted by: foundit66 | Mar 4, 2009 9:32:38 PMcomments powered by Disqus