How The Game Is Played
I have to give Andrew Sullivan credit where it’s due. He’s caught right wing theocrat Richard John Neuhaus playing the old game. Says Neuhaus:
The Church says it has ‘rules’ that preclude the gay placements. What has not appeared anywhere is a reasoned case that such placements are bad for the children, and it is the interest of the children that must come first. (For a critical survey of the studies and arguments relative to placing children with homosexual couples, see cosmos-liturgy-sex.) The claim that 50 or 60 percent of children reared by male homosexuals turn out to be homosexual or bisexual doesn’t cut any ice in some quarters. So what’s wrong with being homosexual or bisexual? And, if the incidence of sexual abuse of children in such settings is many times the norm, well, isn’t it time we reconsider the legitimacy of intergenerational love?
Sweet. The reason Pope Benedict is waging jihad on gay households isn’t because he’s a raving medieval lunatic, but out of alarm and concern for the welfare of children at the hands of predatory homosexuals. Only…just where is he getting his facts here? Sullivan does a little digging, and comes up with a familiar name…
So where does Neuhaus get his inflammatory claims? The only link Neuhaus provides is to a far-right Catholic website which in turn relies on a separate review published by Pat Robertson’s "Regent University" of 36 studies of gay parenting. 35 of the 36 "concluded that children from same-sex parents were not adversely affected," which is what the consensus largely is. One study alone provided the statistics Neuhaus relies on. That study is by our old friend, Paul Cameron…
Bingo. It almost always comes back to Cameron. But now they’ve nested his lies three layers deep…a right wing Catholic website, to a review by Pat Roberston’s Regent University to Cameron.
Why doesn’t Neuhaus simply say he’s relying on Paul Cameron for his facts about the dangers homosexuals represent to children? Well…isn’t that obvious? What’s interesting is that Cameron has become so toxic to the right, that they have to bury his name even deeper now. When William Bennett was arguing that homosexuals only live an average of 46 years, he only had to bury Cameron’s name one level deep, referring simply to another study that, as it turned out, cited Cameron for the figure. Now they’re burying his name three levels deep. They’ll be burying it three hundred layers deep one of these days, and it still won’t occur to them to just fucking stop spreading his lies.
What ninth commandment? I repeat, what ninth commandment?
March 27th, 2006 at 3:46 am
There is no ninth commandment…
April 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Actually the site quotes the study here: http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF
which reviews a group of studys on homosexuality. Finds all fairly deficient but finds the Cameron study the least deficient. The point being that there is NOT an overwhelming set of evidence for homosexual adoption and some evidence that it is actually bad for children. Read the report itself. Very detailed analysis and interesting. .
April 7th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Interesting like when Pat Robertson said "I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation." That kind of interesting? Now…tell me that this man’s university, Regent, is going to in any way shape or form let his university publish a study that shows anything, other then that same sex households are dangerous to children, regardless of what the science says. Not a chance my friend. Not. A. Chance.
The telling reviews of Cameron’s work are outside the propaganda mills of the religious right, and probably the most telling came when Cameron was dumped from one professional organization for lying about the work of other scientists. You get exactly one chance in that world to keep your good name, and he put a knife in the throat of his long ago, on the altar of his cheapshit prejudices.
If I said I had a study that shows that Ken Lay gave the least deficient advice on investing in energy stocks, how seriously should people take me? There’s only one reason to include Paul Cameron in a discussion about homosexuality, and that’s to incite hate. But that fits nicely with Pat Robertson’s vow to do everything he can to restrict the freedom of "these people".