16 responses

  1. Trevor
    July 21, 2008

    And they say ‘opposites attract’ ha!

  2. Paul Decelles
    July 21, 2008

    Excellent review. And thanks for the links to the reports!

  3. fannie
    July 21, 2008

    Great job, Jim.

    One would think that a “research council” would be more interested in accurately presenting research rather than mis-using it.

    What a shame.

  4. Dahl
    July 21, 2008

    Perhaps their next study should be about False Witnessing.

  5. Johno
    July 21, 2008

    Let’s see… gays sleep around and that’s bad, so therefore they should NOT be encouraged to instead form committed partnerships to each other under the law.
    Do I have their logic correct?

  6. JTW
    July 21, 2008

    Cross-Post from PHB


    FRC’s argument seems to assume that a marriage can only exist when there is a long-term, monogamous, non-violent, “natural” commitment between the spouses. Not only is this not a legal requirement for a valid marriage in ANY United States jurisdiction, but it is patently false as to existing heterosexual marriages.

    Moreover, grafting such a set of requirements on to marriage puts the government in the unenviable position of having to intrude into the inner workings of intimate family bonds in a way that subverts the very promises of “liberty.”

    Now don’t get me wrong. Is domestic violence bad? You bet. Do many couples find long-term happiness within a monogamous relationship? Absolutely. Is non-procreative (i.e., “unnatural”) intercourse for everyone? Of course not. But adhering to the FRC’s notions of what makes a valid marriage has never before been a requirement for entering into the civil aspects of the institution.

    And for those reasons, even if we (jokingly) concede that ALL homosexuals have short-term, promiscuous, violent, “unnatural” relationships, that fact alone is an insufficient reason to bar them from marriage.


  7. Regan DuCasse
    July 21, 2008

    I informed several people representing this organization as well as the typical bloggers on TH and other conservative journals of my background with LAPD and access to criminal databases.
    I can, as Jim does (you’re brilliant my man!), give the full analysis of certain demographics and when those demographics ARE broken down in proper and original context…the information will shake out that heterosexual men, heterosexual men of certain ages and heterosexual men criminally convicted of violent crimes, sex crimes, robberies or kidnapping OR domestic violence, ARE a dangerous breed indeed.

    It also depends too, on information about the demographic of VICTIMS, not just perpetrators.

    And wouldn’t you know…what I have to offer is dismissed or not even acknowledged, no one asks me questions or where they can find public online information on criminal databases.

    Oh, NO…they firmly and wholly and unquestionably, believe EVERYTHING about homosexuals that massresistance, or FRC or TVC of the AFA and ADF has to offer.
    Now…if, as these people are always claiming, that they are so imbued with The Truth….why IS their trust placed in said information and not someone full engaged intimately with the most depraved human behavior their is.

    Of course too, I’m accused of not recognizing evil when I see it only for defending gay people.
    Why I’d be accused of accepting terrible human behavior while working for an agency that combats and enforces it, just shows you something important.

    We try to be kind here. We really do. And we don’t want to call someone bad names.
    But STUPID is as STUPID does. And denying someone their empirical experience, whatever it is…when clearly you can’t, don’t or couldn’t have had the experience yourself…IS stupid.
    Or at the very least, intellectual cowardice.

  8. Dahl
    July 21, 2008

    Johno; Yes; their logic would then be to pass a law that all gays MUST get married, if they are to engage in sex.

    JTW; I like the way you frame your argument, may I copy it to send via email to some friends and family members?

  9. JTW
    July 21, 2008

    Dahl: Of course. And thank you. I’m very flattered.

  10. Priya Lynn
    July 21, 2008

    Jim, I sure like the way you expose these frauds. Excellent job. It never fails to amaze me just how outrageously these people lie and distort, trying to use a study that specifically excluded monogamous gays to claim all gays are non monogamous – how despicable can you get?!

  11. Buffy
    July 21, 2008

    Why do they constantly insist on violating the 9th Commandment?

  12. Matthew
    July 21, 2008

    For the FRC’s sake if gays are allowed to marry I promise not to push for the state to recognize my right to marry a farm for at least decade. Not just animals, but actual marrying of farm implements and land. I won’t push for my right to marry a rake. Promise.


  13. grantdale
    July 21, 2008

    The other report they ref. for IPV is here. (with an update here). Look in vain to derive any figure from these, because you cannot: the data is not presented in a way that allows you to.

    Often wonder if they continue to misreport that report with this other report. (We know how good FRC is at basic fact-checking…)

    It shows a markedly different state of affairs to that offered by FRC.

    > yes, if a woman assaults a partner… in 11.6% of cases she will have attacked another woman.

    > but these represent only 1.9% of women who are attacked by a partner. 98.1% of female victims are attacked by a male partner.

    > similarly, if a man is attacked by a partner… in 9.7% of cases the perpetrator will be another man.

    > but only 1.5% of attacks by men are directed at another man. 98.5% of male perpetrators attack a female partner.

    All this simply reflects two simple facts: men commit 86.1% of IPV, and women are 86.4% of the victims of IPV. Men commit violence and women are the victims of violence; regardless of the sex of the couples involved.

    > overall, 2.9% of IPV occurs in same-sex relationships.

    Meaning, violence in same-sex relationships occurs at the same rate or are lower than in opposite-sex relationships.

    On a side note, always missing from the “married women are at least risk” canard is the other part of the life-time risk.

    Marriages break down. The woman “safe” in her marriage soon finds herself at dramically higher risk from the ex.

    As the report notes : “Divorced or separated women had higher rates of violence by intimates (16 per 1,000 persons) than women who never married (7 per 1,000) or married women (1.5 per 1,000).”

    Assume 40% of marriages end in divorce. Lifetime risk from a heterosexual marriage is 7.3 per 1000.

    She’d have been slightly safer if she’d never married the bastard in the first place.

  14. NancyP
    July 21, 2008

    Another fine example of Teh Malicious Stupid.

    I am sending you (JB) another fine example by email.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop