Burnt Orange Report

October 14, 2004

From the Rick Santorum Department of Science

By Byron LaMasters

Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum has a friend with the Young Conservatives of Texas UT-Chapter (it's not yet up on their site). Here's a portion of their press release regarding gay pride week:

Calling gay activists to task on moral grounds, Chairman Conner made the following argument, "Using the logic of the gay activist, we can assume that there should be no societal norms and that morality should be at the discretion of the individual. Now assuming that each of these gays was born from the reproductive act of a male and a female, ostensibly known as a mother and father, we can conclude that they would support any decision of either to make their own moral judgment on an issue such as adultery. So if one parent wants adultery to be their chosen life style, claiming they can't help themselves, and the other doesn't, which will they support? Judging by their logic, the gay activist would have to agree with the rights of both parents to choose the life style that they see fit. If not, who is the gay child to make this moral judgment? How about polygamy? Incest? These aren't anything more than moral judgments. What if people who commit these crimes claim to have genetic tendencies toward each of these acts? Do these acts then become morally acceptable? Again, the gay activist would have to agree."

YCT also rejects claims made by the gay community that same-sex attraction has been proven to be a genetic disorder. In fact the opposite has been proven. Same-sex attraction is a treatable and preventable developmental disorder, and those suffering from this affliction have the ability to change.

The first paragraph simply makes no logical sense. It's the slippery slope argument that homosexuality leads to adultery that leads to polygamy that leads to incest that leads to man-on-dog at least in worldview of YCT and Rick Santorum.

The second paragraph is flat out untrue. Basically every major respectable psychiatric, psychological and pediatric organization in the nation has said that homosexuality is not a genetic disorder.

Time for YCT to do some research before writing another press release.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at October 14, 2004 04:05 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Please don't suggest that College Republicans learn facts. They don't go to school to learn. They go to school to holler.

Posted by: Scooter at October 14, 2004 04:33 PM

I concur.

Some people are lost causes. They don't go to college to grow up or to become cosmopolites (eh, not like I'm exactly cosmopolitan, but you know I don't have a burning hatred of the French, so I guess that's good enough).

College is about more than career preparation.

Posted by: Jim D at October 14, 2004 04:40 PM

I would like to be able to say that I would be embarrassed for you guys to have this group say something that shows their own stupidity, ignorance and hate hail from your state...but I am from the same place as Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum (actually live only a few miles from the exteremely wealthy suburb of Pittsburgh he lived in when he was actually a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.)

Sadly, we all have our own crosses to bear. Keep up the great work!

Posted by: Mike at October 14, 2004 04:41 PM

How did these YCT folks get into UT? Are the standards that low?

Their first paragraph says basically homsexuality is a choice. Does that mean the members of YCT are heterosexual because they want to be?

The YCT claims that homosexuality has been disproven to be a genetic disorder. Cite the study or studies. Are they sound? Any that they would cite would probably not be sound. They then say that "those suffering from this affliction have the ability to change." Really? Like John Paulk?

The YCT claim to use logic, yet they do not. The "logic" they use is bassed on fallacies. Maybe they should spend more time in class instead of making up half-assed "agruments."

Posted by: texprodigy at October 14, 2004 05:33 PM

The fact that a person is gay has nothing to do with the idea that morality is nothing more than a personal choice. Who came up with that argument? There are plenty of gays who behave within the bounds of Judeo-Christian morality (excepting the not completely convincing claim that the Bible prohibits homosexuality per se), they believe murder is wrong, we must show love to our neighbors, and the same love to our enemies, etc. Why do "Christians" pick one "sin" and say that if you do this, you are beyond the pale, yet all of us sin every day in uncountable ways. If you believe in their notions of morality, everyone needs to be forgiven on a daily basis. Why gay sinners are worse than others, I don't know. If homosexuality was somehow one of the worst things a person could do, don't you think it might be more promintently condemned in the Bible? Just a thought.

What it all comes down to is these raving homo-phobes are terrified of anything that growing up in Plan or Highland Park or Sugar Land didn't prepare them for, so they respond with fear. These guys are scum. I hope they all have gay children and that this forces them to learn understanding of love of every human being.

Posted by: utlaw guy at October 14, 2004 08:29 PM

utlawguy wrote

The fact that a person is gay has nothing to do with the idea that morality is nothing more than a personal choice. Who came up with that argument? There are plenty of gays who behave within the bounds of Judeo-Christian morality (excepting the not completely convincing claim that the Bible prohibits homosexuality per se), they believe murder is wrong, we must show love to our neighbors, and the same love to our enemies, etc. Why do "Christians" pick one "sin" and say that if you do this, you are beyond the pale, yet all of us sin every day in uncountable ways. If you believe in their notions of morality, everyone needs to be forgiven on a daily basis. Why gay sinners are worse than others, I don't know. If homosexuality was somehow one of the worst things a person could do, don't you think it might be more promintently condemned in the Bible? Just a thought.

There's a fair amount of theology that holds that there are indeed different varieties of sin of lesser or greater magnitude. I could explain it further, but it would require sucking up all of the spare electrons in this area. Just start with Augustine and work your way forward.

Posted by: Jonathan Sadow at October 15, 2004 03:35 AM

others will want, and get, more direct shows golf of emotion: "Proust/ used to weep over days south beach diet gone by," she asks the reader, "do you?" (Feb.) carmen electra Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.A pokemon professor of classics at McGill University brooke burke and the author of Autobiography of Red, a National final fantasy Book Critics Circle nominee, Carson has rapidly britney spears become one of North America's most acclaimed paris hilton

Posted by: Michelle Vieth at October 29, 2004 08:10 PM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

October 14, 2004

From the Rick Santorum Department of Science

By Byron LaMasters