The mere idea of it

A former Stormont health minister will not face prosecution over comments he made about same-sex couples at a general election hustings event.

Democratic Unionist Jim Wells faced intense criticism after a video clip from the event in County Down emerged in which he made remarks referencing both same-sex couples and child abuse. He was accused of suggesting that children brought up by same-sex couples were at greater risk of abuse.

The mere idea that anyone should consider prosecuting someone for anything other than incitement to immediate violence.

No, it’s not what he said that I’m supporting, rather, his right to say whatever the hell he likes.

27 thoughts on “The mere idea of it”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    And so we see the tolerance extended to Gays is not being returned. Even when homosexuality was illegal we did not jail people for saying that perhaps Gays would make excellent parents. In the modern world, liberalism is dead, either we will all go to jail or they will. For any value of “us” and “them”.

    This is all the more galling because, you know, it is actually perhaps, maybe, slightly true. Same sex marriage has not existed long enough to know for sure, but the response of the Usual Suspects to people who do research on this topic suggests that they are afraid of an honest answer.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

  2. Issues of freedom of speech aside, I am wondering why the UK keeps Northern Ireland. We do not seem to have all that much in common with them anymore and all they really do is cost the English tax payer money. Something like 80% of the economy there is government spending.

    And I am not the Irish Republic really wants them either. Most of the Irish people I know do not think much of them and only entertain the notion of an united Ireland many decades from now when the northern Irish are less religious and less prone to violence and silly marching seasons.

  3. And yet those who shout loudest about feed of speech often actually seem intensely to dislike Freedom of Reply. Take this for example.

    “This is all the more galling because, you know, it is actually perhaps, maybe, slightly true. Same sex marriage has not existed long enough to know for sure, but the response of the Usual Suspects to people who do research on this topic suggests that they are afraid of an honest answer.”

    I love rhe pre-emptive ad hominem aimed at the “usual suspects” who “are afraid of an honest answer”. OK, let’s be ‘honest’: where is the ‘honest’ research?

  4. Haven’t you rather disproved your own point, Superhero?
    Sticking the second honest in scare quotes.

  5. “Same sex partners who have children have existed for far longer than same sex marriage.”

    True, but same-sex marriage has existed for very little time, and married bisexuals have long had children, so no news there. The point I take SMFS to be making is that we have little experience of the effects on children of being raised by a same-sex couple living together as a family unit. I doubt the effects are severe or widespread, but only time will tell.

  6. Maybe there’s reason for honest research, as well.
    Heterosexuality isn’t a choice. It’s the default option. Particularly for conceiving children. There isn’t actually another one.
    So if someones sexual preferences are so important to them, they take priority over the normal requirements of producing & raising children, one’s entitled to wonder whether the outcomes are the same.

  7. Honest or not, I very much doubt you’d be “allowed” to publish research that gave even the faintest hint that same sex couples are not utterly perfect parents and everyone should be one.

    “Honest” scientific research these days seems to mean finding the answers that “the right people” want you to find. And for sure, we’ve always been at war with etc etc….

  8. Bloke in Spain

    Why on earth would I imply SMFS would offer , ahem, ‘research’ thay was anything other than honest? Oh, because his ‘honsst’ ‘research’ consists of a single article about a slightly less-than-representative (of.anyome) couple of perverts.

    It’s funny, I don’t particularly like the idea of same sex couples automatically having the same standing as heterosexual couples when adoption is being considered. I like even less, however, the vile attempts by the likes of SMFS to smear decent people and then to hide his filth behind a curtain of free speech.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Same sex partners who have children have existed for far longer than same sex marriage.”

    So have parents who abuse their children. What’s your point?

    Ironman – “And yet those who shout loudest about feed of speech often actually seem intensely to dislike Freedom of Reply. Take this for example.”

    How is it an example? I am not shouting about the “feed of speech”. Not even defending it. As usual you are just out to look for something to take offense at.

    “I love rhe pre-emptive ad hominem aimed at the “usual suspects” who “are afraid of an honest answer”. OK, let’s be ‘honest’: where is the ‘honest’ research?”

    It is not pre-emptive. The usual suspects have been trying to get the people who do the wrong sort of research on this sort of topic fired or jailed for a long time. A long time before I said anything. Nor is it an ad hom to point out what people have done and are doing.

    As for the research, how about Mark Regnerus:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus

    And look what happens when you step out from the herd.

    Theophrastus – “The point I take SMFS to be making is that we have little experience of the effects on children of being raised by a same-sex couple living together as a family unit. I doubt the effects are severe or widespread, but only time will tell.”

    Stepfathers are measurably worse than biological fathers on average. It would be astounding if that was not true of the non-biological Gay parental unit.

    But the credible professional associations have pointed out that there is so little data that there are no good studies. Which is true. And, as you say, my point. We don’t know. But apparently playing with potential child abuse is fun for all concerned as long as it is in a good cause.

    Ironman – “‘honest’ referred to the research, so where is the ad hominem?”

    Motes and beams have nothing on Rusty.

    Ed Snack – ““Honest” scientific research these days seems to mean finding the answers that “the right people” want you to find.”

    Seems to be Rusty’s position.

    Ironman – “Why on earth would I imply SMFS would offer , ahem, ‘research’ thay was anything other than honest? Oh, because his ‘honsst’ ‘research’ consists of a single article about a slightly less-than-representative (of.anyome) couple of perverts.”

    How do you know that they are not representative? I did not present any research. I was not asked for any. But of course you need to don your Social Justice Warrior Batman peejays and fly to save Gotham from the horrible non-PC thoughts other people have. So you have that going for you.

    “I like even less, however, the vile attempts by the likes of SMFS to smear decent people and then to hide his filth behind a curtain of free speech.”

    Name three decent people I have smeared this week. You just made that up didn’t you? Nor am I hiding anything behind any curtain.

  10. “So if someones sexual preferences are so important to them, they take priority over the normal requirements of producing & raising children, one’s entitled to wonder whether the outcomes are the same.”

    Quite so. ‘Alternative’ family structures may well not be hugely damaging and yet not be optimal.

  11. We all know that SMFS’s idea could be so true as to be provable in an easy scientific experiment, yet nothing in this story would be any different – the backlash, the threat, the hounding – everything.

  12. OK you win. You’ve proved your point. For what more research could anyone ask beyond your Australian newspaper report about a couple of.perverts and your references to an Southern fundamentalist nut job. Yep you win

    P.S. Just what does an article on a couple of perverts show? Don’t bother responding oh Great Researcher.

  13. As the general public has cut down on breeding markedly -why not just ask the people imported who will do the future breeding -what they think.
    But then you know already.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “OK you win.”

    As always. I would crow but it is like kicking a sad little puppy.

    “For what more research could anyone ask beyond your Australian newspaper report about a couple of.perverts and your references to an Southern fundamentalist nut job. Yep you win”

    I don’t know. Why don’t you ask and see? I do like how you go straight for the ad hom. You do not look at what award-winning research Regnerus, an actual tenured academic, has done. You simply smear. I don’t even think he is a fundamentalist. I thought he was a Catholic. But I don’t know because what matters to me is the research.

    I will agree that the two men, lauded by the media as the perfect Gay parents – the ABC even did a programme on them – are perverts.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – ““Catholic”? As in “Catholic priest”?”

    I know there is a joke wait to be made here, but no. I have no idea. He could be. Other people who have researched in this field have been.

    However unlike Rusty I do not proceed by smear and innuendo so I don’t care much. Regnerus could be a Muslim for all I know or care. His work looks interesting – and its credibility is strengthened, in my opinion, precisely by the fact that people like Rusty want it banned.

  16. “However unlike Rusty I do not proceed by smear and innuendo”

    No? I thought it was more galling because, you know, it was actually perhaps, maybe, slightly true.

  17. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “No? I thought it was more galling because, you know, it was actually perhaps, maybe, slightly true.”

    To say it probably is, when there is evidence that it probably is, is not either a smear or an innuendo. And certainly not aimed at any specific person – unlike everything Rusty does. The only two gay individuals I have named were convicted in a court of law. That is not a smear.

  18. “The only two gay individuals I have named were convicted in a court of law. That is not a smear.”

    No, but to suggest that because two gays did, therefore all gays are suspect, is the same sort of thing as suggesting that because a lot more than two Catholics did, that all Catholics are therefore suspect.

    I wasn’t actually making the connection, though because it’s obvious nonsense – an example of association fallacy. I was just pointing to an obviously similar example to help you see why your citing of that one case was maybe bad logic.

    I know you put in a bunch of caveats and uncertainties to cover yourself, but that’s not how ‘smear and innuendo’ works, is it?

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “No, but to suggest that because two gays did, therefore all gays are suspect, is the same sort of thing as suggesting that because a lot more than two Catholics did, that all Catholics are therefore suspect.”

    If I suggested such a thing. I did point out that non-biological heterosexual parents are a bigger threat to children than biological heterosexual parents. Especially if they are married to the mother. Therefore you would reasonably expect that the non-biological homosexual parental unit was also a greater threat.

    “I know you put in a bunch of caveats and uncertainties to cover yourself, but that’s not how ‘smear and innuendo’ works, is it?”

    Perhaps it does. But it is irrelevant as that is not what was happening here. We all know there is little evidence either way. Either you think that in the absence of evidence we should allow Gays to have as many children as they like, which is the position of a remarkable number of professional bodies, or you think that we should not given that the costs to the children – as we have seen in this case already – are too high. The article was there to point out what the costs are. No more.

  20. “Therefore you would reasonably expect that the non-biological homosexual parental unit was also a greater threat.”

    Dunno. Guessing at the psychology of the point, I’d assume that it was a matter of whether they considered the child “mine” or “not mine”. And possibly that it’s a reminder of their wife having slept with someone else. ~Either could introduce some psychological distance, that might affect the children’s development. Or might not.

    Either way, that wouldn’t affect a gay couple.

    Or for all we know, mothers liable to divorce or be divorced and remarry might not be such good mothers. We could speculate endlessly.

    But in any case, this is really an argument against adoption, not specific to gays.

    “”Either you think that in the absence of evidence we should allow Gays to have as many children as they like

    This argument applies to any new category. Should we allow software engineers with 4G mobile phones to have children? There’s little evidence, either way, but if we can find one case anywhere in the world of a software engineer with a 4G mobile phone committing a horrible crime against children, surely we should ban it on Precautionary Principle grounds, because Think Of The Children.

    Do you see where this kind of argument leads?


    As far as I’m concerned, it’s perfectly OK for people to not like gays, and to feel uncomfortable about them raising children. It’s an emotional reaction, and it’s difficult (and shouldn’t be necessary) for them to force themselves to feel any other way. There’s a lot of stuff other people do that I don’t like, as well.

    But if you feel uncomfortable about it, just say so. Don’t start invoking the Precautionary Principle to justify it, because the more precedents that get set where it’s used, the more it can be used against us.

    And bearing in mind the way things are going, people suspected of being racists and homophobes are quite likely to become the next set of targets for this sort of thing. (e.g. should UKIP members be allowed to adopt kids…?) What we do to others shall be done to us.

  21. “But I don’t know because what matters to me is the research.”

    You fucking idiot! You haven’t got any research; you’ve got a single article on a couple of sick perverts. It doesn’t show us anything because it isn’t reaearch, it’s just reading a newspaper article. You, however, have managed to extrapolate from that to the assertion that gays don’t make for decent parents.
    You are a fucking moron.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *