Tuesday, September 2, 2014

FRC's Sprigg is on a roll

Peter Sprigg - FRC
Peter Sprigg - FRC
Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council is an amazing creature. The Sprigg is either spectacularly stupid or he thinks that everyone else is. Perhaps it is both and he believes that everyone is as moronic as he is. Yet, it is Sprigg's sheer bigotry that drives everything else that he does.

Last week, Sprigg posted a piece on FRC's blog titled Critics of Natural Marriage Remain in Search of Legal Rationale in 7th Circuit Argument. The sophistry exhibited in that one title is astonishing. Proponents of marriage equality have never been, and never will be, “critics” of opposite-sex marriage; Same-sex marriage is just as “natural” as opposite sex marriage; and the legal rationale for civil marriage of same-sex couples has been clearly defined by more than 20 jurists lately. For the record it is comprised of both equal protection and due process.

After disparaging Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sprigg goes on to make the responsible procreation argument. It is a fallacy that no court has ever accepted as a rationale for denying gay couples the right to marry.
The case for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is (or at least should be) self-evident. It is self-evident that opposite-sex and same-sex sexual relationships are not the same — the former can result in natural procreation, and the latter never can. That fact, in turn, makes it self-evident that society has a greater interest in both encouraging and regulating opposite-sex relationships (which it does through the institution of marriage) than same-sex ones.
Except that recognizing same-sex marriage does not discourage (or cease to encourage) anyone from doing anything. The same heterosexual couples are going to marry either way. They are going to crank out the same kids and sue for the same divorces. Not recognizing same-sex marriages causes the children of same-sex couples and the couples themselves to be disadvantaged with absolutely no benefit to the state — at least none that anyone has been able to articulate. Sprigg seems most upset that attorneys are not willing to advance his arguments in courts. According to Sprigg, for example (and I am not making this up) because of same-sex marriage “fewer people would marry [and] birthrates will fall.” Try surviving oral argument with that nonsense.
Unfortunately, attorneys for the states seemed unprepared — or reluctant — to offer examples of such potential harms, suggesting only that we cannot know with certainty what the consequences would be. That aside, however, the kind of cost-benefit analysis Judge Posner was proposing is a fundamentally legislative task — not a judicial one. Whether costs outweigh benefits may help determine if a particular policy is wise — but it is not sufficient to determine if a policy is constitutional, or should be struck down by the courts.
Baloney. What Judge Posner asked of the attorneys representing Indiana and Wisconsin is very simple. Not recognizing same-sex marriage is a disadvantage to the children that gay couples are raising. They are denied a considerable number of benefits that are available to the children of married couples. What is the offsetting benefit to society for doing so? Needless to say, none of the attorneys could answer that question. It has no answer.

This goes on and on. At one point the Sprigg even writes that Judge Posner is “hostile to natural marriage.” Judge Posner is married and, presumably, his parents were married. He probably has children who are married. WTF?

Then came Friday. Reverend Sprigg's latest piece is titled Truth Matters in Ex-Gay Debate. I didn't know that there was a debate. It seems to me that the ineffectiveness of reparative therapy is settled science. With the demise of Exodus, International (and its leader admitting that nobody changes) I was under the impression that the matter was also settled in Evangelical Christian quarters.

The Sprigg is nothing if not consistent. Consistently irrational:
The fact that some people change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (some spontaneously as a developmental change, some through religious counseling, and some through professional therapy) is a big problem for the homosexual movement. It seriously undermines the myth that people are “born gay and can’t change” This myth is essential to making the public believe that disapproval of (or even failure to actively affirm and celebrate) men choosing to have sex with men and women choosing to have sex with women is exactly as loathsome as “discrimination” based on race.
So, just for grins, it is true that there is some fluidity in sexual orientation. However, there is nothing to suggest that anyone can influence a change. The outdoor temperature changes during the day. There is not much that we can do to affect those changes. There is absolutely no evidence that religious or professional counseling has any effect on someone's sexual orientation. Indeed. there is a mountain of evidence that sexual orientation is innate and formed involuntarily. The male sibling effect and twin studies, for example, represent just a small portion of the science that clearly demonstrates this fact.  If the Sprigg is right then the following professional organizations are all wrong since they all agree that sexual orientation is innate and that efforts to change sexual orientation are ineffective and potentially harmful:
  • American Academy of Pediatrics
  • American Counseling Association
  • American Association of School Administrators
  • American Federation of Teachers
  • American Medical Association
  • American Psychological Association
  • American Psychiatric Association
  • American School Health Association
  • American Sociological Association
  • Interfaith Alliance Foundation
  • National Association of School Psychologists
  • National Association of Social Workers
  • National Education Association
Who to believe? The Sprigg or the AMA. That's a tough one.  Sprigg continues, in painful verbosity, for paragraph after paragraph attempting to prove that 2 + 2 = 5. At the end of the day all that he proves is that the ex-gay movement is simply a mechanism designed to justify discrimination. It is also obvious why SPLC has designated Family Research Council a hate group.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.