In the comments section back here, Mr. Alcock writes:
But if CC wants to offer some open and fair debate instead of tossing baseless insults, I'm more than welcoming ...
Fair enough, Mr. Alcock. But, in all seriousness, what exactly do you think is the correct response to the aforementioned Aaron Unruh, who writes a stupid, gay-bashing post in which he references bullshit data from a discredited researcher without even understanding what the data is supposed to represent and, when he gets called on it, dismissively insults his commenters, even those self-avowed conservative commenters who are trying to keep him from making a total ass of himself.
Really, Jordan ... what strategy do you suggest for someone like me? Should I politely engage Mr. Unruh, using soothing logic and evidence to try to correct his misperceptions? Is that what you think would work, given that Aaron is insulting even his supporters?
Or should I just hold him up to the world for ridicule, to expose him for the mindless bigot he is, hmmmmmm? What approach would you recommend? I'm listening. And you might want to think long and hard about your answer here, because it's going to go a long way to determining whether there's any value in continuing this conversation.
P.S. Not surprisingly, rather than respond to the actual issues that have been presented, Mr. Unruh just keeps the infantile sarcasm coming:
Addendum: Contrary to the misinformation twice provided by some silly blogger sending traffic our way, I did link to the original article. See that star in the top left-hand corner? Try clicking it.
[WARNING: Public retraction and correction coming up. Brace yourself.]
Why, yes, Aaron did provide a link to the article he was quoting after all. As he describes, it shows up as a single asterisk on the screen, which, on my WUXGA (1920x1200) laptop display, is indistinguishable from dust. But, to be fair, the link is there.
Sadly, though, following that link takes one here. Yeah ... "breaking news" about gays from "Religion and Spirituality.com". What's the matter, Aaron? Matt Drudge's site was down or something?
And, as we speak, not a single correction or retraction from Mr. Unruh for having posted irresponsible garbage. So, once again, Mr. Alcock ... your recommendation?
BY THE WAY, is it worth pointing out that that linked-to article in no way supports Aaron's blog post title? While Aaron entitled his post " Gay Marriage: Hazardous to your Health," the article opens thusly:
Homosexuality 'deadlier than smoking'
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years!
How about that? The article isn't addressing gay marriage at all. Rather, it's talking about the alleged dangers of "engaging in homosexual behavior," which is entirely unrelated. So it's not clear why Aaron thought it so important to refer us to that article, since it shows only how clueless or dishonest he was in misrepresenting its contents.
But I'm sure Aaron will have a snappy, devastating comeback for all this. Perhaps he'll call us all "moonbats."
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. The more you dig into this, the curiouser it gets. In an earlier post, I claimed that the Camerons totally misrepresented their participation at a recent psychology conference. Here's what that SandR.com article had to say (emphasis added):
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years! So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.
Did they? If you read further down that same article, you then read something that doesn't quite seem to match up:
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint."
OK, so that's confusing -- what does the life expectancy of married gays have to do with homosexual "footprints?" And what was the actual topic of their "presentation," if any? I know -- let's do some research and go straight to the source, where we learn that neither of the Camerons were on the list of official presenters but, if you read the full PDF of the conference, lo and behold, on p. 46 of that PDF file, you find:
FEDERAL DISTORTION OF HOMOSEXUAL
PAUL CAMERON, KIRK CAMERON (FAMILY RESEARCH
Federal agencies are exaggerating the size of the
homosexual footprint. In 2003, Statistics Canada
interviewed a national random sample of 121,300 reporting
1.7% as bi/homosexual – yet inclusion of respondents aged
60+ drops it to 1.4%. In 2005, the British Department of
Trade and Industry said “lesbian, gay and bisexual people
constitute 5-7% of the total adult population” -- yet when
adults over age 60 are included, the prevalence is closer to
Well, how about that? The Camerons were at the conference in an official capacity. They were not "presenters." They did not give a talk of any kind. They had a poster. A poster which, I should point out, said absolutely sweet FA about gays and marriage and lifespans.
Dear Aaron: That's how you do research.