The deaf baby cult: Joseph Farah on lesbians who hoped for kids with disability

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, April 11, 2002 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, April 11, 2002

Quote of the Day by Rome2000 4/10/02

[Dimensio]

If there's nothing wrong with homosexuality – if it's just as good or better than heterosexuality – then surely there is nothing wrong with three-way marriages or four-way marriages, right? Could there be anything wrong with polygamy?

How about sex with children?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[glc1173@aol.com]

If the deaf lesbian couple wanted "a baby like themselves," why didn't they seek out a sperm donor from a family with a strong family history of lesbianism rather than deafness?

Is this two-mommie family saying that lesbianism is less important than deafness?

[Rytwyng]

Q. How about sex with children?

A. Slippery slope fallacy.

Sorry, but it's not a fallacy, it's a logical inevitability. Without a transcendant moral authority, all so-called morality boils down to only two elements: preference, and the power to enforce it. And if preferences change, so will the powers (the laws, etc.)

I predicted years ago, that once homosexuality was firmly entrenched, pedophila would be the next demon to come out of the closet, seeking "legitimization". Sadly, I was right -- New Book on Child "Sexuality"

[Drew68]

I wouldn't be surprised if the greater lesbian community tries to distance themselves from these two freaks and undertake serious damage control. What these two did was so abominable to mainstream Americans that it could very well set acceptance of lesbianism (and the gay movement in general) back decades.

[Mission2mars]

Leaving aside the issue at hand, the "slippery slope" is indeed a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide proof ( and not just conjecture) that one thing ultimatily leads to another you are, in fact, engaging in a fallacy.

[Rytwyng]

Slippery slope simply means, that if you accept one thing based on certain reasoning, you have no rational grounds to resist other, more extreme things that appeal to the same reasoning.

There is NO logical reason WHATSOEVER to oppose ANY sexual act, if there's no God. People who rejected God's law to allow fornication and adultery -- "Hey, baby, we're consenting adults" -- found that, despite their instinctive revulsion for homosexuality, they had lost all moral basis to resist the homosexual revolution. Now that the homosexuals have won a clear victory, the limits of "adult" are being pushed; there's an agenda to lower the age of consent, and so on.

For that matter, if there's no God, there cannot be any REAL reason to oppose non-consensual sex, other than personal preference. Absurd, you say? I say not... Here's how it might happen: as the pedophiles gain power and push the limits of consent downward, nearly all of the population will grow up with the experience of having been molested.... They'll be conditioned to accept sexual victimization from an early age, and as adolescents or adultes will easily be coerced into whatever sexual act anyone wants. Most "sluts" and gay/bi men are molestation victims; I've known enough of these people and their struggles, to know that the picture I'm painting is not unrealistic. They have so little resistance to sexual advances that the question of "consent" is hardly meaningful any more -- they're too emotionally devastated to say no.

In the end the feminazis will be right -- when that stage is reached, all sex really will be rape. It's not impossible, some ancient cultures were like this. Imagine a coed prison where the strongest male cons brutally subjugate the women, the weaker men, and any children that are born among them, and predatory sex is almost the only sex there is.. That, friends, is a picture of human nature in the absence of law.

There is, indeed, a slippery slope, with a lake of fire at the bottom.

[Dimensio]

Sorry, but it's not a fallacy, it's a logical inevitability. Without a transcendant moral authority, all so-called morality boils down to only two elements: preference, and the power to enforce it. And if preferences change, so will the powers (the laws, etc.)

It is a slippery slope fallacy, combined with argument from the consequences. Instead of directly arguing what is "wrong" with recognizing homosexual unions, the author instead argues that it's a bad idea because of other, not directly related, ideas that would be considered afterwards.

If recognizing homosexual unions is "wrong" for some reason, that/those reason(s) should be stated directly. Bringing up polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality only distracts from the issue, because arguments in favour of the first do not necessarily translate into arguments in favour of the latter three.

Many argue that there is now a great push for pedophilia to gain acceptance. I don't buy it. I think that what's happened is that the very small minority with such an interest has grown more vocal over the years -- but I see little chance of them getting their way. In the few instances where someone in a field of authority (ie, a medical professional of some sort) even hints at making child sexuality more "acceptable", public outcry and backlash occurs instantly (Rind, et al).

[Dimensio]

There is NO logical reason WHATSOEVER to oppose ANY sexual act, if there's no God.

I'm an atheist. I oppose any sexual act that would 1) cause me harm, 2) cause others harm (since I have that annoying human trait known as "empathy"), 3) is performed upon me against my will, or 4) is performed upon someone else against their will (again, that "empathy" thing...among a lot of societial functionality reasons that would take too long to explain).

I believe that until a certain age it is impossible to fully give informed consent to sex. I also believe that until a certain age sex can lead to developmental disorders and in some cases physical harm (whether intended or not). Those would satisfy 2 and 4.

[Dimensio]

It's probably going to result in a lot of people making Spotlight Fallacy accusations (yes, I'm big on logical fallacies). They see one lesbian couple doing something abominable and assume that it applies to all lesbian couples. They will also ignore that it might have been more about the women being deaf than them being lesbians (an opposite-sex couple would, unless one of the two were infertile, be able to have children of their own without outside assistance and as such they would be much less likely to make the news), thus falling to the Questionable Cause fallacy.

The author seems to bring them up and then instantly goes into what is wrong with recognizing homosexual unions, as though trying to tie the two subjects together, which falls not only under the Spotlight Fallacy but also the Hasty Generalization and Misleading Vividness fallacies.

[Rytwyng]

I oppose any sexual act that would 1) cause me harm, 2) cause others harm (since I have that annoying human trait known as "empathy"), 3) is performed upon me against my will, or 4) is performed upon someone else against their will (again, that "empathy" thing...)

I completely agree. And I too, have the annoying trait called empathy, it costs me a lot of money and sometimes gets me in trouble. Furthermore, I observe that many atheists, though they deny a divine source of morals, do in fact have good morals -- better than a lot supposedly religious types.

However, empathy is a mere emotion, a personal preference, that is NOT SHARED by large numbers of human beings. If it were universal the world would be a much different, better place. Since this personal preference is not universal, how do we deal with those who lack it? We, hopefully the majority of mankind, impose our preferences by force on the unempathic. We prefer not to commit or suffer murder,rape, robbery, etc, so, we use our power to prevent or sanction such activities. Fine so far. But it's still only preference and power... what RIGHT do we have, absent a transcendent moral authority?

a lot of societial functionality reasons that would take too long to explain).

Feel free to explain them. I'm listening. However, first answer the root question: WHY should society be functional? Or exist at all? To preserve the human race? But why should humanity be preserved? Give me reasons OTHER than your personal preference, or the personal preferences of a 51% voting majority.

I believe that until a certain age it is impossible to fully give informed consent to sex. I also believe that until a certain age sex can lead to developmental disorders and in some cases physical harm (whether intended or not). Those would satisfy 2 and 4.

Again, I completely agree. But, once again, in the absence of God, that's just a personal preference (not harming children) that you and I happen to share -- and others, unfortunately, do not.

[Rytwyng]

If recognizing homosexual unions is "wrong" for some reason, that/those reason(s) should be stated directly

Homosexuality is against God's law.

[EdReform]

"I believe that until a certain age it is impossible to fully give informed consent to sex. I also believe that until a certain age sex can lead to developmental disorders and in some cases physical harm (whether intended or not)."

Agreed. At what age do you believe it's possible to fully give informed consent?

[Psycho_Bunny]

This story is pure evil. Truly.

[EdReform]

Ping

[conserve-it]

"Sorry, but it's not a fallacy, it's a logical inevitability. Without a transcendant moral authority, all so-called morality boils down to only two elements: preference, and the power to enforce it. And if preferences change, so will the powers (the laws, etc.)"

Bill& Hillary Clinton. Case PROVEN! Unless, of course you have been buffaloed by Bill's 60 pound Bible.

[FrdmLvr]

They're showing their bigotry toward hearing children. I wonder if they could be brought up in front of the ICC for such insensitivity and bigotry. They obviously hate hearing-Americans.

[FormerLib]

It is no fallacy as his link to the new book proves. It is happening, the homosexuals are bringing pedophilia with them.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Leaving aside the issue at hand, the "slippery slope" is indeed a logical fallacy."

Huh? Where's the illogic in saying that when you do away with rules, the rules go away.

Go ahead and split hairs with lectures about correlations and causalities, it doesn't matter. Gay marriage, sex between adults and children, beastiality, intentionally breeding children with physical handicaps, etc. are already on the agendas of various activists who are being given full hearings in academia and some government circles.

[EdReform]

Also known as the LGBTP community