Staver: Equality Advocates Want to ‘Abolish Morality’

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman or Orly Taitz, is still ranting about the new law in California that forbids the use of “reversion therapy” to “cure” people of being gay, says that gay rights advocates ultimately want to abolish both marriage and morality.

He has it exactly wrong. It is immoral to tell gay people, especially teenagers, that they’re broken or diseased and to send them to quack “therapists” who promise to pray away the gay from them and “cure” them of their “disorder.” It leads kids to hate themselves and often even kill themselves when they aren’t magically cured by God.

26 comments on this post.
  1. chisaihana5219:

    Gay rights advocates don’t have to abolish marriage or morality. Marriage, as it existed in the 1950′s, which is what these nuts want, is disappearing anyway. In another 20 years it will be strictly a ceremonial event for brides who want the big party and a legal filing for those who want tax and health benefits. As for 1950′s morality, it seems to be on the way out also. Especially for those who are advocating “curing gay kids”. They have lost their moral compass.

  2. timgueguen:

    “Morality” in this case being defined as what the Bible claims is moral, except for all those parts that even Staver finds unsupportable.

  3. Childermass:

    If acting according to the golden rule is immorality, then I am all for it.

    If requiring that medical and psychological treatments be required to be safe and effective is immorality, then I am all for that too.

  4. scienceavenger:

    Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman or Orly Taitz,

    Don’t forget Ben “Bullied” Shapiro.

    …says that gay rights advocates ultimately want to abolish both marriage and morality.

    I’d love to hear Matt explain how GRAs want to abolish laws against theft, murder, and rape, cuz, all laws enforce a morality according to him.

  5. cptdoom:

    Yes, Matt, we acknowledge sexuality is fluid for some people, not for everyone. As a gold-star gay, otherwise known as a “Kinsey 6,” I can tell you my sexuality is not fluid at all. Now why don’t you admit that gender is not a simple binary across the entire spectrum of humanity?

  6. Michael Heath:

    Ed writes:

    It is immoral to tell gay people, especially teenagers, that they’re broken or diseased and to send them to quack “therapists” who promise to pray away the gay from them and “cure” them of their “disorder.” It leads kids to hate themselves and often even kill themselves when they aren’t magically cured by God.

    It’s immoral because it’s abusive. I’d love to see more of us call their behavior towards children what it is, child abuse.

    This type of religious-fueled child abuse is a particularly insidious form since its both virulent and pervasive; causing other authority figures to also abuse kids beyond the one individual abuser. E.g., defending an environment which justifies bullying or ostracizing kids, preventing an environment which doesn’t allow authority figures to reach out to help kids being abused by their religious parents, the denial of sufficient education to help kids develop.

  7. d.c.wilson:

    So, gays want to abolish marriage by getting married?

    Might want to rethink that one.

  8. d.c.wilson:

    Michael Heath:

    That is what leads conservatives to either oppose anti-bullying measures or demand a religious exemption from them. Bullying in the name of Jesus is a sacrament.

  9. John Hinkle:

    Mat Staver … says that gay rights advocates ultimately want to abolish both marriage and morality.

    He must’ve gone in – deep cover, mind you – to The Big Gay National Sooper Secret Meeting to find this out. There’s no other way. The Board of Liberty Counsel might want to have a penetrating discussion with him about that.

  10. John Hinkle:

    Oops, blockquote fail. How did I miss that?

  11. jonathangray:

    Michael Heath:

    an environment which doesn’t allow authority figures to reach out to help kids being abused by their religious parents

    You mean an environment which doesn’t accept the right of the all-powerful state to usurp parents’ natural rights over their children.

    the denial of sufficient education to help kids develop

    You mean the denial of the right of the all-powerful state to determine what constitutes children’s education.

  12. Michael Heath:

    I wrote earlier:

    an environment which doesn’t allow authority figures to reach out to help kids being abused by their religious parents

    jonathangay writes:

    You mean an environment which doesn’t accept the right of the all-powerful state to usurp parents’ natural rights over their children.

    Uh, no; I don’t mean that. Why do you seek to mutate what is written into a strawman you imagine rather than directly engaging what was actually written?

    Your point is also incoherent, i.e., states don’t have rights, they have powers and in the case of the U.S. those powers come with obligations to defend individual rights. In the U.S. those powers are also supposed to be limited to the powers explicitly extended them by the Constitution.

    I wrote earlier:

    the denial of sufficient education to help kids develop

    jonanthangay responds:

    You mean the denial of the right of the all-powerful state to determine what constitutes children’s education.

    Again, states don’t have rights, see above. In addition I was not referring to state power to dictate curriculum to protect the rights of children’s far superior rights to that of their parents, but instead pointing out how some parents purposefully and sometimes, delusionally, deprive children of both a sufficient education and opportunities which match their child’s capabilities.

    I suggest working on your reading comprehension, study up on the Constitution so you get the remedial basics rights (rights vs. powers) and stop battling the imagined strawmen in your head; it makes you appear impotent to argue issues on their merits.

  13. jonathangray:

    Michael Heath:

    states don’t have rights, they have powers and in the case of the U.S. those powers come with obligations to defend individual rights.

    Who determines what rights belong to an individual child at various stages of his development?

    .

    I was not referring to state power to dictate curriculum to protect the rights of children’s far superior rights to that of their parents

    But you do believe children have certain rights which parental authority cannot override, no? Which rights are they? And do you believe the state should have the power to enforce them by determining the content of the educational curriculum?

    but instead pointing out how some parents purposefully and sometimes, delusionally, deprive children of both a sufficient education

    Who determines what is a “sufficient” education and by what criteria?

  14. Michael Heath:

    jonathongay writes:

    Who determines what rights belong to an individual child at various stages of his development?

    No one, our rights are inalienable. Another reason I suggest you study up on rights and powers.

  15. jonathangray:

    Who determines what rights belong to an individual child at various stages of his development?

    No one, our rights are inalienable.

    ‘Inalienable’ means ‘cannot be taken or given away’, does it not? It doesn’t mean they cannot have been granted in the first place. In any case, by “determines” I merely meant “discerns”.

  16. d.c.wilson:

    But you do believe children have certain rights which parental authority cannot override, no? Which rights are they?

    Well, let’s start with the right not to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused.

    Can we at least agree on that?

  17. jonathangray:

    d.c.wilson:

    Well, let’s start with the right not to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused.

    Can we at least agree on that?

    Sure. Trouble is, we have two warring cultures here, with completely different standards.

    Suppose an adolescent experiences sexual attraction toward someone of the same sex. Suppose he is troubled by these urges and wishes to be free of them. Should he have the right to seek help in overcoming them? One culture would say encouraging him to seek help in this way constitutes emotional abuse; another would say denying him that right constitutes emotional abuse.

  18. Michael Heath:

    jonathangray writes:

    Sure. Trouble is, we have two warring cultures here, with completely different standards.

    I’m fairly confident one side is perfectly incapable of determining either the number of sides along with perceiving and consistently and logically defending any standards, including their own.

  19. d.c.wilson:

    Suppose an adolescent experiences sexual attraction toward someone of the same sex. Suppose he is troubled by these urges and wishes to be free of them. Should he have the right to seek help in overcoming them? One culture would say encouraging him to seek help in this way constitutes emotional abuse; another would say denying him that right constitutes emotional abuse.

    The problem with your premise is that the difference isn’t cultural. It’s that one side is perpetrating a fraud. What they claim will “help” that adolescent has been shown repeatedly not only being ineffective in changing his/her orientation, but puts them at greater risk of emotional harm and even increased risk of suicide. So, protecting a minor from abuse does include shielding them from such quackery.

  20. jonathangray:

    d.c.wilson:

    The problem with your premise is that the difference isn’t cultural. It’s that one side is perpetrating a fraud. What they claim will “help” that adolescent has been shown repeatedly not only being ineffective in changing his/her orientation, but puts them at greater risk of emotional harm

    Many of the more intelligent right-wing Christians would argue it’s not about “changing an orientation”; it’s simply about resisting an impulse. As Dawkins is so keen to stress, there’s no reason why we should derive our normative ethical standards from what is ‘natural’.

    The SPLC declare “it is the longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation”. Of course this is false — the American Psychiatric Association classed homosexuality as a mental disorder as recently as 1973 and only reclassified it after hard lobbying. In any case everyone knows “behavioral and social science” is just a euphemism for “leftist ideology”.

    One might also wonder why liberals are horrified at the idea of changing ‘sexual orientation’ yet have no problem with creating the illusion of a ‘sex change’ via extreme physical mutilation …

  21. dingojack:

    Who knew the APA were the consensus of all behavioural and social sciences, everywhere in the universe!
    Could it be the APA were finally dragged into the 20th century because there isn’t a shred of evidence that homosexuality causes any harm, per se?
    Dingo

  22. d.c.wilson:

    Many of the more intelligent right-wing Christians would argue it’s not about “changing an orientation”; it’s simply about resisting an impulse. As Dawkins is so keen to stress, there’s no reason why we should derive our normative ethical standards from what is ‘natural’.

    I’m sure that distinction means a lot to the gay teen who is bullied and shamed to the point he wants to hang himself.

    . In any case everyone knows “behavioral and social science” is just a euphemism for “leftist ideology”.

    Define “everyone”.

    One might also wonder why conservatives are more concerned with controlling personal behvavior that will the psychological and emotional well being of teens.

  23. jonathangray:

    d.c.wilson:

    I’m sure that distinction means a lot to the gay teen who is bullied and shamed to the point he wants to hang himself.

    Suppose a mother & father discover their teenage son has become addicted to heroin. They confront him, warn him that his addiction is a deeply disordered condition and urge him to strive to overcome it. Whether they take a harshly moralistic tone or a more ‘compassionate’ therapeutic approach, the youth might well feel torn between his parents’ stance (which he might know in his heart to be right) and the sheer pleasure of his drugs (reinforced by a culture which glamourises drug-taking). His resulting internal aguish might assume suicidal proportions and if he ends his own life that would be a terrible tragedy; it doesn’t mean his parents should have encouraged his drug habit.

    One might also wonder why conservatives are more concerned with controlling personal behvavior that will the psychological and emotional well being of teens.

    Liberals assume “controlling personal behvavior” is a pointless fetish of the authoritarian personality. A conservative would answer that psychological and emotional wellbeing depends to a large extent on interior self-control, which in turn requires exterior (legal, cultural) controls to sustain it.

  24. Michael Heath:

    jonathangray @ 23,

    Are you a Poe? The only thing you’re missing if you are is an odd selection of words in all-caps.

  25. d.c.wilson:

    Suppose a mother & father discover their teenage son has become addicted to heroin.

    Here’s where your analogy falls apart: Heroin addiction is a destructive behavior. Being gay, no matter how much you wish it otherwise, is not. Treatment for heroin addiction, if successful, can greatly improve the addict’s life. Pray the gay away pretend therapy can destroy a person’s life. You’re comparing treatment for a known problem to a fake treatment that does tremendous harm.

    Try again.

    Liberals assume “controlling personal behvavior” is a pointless fetish of the authoritarian personality.

    Authoritarians see controlling personal behavior as a means toward amassing power for themselves. Religious leaders figured out a long time ago that nothing gives you more power over an individual than telling them a) They should feel guilty just for being who they are and b) Only by coming to their particular brand of religion can they be forgiven for their supposed sin. It’s a great racket. Sell them the disease and the cure in one sermon.

    The fact that the guilt can drive a certain percentage of your flock to self-destruction is an added bonus, since they can then be used as negative examples of what will happen if you don’t repent.

  26. jonathangray:

    d.c.wilson:

    Here’s where your analogy falls apart: Heroin addiction is a destructive behavior. Being gay, no matter how much you wish it otherwise, is not.

    There are many physical and psychological risks associated with an active homosexual lifestyle. To which the religious right would add spiritual risks. If you say there is no scientific evidence for a spiritual dimension, I might reply that there is no scientific evidence for human equality.

    Authoritarians see controlling personal behavior as a means toward amassing power for themselves.

    “Controlling personal behaviour” is power. And to say the religious right seek to amass it is just to say they prefer their movement not to be dysfunctional. The left is no different:

    Alinsky’s contribution to community organizing was to create a set of rules, a clear-eyed and systemic approach that ordinary citizens can use to gain public power. The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”

    Galluzzo shared with me the manual he uses to train new organizers, which is little different from the version he used to train Obama in the ’80s. It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: “power analysis,” “elements of a power organization,” “the path to power.” Galluzzo told me that many new trainees have an aversion to Alinsky’s gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. But Galluzzo’s manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. “We are not virtuous by not wanting power,” it says. “We are really cowards for not wanting power,” because “power is good” and “powerlessness is evil.”

Leave a comment

You must be