Canada’s low fertility rate dooms us, thanks to the homogay agenda

Via Right Wing Watch, the religious and anti-gay Family Research Institute’s March memo makes some rather astounding claims.

Astoundingly stupid.

Apparently, because of the gay rights movement, women are having less kids. Somehow, gays being able to marry one another discourages women from reproducing. Somehow. All because children aren’t being taught to hate gays like the religious nutters really, really want.

Like frogs in a kettle being slowly boiled to death, FRI frequently hears people — including those concerned about our cultural decline — suggest that the progress of gay rights is not worth a great deal of worry. After all, ‘the sky is not falling. The sun will always come up tomorrow.’ But no matter how ‘big’ or ‘small’ the crisis seems at the moment, the goal of proper social policy is to assure a future for society. As the birth rates of Western countries continue to fall, those who have supported gay rights seem oblivious to the contribution such ‘rights’ make to the decline. Even those who have ‘tolerated’ (or not vigorously opposed) gay rights do not seem to understand the implications. But now the sky is starting to fall. From Xtra, a gay magazine in Vancouver, comes this:

“the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm.” (10/20/11)

Canada produces 1.6 children/woman. Its future is thus doomed. Onward gay rights!

[Read more...]

Scicurious and Kate Clancy destroy the “deep-thinking hebephile”

Well, what was left of him after Stephanie provided the science that shows that practicing hebephiles actually do, demonstrably, harm the children they victimize, anyway. (Yes, I’m late to this game too. The blogosphere is a busy place and, like I said recently, I’m playing catch-up right now.)

Jesse Bering of Bering In Mind made several mistakes in tackling the subject of hebephilia as presented by a reader. He took a number of things at face value, and did not delve deeper into the quandry presented regarding sexual “moral panics” and whether there’s any good reason to excoriate this writer despite his seeming attempt at honest discourse. There were many red flags in the original letter, and Bering missed them and did not take the opportunity to interrogate those red flags, and for that he got raked over the proverbial coals by the blogosphere. Bering wrote an addendum, which did much to provide us with a mea culpa and put the focus back on the letter-writer and the topic at hand. Which is good, because there were many, MANY loose threads in said letter left by Bering in his original coverage, which really needed to be tugged at. And Bering’s addendum, too, needed further interrogation.
[Read more...]