Frank Turek: "Nothing Gay About It"

Post Reply New Topic

Dr. Frank Turek is an author and speaker on the subject of Christian apologetics, but don't let that fool you. He's no ignorant "Bible thumper", having gained a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Washington University, and a doctorate in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

In this hour-long clip (divided into six parts), Frank discusses the subject of homosexuality, and its cultural impact. You can download the PDF file he refers to at one point, by clicking on this link.

https://app.box.com/s/qnjnx86w38djmi1bsbx7

Here's Part 1; feel free to comment, but please keep it civil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcK539YHKds[/youtube]

Here are the central tenets of Turek's claim (from page 1 in the link in the OP), and my responses:

1. Legalization of same-sex marriage will provide state and cultural endorsement of unhealthy behavior that reduces lifespan significantly.
The reduced lifespan claim is based on the completely discredited "work" of Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 for failing to cooperate with an ethics investigation.

Here is the wiki page on Cameron. What a nice guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron

Here is a scathing critique of the methodological flaws of the Cameron Study by a real psychologist:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... _obit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_M._Herek

For instance - and contrary to the claim made by Turek - only 11 percent of the deaths included in Cameron's obituary study were not related to AIDS. So, what he is essentially saying is: "If you contracted HIV in the early 1980's, you would most likely die from it." This is convenience sampling at its worst.

2. Endorsement will lead to more homosexual behavior, higher medical & health insurance costs, and restrictions on free speech and religious liberty.
Since 1 is invalid, the claim about higher medical & health insurance costs is invalid.

As for the restrictions on free speech and religious liberty, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution

Oh, and if you live in a country without protections similar to the First Amendment, then those absences of protections would exist irrespective of the legalization of gay marriage.

3. Endorsement will make same-sex marriage the legal and cultural equivalent of traditional marriage.
I'm Captain Obvious, And I Approve This Message.

4. With same-sex and traditional marriage equated, marriage itself will become just about coupling; it will not be culturally necessary for having children.
See my response to 3.

5. With marriage not culturally necessary for having children, cohabitation and illegitimacy will rise to historic highs.
See my response to 3.

6. Higher cohabitation & illegitimacy rates will hurt children, increase crime, and result in huge costs to individuals and government. Taxes will rise and/or benefits and services will be cut.
No. Turek makes an invalid comparison (a good-old-fashioned non sequitur), as he compares traditional families with single mother households (see page 3-4 in the link in the OP).

The American Academy of Pediatrics published a review this year (influential in the United States v. Windsor case which brought down DOMA) investigating the last 30 years of research on the well-being of children raised in same sex households.

Their conclusion? The absence of legalized same sex marriage is detrimental to the well-being of children in these homes:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 7.full.pdf

Hats off to you GGPViper, for such a concise and laudable response.

Regarding Turek. Whatever his qualifications may be, they do not add any credence to an hour-long lecture of his unsubstantiated opinions.

Wonder if he realises how ignorant he sounds? Probably not.

Is someone ignorant simply because they don't share your views?

So, you disregard the conclusions of a man with multiple psychology certifications who reached one conclusion, for another who openly accepts homosexuality as valid. What makes Cameron's qualifications any less "real" than Herek's?

The First Amendment was designed to keep the government from controlling the church, like in England. It was never intended to separate all influence of either party from the other. Here's the video I made about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5GsY2vNsg]right here[/youtube]

Seconded! Well done.........

Honestly, reading through the PDF that the OP linked to brings back a lot of memories for me. I participated in the debate in New Zealand that led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage there earlier this year. It was certainly an interesting experience. I learned a great deal from it, and through the process of debate I gained a better understanding on how to advocate for SSM. I even became Facebook friends with an opponent of SSM.

...

I appreciate Frank Turek's earnest and considered opinion, but there are several problems I have with his line of reasoning. I was going to make a tl;dr point-by-point response ... until GGPViper went ahead and did it for me (and more concisely than I would have done).

But I will raise a few other points based on Turek's published opinion.

• Homosexual behaviour isn't "inherently destructive", despite Turek's claims. Gay people do suffer higher rates of diseases related to sexual health. However, these outcomes aren't inherent to homosexual behaviour: they are neither limited to gay people nor suffered by all (or even most) gay people.
  
• Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not require the legalisation of polygamy, paedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. There's no causal link between any of them, and any of them can be legalised independently.
  
  • For example, polygamy is allowed under civil law in almost 50 countries, but not one of them allows same-sex marriage. In fact, religious freedom seems to be the primary factor for legalising polygamy – something that religious objectors to SSM should consider. Conversely, six years after SSM was legalised nationwide in Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld Canada's anti-polygamy laws in 2011.
• Marriage doesn't require procreation, and vice-versa. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage on the grounds of infecundity is a non sequitur.
  
• The above point notwithstanding, given that same-sex couples are already allowed to raise children in the US – and will continue to do so with or without SSM – there is no evidence that any children are being protected by forcing same-sex parents to remain unmarried.
  
• Statements from one SSM supporter, in this case Andrew Sullivan, shouldn't be used as a prominent example of homosexual attitudes towards marriage broadly – just like the views of the prominent Westboro Baptist Church aren't necessarily representative of Christian attitudes as a whole. Nor are studies of non-marriage relationships authoritative with respect to the characteristics of same-sex marriages.

There are a lot more of Turek's points that can be debated, but the ones already raised should themselves make for ample discussion.

the thing which made me switch off automatically was the video's use of loaded language. For example the implication that allowing homosexual marriage is the same as 'endorsing' it. LGBT activists never requested their sexuality to be endorsed by the state, only for it to be at the same level as straights. Then there is the claim that homosexual marriage is somehow less 'healthy' than straight marriages. There is no evidence whatsoever that homosexual marriages are more or less likely to end in divorce or infidelity than straight ones. In fact, allowing homosexual marriage in the long run is going to prevent divorces because you will not have a situation of otherwise gays and bisexuals entering heterosexual marriages only for them to decide down the line that they aren't happy.

There was a second part of a Stephen Fry documentary series on British TV last night which totally destroyed exactly the sort of homophobic arguments made by the person in OP video. Sadly part 2 doesnt seem to be on youtube yet and you cant access BBCi player from outside UK.

However here is part 1
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAPfPVD8pRE[/youtube]

Exactly. Surely if the only raison d'etre for marriage was procreation, then why, apart from kneejerk prejudice, aren't the ones arguing against gay marriage also demanding the prohibition of marriage involving sterile heterosexuals?

Cameron's qualifications are less "real" because he fails to follow even the most basic standards of scientific enquiry - in this case drawing conclusions which are in no way supported by data.

It is not about degrees, titles or certifications, it is about scientific integrity. And Paul Cameron is infamous for his lack of it.


As I have repeatedly stated on WP before, the US Constitution itself is silent on how to interpret the US Constitution. In other words, there is no "Gold Standard" of interpretation, and as a result, there is no constitutional basis for deciding if Ginsburg or Scalia are better at interpreting the Constitution.

All we have is the case law created by the Courts. And the history of The Supreme Court has been one of broader and broader enforcement of the First Amendment... probably more so than with any other aspect of the Constitution.

Actually, the key to interpreting the Constitution is approaching it from an 18th-century colonial perspective, as the Founders did while writing it. For example, the word "establishment" was not equated with "influence" back then, as many apply it now. So, when they say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", they're making an explicit reference to the U.S. Congress (not any other branch of government) having the final say on the matter, adhering to the Founders' intent of banning a legal theocracy, not an absence of all influence.

How do you know this? Where in the Constitution does it say "Approach it from [X] perspective"?


This is utterly irrelevant. The First Amendment has been extended to the states through incorporation with Gitlow v. New York in 1925, so the word "Congress" no longer imposes such a limit on the First Amendment.

He is if none of his arguments are rooted in fact (while insisting that it is). With him and others who oppose SSM, they only see it as "it will destroy the family" and his explanations for how it destroys the family don't make sense either. He thinks that more children will be born out of wedlock without traditional marriage but the fact of the matter is that there has been and always will be children born out of wedlock regardless of whether SSM exists or not. In fact plenty of states where SSM is banned have incredibly high illegitimate birth rates.

It is ignorance if he is trying to make a connection where none clearly exists.