Dream world?

Greetings:
Concerning the letter of J.J. Witherspoon in the May 28 issue of the Times, I was dismayed with the tone—and the attitude of superiority—shown toward Mrs. Teeple.
She found Mrs. Teeple’s letter as an example of hate, and yet seems to display hate herself in this attack on her—and her assumptions about Mrs. Teeple’s stance and her beliefs about teaching children.
She decided to “educate” her by declaring that “sexual orientation” is not an activity. I am quite sure that Mrs. Teeple is fully aware of that. She was merely abbreviating.
J.J. Witherspoon used a similar abbreviating technique in her second sentence, “The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code by adding sexual orientation to the list of groups in the hate propaganda section,” instead of stating more fully and accurately, “The bill seeks to expand the identifiable groups in the Criminal Code protected against genocide and hate propaganda to include those identified by their sexual orientation.”
So on the same basis that Witherspoon “educated” Mrs. Teeple, so Mrs. Teeple could say to her: “Let me educate you on the fact that sexual orientation is not a group; it is an orientation.”
But I am sure Mrs. Teeple will not do that. For she doesn’t have that kind of arrogance—and would never resort to that kind of pettiness.
Obviously, Mrs. Teeple is concerned primarily with free speech issues, and parents’ rights to teach their children, if they so wish, that homosexual practice is unnatural or immoral.
Very few oppose the bill on the grounds that it seeks to protect homosexuals against hate crimes. A huge majority of people oppose hate crimes of any kind. The main opposition to the bill is based on concern that its effect will be prohibition of expressed disagreement with the beliefs or practises of homosexuals on any grounds whatsoever, whether moral, psychological, medical, or any other.
Witherspoon stated clearly that criminalizing the expression of dissent on the subject would greatly benefit society! This is the first time I have ever encountered in Canada such a forthright statement in favour of eliminating free speech for the sake of promoting a particular system of thought, belief, and practice.
Witherspoon referred to “homophobic bigots,” whom she believes ought to be gagged. This offensive term is being applied to any person who objects to homosexual behaviour on any grounds whatsoever.
As to Witherspoon’s affirmation that people are “born homosexuals” and that “we have vast amounts of scientific research to back that up,” it just ain’t true! If it were, she should have been able to give an example or a source.
The following indicates what the research really backs up:
When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied, “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.
“Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors . . . not negate the psychosocial factors.”
William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation.
Among Jeffrey Satinover’s conclusions in “The Gay Gene”:
“(1). There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but ‘component’ is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. ‘Linkage’ and ‘association’ do not mean ‘causation’; and
“(2). There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic—and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.”
Witherspoon claims that “One’s sexual orientation cannot be changed no matter how hard you try” This isn’t true, either, according to some articles available at www.narth.com
J.J. Witherspoon ended her letter by suggesting the high suicide rates among homosexual teens is the result of having been taught that there is something wrong with homosexual practice, resulting in “self-loathing.”
But how does she know that that is the cause? How does she know that the higher rate is not caused by the experiences themselves that these teens went through? Or their fear of certain partners?
We must make up our minds whether we want the facts, or whether we want the facts suppressed so that we can comfortably live in a dream world of our own invention.
Sincerely,
Donald Clink