ACCORDING to the American Library Association (ALA) the book most American parents have wanted banned over recent years is ‘And Tango Makes Three’ about two male penguins that adopt a fertilized egg and raise the chick. According to Walt Brasch writing at On Line Opinion:
“Gays saw the story as a positive reinforcement of their lifestyle.
“Riding to rescue America from homosexuality were the biddies against perversion. Gay love is against the Bible, they wailed; the book isn’t suitable for the delicate minds of children, they cried as they pushed libraries and schools to remove it from their shelves or at the very least make it restricted.
“The penguins may have been gay-or maybe they weren’t. It’s not unusual for animals to form close bonds with others of their same sex. But the issue is far greater than whether or not the penguins were gay or if the book promoted homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. People have an inherent need to defend their own values, lifestyles, and worldviews by attacking others who have a different set of beliefs. Banning or destroying free speech and the freedom to publish is one of the ways people believe they can protect their own lifestyles.”
The books that make me cringe are always about what I perceive to be the distortion of science. I described three of the worst in a piece I wrote for ABC Radio National’s Ockham’s Razor in 2005:
“Several books have been published this year by celebrity scientists warning that unless we change our ways, civilisation as we know it is doomed. Tim Flannery in ‘The Weather Makers’ explains that our addiction to coal is impacting on our weather systems. In ‘A Big Fix: Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’, Ian Lowe advises that the situation is so desperate we abandon the traditional scientific method. Jared Diamond in ‘Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive’ explains how the elite can lead us in the wrong direction.
The very worst was Lowe’s ‘A Big Fix’ and in particular his contention that we abandon the traditional scientific method.
“Professor Lowe begins his new book by stating, ‘I am a scientist’. But then on page 86 explains how we should abandon the traditional scientific method in favour of ‘sustainability science’ which ‘differs fundamentally from most science as we know it’. The Professor writes that, ‘The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry, conceptualising the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. … Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modelling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress’.”
While it might be tempting to wish such a book were banned given that it appears to promote the corruption of science, I should perhaps be grateful Lowe has so clearly articulated this popular, if misguided, concept called ‘sustainability science’. Once something is clearly articulated, it should be easier to discuss and it is through discussion we can best hope to reasonably argue the pros and cons of apparently subversive ideas.
References/Links:
Banning the First Amendment, Walt Brasch http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12681
We need real science for the environment – send Chicken Little to Hollywood, Jennifer Marohasy http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2005/1509193.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I don’t see a parallel between not wanting for homosexuality to be promoted and global warming hysteria. The typical “attack” language is invalid as well.
Let’s take religion out of it and assume we’re going to do a purely scientific analysis of homosexuality. Based on pure science, Darwinian evolution is the only game in town. This is certainly true of almost all liberals, and also those who promote/legitimize/publicize favorable information about/etc. homosexuality. If you’re one of those people then, and thus a good little evolutionist, most of you appear to be missing a huge problem with genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
Throughout the course of evolution homosexuality would have been the most recessive trait of all. After all those two male penguins in the book weren’t engaging in anal sex, nor are any other of the animals frequently reported to “be homosexual”. Even if they were having anal sex, they would of course not produce any offspring, and thus whatever genetic mutation confused them to desire the same sex would immediately die out with them.
Looking at things a different way, let’s just consider the anal sex act that male homosexuals engage in. The anus is clearly intended to be a one way orifice, designed to rid the body of waste products. It doesn’t lubricate like a vagina, nor is it well suited for penetration by a man’s penis. Back in the early years of AIDS it was made clear that anal sex in particular was an extremely bad idea, in part because of the rectal tearing caused by anal sex. Over time the homosexual lobby has managed to suppress this advice, since they can’t have male homosexuals’ primary mode of sex to be a bad idea. To hell with the medical consequences. (Do a search for “barebacking” for some related perspective on this.)
The other thing about the anus is that it is consistently (always?) riddled with fecal coliform and other nasty bacteria that you definitely do not want to get anywhere near your urethra. Nor do you want to be spreading them around whatever area you choose to have sex. Granted that this does not apply so much to lesbians, unless of course they are engaging in anal play with toys. Yes of course some heterosexuals engage in anal sex, but so far I haven’t heard anyone argue that this sort of behavior is due to a genetic predisposition.
So in summary we have strong scientific reasoning that any genetic predisposition to homosexuality is extremely unlikely if not impossible, and we have strong medical/hygienic reasons to argue that male homosexual behavior in particular is an incredibly bad idea. When you look at the latter objectively, it’s quite obvious that the best idea would be to discourage people who engage in anal sex activity to stop doing so for their own sake.
For further perspective on the deviancy of homosexuals. look at the child molestation statistics. Nearly 30% of child molesters are homosexual, even though homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population. Also research NAMBLA, a group of homosexual men who publicize their desire to sodomize little boys. Then try researching the “gay” bath houses in San Fransisco and what sorts of behavior go on there, and how they reacted went AIDS hit the news. They did not want the bath houses shut down, nor did they want to curtail their behavior. The myth of homosexual men mostly wanting to pair up with another man and marry, and then have a “normal” monogamous life is just that, a myth.
Also, take a look at the behavior and mannerisms of homosexual men. Why the cross dressing??!! Why the annoying/disgusting/bizarre effected feminine behavior and speech??!! Everything about the way most homosexual men act, and to a large extent lesbians as well, suggests that they are indeed confused, emotionally traumatized (often by being molested as a child), etc. If homosexuality were a normal healthy behavior you would expect none of the bizarre behavior, and homosexual men and homosexual women would behave pretty much as heterosexuals.
Finally, the whole “bisexual” group also undermines the legitimacy of homosexuality. To claim that you are bisexual pretty much just means you want to have sex with whoever you want, and you don’t want anyone questioning it. Of course you still can’t get around the medical issues above when it comes to anal sex, nor can you really square “bisexuality” with Darwinian evolution. Clearly the “bi” part would have been naturally selecting its way out of the gene pool.
Of course when you do bring in biblical teachings, good and evil, sin, etc., homosexual behavior and the case against it becomes much more clear. Parents who do not wish their children to be taught that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and natural are not attacking anyone. They may be arguing against a behavior, but mostly they are doing what is right to educate their children.
Sustainability is such a spewful word. How much timidity, self-loathing, and measliness are contained in that single word. How much puritanical cant and misanthropy. A rallying call for finger-waggers and neurotics.
Sustainability. Spew.
Pretending that animals don’t have gay sex is similar to pretending that marriage was never gender specific. Reality is a double edged sword…
When the Murdoch press are the only ones asking the difficult questions, they sure aren’t the “books” that should be banned:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mr-garnaut-climate-policy-should-be-questioned/story-e6frg6zo-1226152200129
Quote from Jennifer M:
“Once something is clearly articulated, it should be easier to discuss and it is through discussion we can best hope to reasonably argue the pros and cons of apparently subversive ideas.”
Agreed. This is why the the practice of “toshing” something or someone is so well used (abused) by the lefties – it deliberately avoids the clear articulation of ideas they find unwelcome
Noel Pearson is a contemporary example. Once he had rejected the victimhood culture and advocated economic development, the lefties sent him to coventry, where he remains for them
The Unctuous Manne is advocating the “toshing” of non-expert opinions (ie. the MSM refusing to publish these) to avoid ideas, however uninformed, from being widely disseminated. The exact opposite to Jennifer’s quote, and advocated precisely to avoid pro and con arguments. One wonders why he’s so short of a full load of bricks … it appears pathological to me
So, books should not be banned. Laughed out of contention, yes … but not banned.
Of course, someone will object: “So a how-to-do-it-yourself bomb manual should be easily available, should it ?” Well, that’s classifiable as a weapon and weapons are rightly restricted, so the analogy doesn’t hold – it’s a straw man
Clearly, I find conflicting arguments preferable to arbitrary censorship. I wonder who doesn’t ?
Joe,
Firstly, I must object to your comment ‘Darwinian evolution is the only game in town’. Charles Darwin is one of my heroes, and he really got discussion going on the reality of evolution. But his theory is deficient in many ways. I suggest you read something of ‘Punctuated Equilibrium Theory’ including by Stephen Jay Gould.
Secondly, what does it matter whether homosexuality is ‘natural’ or not? There are lots of good things that aren’t ‘natural’. To get some perspective here I suggest you read ‘Saving the World with Pesticides and Plastics’ by Denis Avery.
Regarding your claimed link between pedophilia and homosexuality… a gay friend of mine would confirm your claim of an increased incidence of pedophilia amongst gay men. He has suggested to me that the incidence of pedophilia would decline if there was greater acceptance of homosexuality. In particular, he has suggested to me that pedophilia can be a subsequent consequence of the early repression of a natural homosexual tendency.
‘Saving the World with Pesticides and Plastics’
Jen, I’ve only read the title – a minute ago – and that’s now one of my favourite books.
Joe Z was rather harsh, but essentially correct. People are willing to accept homosexual tendencies in friends and relatives, just as they accept physical deformities like poor vision, weak hearts, etc, but given a choice, nobody would wish their close friends or relatives to be homosexuals.- it reduces one’s chance of passing one’s genes on to the next generation.
Another point- Joe Z referred to “anal sex” in penguins. Unlike placental mammals and marsupials, birds, platypuses, and reptiles don’t have separate openings for urine and fecal matter. They just have one opening – the cloaca.
Mick, how do animals have “gay” sex? Don’t you have to consciously recognize a sexual preference to be gay?? What is “gay” about an animal having sex with you leg?? The comparison between humans who have primarily LEARNED to prefer a particual set of attractions and mode of having sex with others to an animal who just wishes to scratch its itch is similar to conflating bi-sexual with homosexuals who claim they were “born that way.”
Oh wait, most homosexuals have had at least 2 orientation changes in their lives based on research by a pair of homosexuals here in the US. Are most homosexuals bi or really “born that way?” It would appear that a majority of “homosexuals” are certainly not averse to getting freebies with no strings attached from the opposite sex at times. Compare this to most heterosexuals who would not even consider something similar even after 30 years of it’s OK to be gay and gays are normal people too…
I think you should try and refer to facts and the truth when trying to understand homosexuality or same sex attraction.
Only about 5% to 7% of human populations are homosexual, yet the new numbers every year who contract the aids virus are about 87% to 90% homosexual as well. These are Aussie and and first world numbers only, but these numbers are incredible considering they come from such a small group in the community.
I think it just proves the promiscuos type of behaviour that takes place among this group and the irresponsible denial of the safe sex message as well.
But in the wild we have a lot of bi-sexual behaviour in the Benobo chimp populations and latest research seems to perhaps find that these quickie events might control the more aggressive behaviour observed in other chimp populations.
Benobos spend more of their time walking upright than other chimps and probably are the most intelligent members of the great apes. Not including humans of course,,,I think.
Is there a book, “Saving the World From Homosexuality With Pesticides and Plastics”?
Next week I am scheduled to be working at one of the country’s major merino studs. Perhaps I should post some video of the atrocious behavior of a penful of young rams. I believe that one in six rams has been found to be homosexual. I suspect that this is a side effect of inbreeding, but really am not sure .
Jen, the homosexuality-global warming connection may have a lot going for it. The NSW left is a veritable HOT BED of both .
I agree Mr Spangles . Someone should commission that book.
SD, do NOT make fun of my favourite book. I’ve never read it or even seen it, but I want the author to get a Nobel.
On second thoughts, nah. They give out those Nobels like Maze Master medals at the old Easter Show. I’m told Gore and Pachauri just traded in some of their Frequent Flyer points.
Anyway, Denis Avery, whoever you are, you are a legend.
Robert,
I might write a book on how to save the world from carbon credits:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110928/full/477517a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110929
So much to save, so little time….
Yesterday I tried to buy “State of Fear” – Michael Crichton from Amazon the Kindle Edition and its not allowed to sell it in Australia. Is this a bit of censorship?
I wanted to pick a few quotes out without retyping..
I did find a PDF after some searching however.
Anyone that reads that book now, after all we know would probably change their mind about the whole subject of the scam.
If anyone is interested vote here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/polls/
Evolution, in respect of humanity, is no longer Darwinian, “Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw”, but now involves the social structures erected by man which thwart natural selection; in the Western world today 90% of the people would not be alive if natural selection still prevailed; through intervention with technology, particularly energy and medicine, people who would have died have survived and reproduced.
Are homosexuals an expanding % of the populace through subversion of natural selection? If so what effects will that have on anthropogenic selection? Of more concern to me is the growth of the gaia mentality within the Western world; this reveres nature and is manifestly contradictory as I explain here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/05/what-is-wilderness-part-6/
By advocating AGW ‘solutions’ which threaten the social infrastructure in which they live the AGW acolytes, many of whom would not be alive today if nature had not been circumvented by that social infrastructure, are promoting their own demise. Their actions are also a critique on their very existence and values; to paraphrase what someone recently said; they are preaching a very long suicide note.
On the Bolter issue the drum polls are now neck and neck.
IOW,how can we have democratic govt without getting positive feedbacks?
ie, runawway, ever-expanding govt, runaway social services, runaway keynsian economics.
How do we resist the “Greek” disease when as cohers says the end game just seems to be self indulgence and promotion of survival of the least fit.
Then add to all that the mindless green desire to climb back into the trees.
One thing we need is freedom of speech more than ever.
BTW, that poll is on 50/50 after 7000 plus.
Sustainability science?
Seriously?
The description makes me want to call it subterfuge or substandard or subversive science!
It would have to be completely subjective just for a start.
That doesn’t match my definition of good scientific practice.
Great stuff from Mark Steyn:
SD I think you’ll find that the green desire is for everyone else to return to the trees but not for the greens themselves.
Perhaps there are a few zealots who would live a more primitive lifestyle as long as they were still the chiefs and totalitarianism was the way of the tribe, which it would be.
Andrew Bolt has looked at postcodes and electorates in the past and found the strong Green areas are the most hedonistic and self indulgent of them all, more air travel and opulent mansions and lifestyle etc.
Just look at the idiots promoting CAGW like Gore, Combet, Rudd etc that live in seaside mansions and numerous other homes as well. ( like Gore , Rudd )
These people are con men and fraudsters who will never ever practice what they preach.
“SD I think you’ll find that the green desire is for everyone else to return to the trees but not for the greens themselves.”
You’re absolutely right of course, Neville. After they’ve banned all discussion on race and climate science.
“Nothing to see here, up you go, up you go.”
I remember hearing an interview with a US scientist who had been researching gay sheep. A farmer client had determined that 10% of his rams were gay and was there a cure as 10% was too many to lose. The research team found that altering the hormonal balance in the brain straightened the sheep out and they went on to mate successfully with the ewes.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/curing_gay_sheep_/
Of course there was an outcry!! Gays and Lesbians world wide protested.
To have a discussion like this, one must first decide that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is a proper topic of public discussion, and that discussing such things with children is also appropriate.
The heading here is ” Which books should be banned?” But Barry Cohen has written a very fine column about the ban on free speech after the verdict handed down as the result of a couple of Andrew Bolt’s columns in the Herald Sun.
This is what I would have written if I had the ability and I say congratulations to Barry Cohen.
BTW Barry nearly took the place of Bolt in the dock because he planned to write an almost identical column himself.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/does-it-all-boil-down-to-a-question-of-colour/story-e6frgd0x-1226157549784
Neville,
The article at the link you supplied reminds me of a fairly recent event in my ex-home town (US).
A white hetero couple bought a house directly across the street from an elementary school, thinking that their two children would be safer by being roughly 100 yards from the front door of the school, and that they, as parents, would be more involved in their children’s education.
Their decision was a substantial financial commitment.
Lo and behold, their children were not eligible for attending the school across the street. The reason? The school had not yet achieved its ‘racial quota’ and only black children would be accepted.
The problem was easily fixed. The white parents filled out a paper, claiming their children were black, so the children got into the school after all.
“The Professor (Ian Lowe) writes that, ‘The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry, conceptualising the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. … Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modelling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress’.” ”
Wittingly or unwittingly, Lowe has let the cat out of the bag. Traditional scientific method has been abandoned when it comes to researching the hypothesis that human-caused greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming, as it has not turned up any scientific evidence to prove the hypothesis. “Sustainability science” is the very process that the warmist scientists (including all the Government’s scientific advisers) use to promote the claim that human-caused dangerous global warming is real. They design and specify their modelling so as to produce the alarmist outcomes, that are then successfully used to con our media and our politicians.