You are presuming that these sources are privileged and unassailable. To a growing number of critical thinkers, they are not. In fact, much of what comes from them is pure rot.

afriKa

Are heterosexuals ever involved in the sexual abuse of their adopted children?

Can we possibly agree that ALL adoptive parents need to be carefully screened before and monitored after the children are placed in their new homes?

The only answer is not to debate this kind of mental illness, but just tell it to shut the fuck up.

I’m not going to even try to understand or criticize a mind and soul that thinks like him. There’s something going on in his own mind that motivates him to justify hatred, fear and ignorance. It was the same reasoning that made some people fly planes into buildings……its useless to try to comunicate.

My advice to those who recognize evil and hatred is to ignore them. Concentrate your energy and goodness into working with other people in various venues and methods to enact positive contributions to society. People like Mr. Adams usually don’t sleep well and self implode and fall by the wayside.

That’s interesting, because the prisons are full of straight men and women, which would indicate all straight men and women are criminals too. D’oh.

Why do I get the feeling that I’m sitting in a chair bolted to the ceiling?

[Webmaster note: Well, let's see. Dr. Adams has accused gay men of preferring to adopt male children rather than female children because we wish to act out sexual perversion on them. Frankly, this makes Mike Adams not just an idiot but an actual source of evil because he is not only demonizing an innocent segment of the population, but distracting people from the true perpetrators of sexual abuse against boys, and in doing so, protecting those real perpetrators. So, yeah, it's pretty easy to make the case that he's doing the Devil's work.]

There’s also no doubt in my mind that a subhuman monster like Lombard does not and never will represent the whole of homosexual men everywhere. People who point to Lombard and scream that gay men shouldn’t adopt sons should be equally as outraged that straight men ever have daughters. As a straight female, I’d be outraged if someone told me I shouldn’t be allowed to have children because of the actions of these women.

Cases about men raping boys catch the public eye because they are racy and guiltily intriguing, horrifying as they are. I admit I’m not the best about keeping up with the latest news, but even I knew about the Lombard case. There was plenty of coverage.

Even when the crime of a man molesting his adopted son gets more local and national notice than, say, six women in the same area murdered by a presumably straight male, conservatives are awfully quick to claim that the liberal media downplays crimes committed by homosexuals to further some “gay agenda.” If anything, crimes like these get more coverage than usual, because who wants to hear about horrifying crimes committed by straight men? Those are boring, since they happen all the time.

Has anyone outside North Carolina heard about any of these tales of straight men raping and/or killing women? No? Nobody? I notice a distinct lack of public outcry when the crime being underreported is a straight man’s crime. I don’t hear anybody calling for the mass incarceration of all these depraved heterosexuals. No, it seems like it’s only when the criminal is gay that the public deserves to know the “truth” about this supposedly dangerous demographic. It’s a crying shame.

If you believe this piece is satire, that means you interpret the questions (e.g. “Is a homosexual man the best candidate available to help run a Center for Public Health and teach a course about AIDS at Duke University?” ) in Adams’ third-to-last paragraph as absurd extrapolations from the Lombard case. They are–and on that at least you agree with the blogger here, and disagree with the rest of the glennbeckian boneheads gracing these comments in Adams’ defense. Glad to hear it.

The matter of whether or not the absurdity was intentional (i.e. whether or not Adams had satirical motivation) is a really minor spat once you acknowledge that the shit is indeed absurd. But if satire, its construction is inconsistent as the author lapses in and out of his satirical voice. If satire, its issue reduces to the largely manufactured and unoriginal right-wing mantra about the biased media; its target (the lacrosse scandal) is dated and has long since been played out by opinionators from every conceivable angle including this one; and it’s basically a confused and slipshod piece of writing. Adams is either a satirist who wouldn’t make a passing grade in high school English, or he’s a thick-skulled knuckle-dragging bigot. My firm bet is on the latter, having read his other work.

[Webmaster note: I'm afraid you're confused about the nature of an ad hominem attack. This particular fallacy has the structure: There's something seriously wrong with the man, so there must be something wrong with his argument. I'm doing the reverse: There's something seriously wrong with the argument, therefore there must be something wrong with the man.

Put differently, an ad hominem attack focuses exclusively on the person in order to avoid dealing with what the person says. In this piece, however, I deal with Adams' statements in great detail, and use his glaring errors to point out there must be something wrong with his powers of reason when it comes to homosexuality. Again, this is the reverse of the argument ad hominem.]

[Webmaster note: You seem pretty blinded yourself. You say these three questions are vital, but you don't explain why (saying "of course" is not an explanation). More importantly, you don't explain why these questions only arise when a homosexual is the criminal -- heterosexual men commit these crimes in far greater numbers, but that doesn't lead Adams to question whether straight men should be health educators. Of course, I made that point in my post, and if you weren't capable of seeing it then, I doubt you'll be capable of seeing it now.

And it's damned ironic that you're sickened that allegedly my only thought about this crime is how it fits into some sort of agenda. Besides the fact that it's not true, it's Mike Adams who is using this crime to advance his agenda, so he's the one you really ought to be sickened by.]

[Webmaster note: "The idiot is the one who thinks that he or she can obfuscate by attempting to stereotype those who are speaking out against wrongs." Exactly. That's precisely what Mike Adams repeatedly does in his crusade against civil equality.]

Rob [Webmaster],
Your powers of intellect, illucidation of facts, balanced perspective, selective critique and justification are truly amazing.