Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Phillips State Rep. John Ragan, Man of "Logic"
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Kristin Johnson wrote her state representative, John Ragan, trying to convince him to vote against the "license to bully" bill when it comes up. What she got back from him can only be described as an embarrassment to Ragan and whoever taught him "logic" and "reason."
I just want to point out this gem —
All of these statistics are facts. A resulting critical thought question might be: do homosexual practitioners disproportionately contract AIDS, hepatitis, or syphilis through their own proclivities and behavior or in “reaction” to opinions of that behavior by others or someone supporting a bill?Examining another statistic, it has been well known for a decade that suicide is attempted much more frequently in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community (Mathy, Cochran, Olsen, & Mays, 2009). This same source pointed out that, on average, suicide is approximately three times more likely among homosexuals than heterosexuals.
— and say this. Yes, Rep. Ragan, gay people are indeed disproportionately affected by negative opinions of their behavior by others or by someone supporting a bill. Gay kids, especially. Phillip Parker was negatively affected. Jacob Rogers was negatively affected.
That's not just hyperbole. In fact, studies show that living in states that pass anti-gay bullshit laws contributes to GLBT people's mental health issues. You can imagine how it might have negatively affected (read: scared the shit out of) people to read that Rep. Floyd would stomp a mudhole in a person whose gender presentation he thought was wrong. Or how it might negatively affect people to read Ragan's bizarre theories on how gayness is a choice and thus, gay people deserve whatever happens to them, for making such terrible choices.
What Ragan is doing is trying to excuse his own discomfort with gay men — note that the statistics he cites about disease transmittal rates are completely wrong for lesbians, thus confirming that they are, indeed, following God's favorite sexual orientation — under the guise of "logic."
But honestly, it's not logical to look at a state in which gay kids are driven to suicide and to shrug our shoulders and act like there's nothing to be done about it.
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
Ragan's response is so nonsensical it suggests the self-satisfied drivel of a mentally ill person who thinks he and only he understands the world. In response to his constituent's statement
"Let me clarify: bullying drove those children to suicide, not simply BEing gay. If you support this bill, you will cause pain, and you may very well cause the deaths of more children like Jacob Rogers. Period."
he suggests, "let us use some statistics to analogously examine your contention." Then he launches into a recitation of statistics about the problems with gay men giving blood, and other health issues about homosexuality. Then he says,
"A resulting critical thought question might be: do homosexual practitioners disproportionately contract AIDS, hepatitis, or syphilis through their own proclivities and behavior or in “reaction” to opinions of that behavior by others or someone supporting a bill?"
What in the world? It took me a while to figure this out, but apparently he is saying that getting AIDS or syphilis is another way, besides suicide, in which gay men harm themselves, and that since that way cannot be explained by oppression or an oppressive law, neither can suicides. How is this logical? The charitable answer is: it isn't. The meta-logical purpose of the argument is, of course, to throw out statistics about what disease-ridden pariahs gay men are.
I think there was something in a Pith post from way back about Ragan saying that "suicide is attempted much more frequently in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community." He thinks this proves bullying doesn't cause suicide, because gay people commit suicide all the time anyway. This is, of course, nonsense. Gay people don't commit suicide because of some inherent flaw in gay people--they do, much of the time (certainly not all the time), because society makes their lives difficult, unhappy or unliveable. This seems obvious to me. Of course, even if Ragan actually believed suicide was a natural symptom of being gay, he could choose to express sympathy and suggest that fragile gay kids should not be given additional reasons to do themselves in. He does not, of course.
Finally, he equates gays with "prostitutes, pedophiles, polygamists, murder[er]s," asking rhetorically whether, if such reprobates commit suicide at a higher rate than other people, we should avoid stigmatizing them for their behavior. I have always found the logical fallacy of "begging the question" a bit hard to define or identify, but I think this is a great example. Implicit in the premise is the notion that homosexuality is behavior that is just as bad as prostitution, pedophilia, polygamy and murder (I might suggest that this group of behaviors covers a pretty wide spectrum of badness in itself). Why would Ragan make such an argument in a letter to a constituent who, he surely should have realized, would not share that notion? Perhaps he really can't understand that some people aren't bothered by homosexuality. Perhaps it's just a habit. Perhaps it's just that he's so impressed by what he sees as its logic. Perhaps he's just a jerk. I don't know.
In short, this guy is not a clear thinker at all, in addition to being a bigot, and it's extremely disappointing to find people like him in our legislature.
like
dislike
I have long thought that what passes for thought processes in the Tennessee Legislature deserves scientific study.
Anyway, one of my school board members responded favorably to my most recent communication on this subject. Don't know what the others are thinking. As for the Legislature, state Rep. Sheila Butt's office asked me for my address after I included my full address in my communication. This is not uncommon.
My communications never go over well with some, since I often mention that their religious beliefs have no place in government.
With seventeen percent of the male homosexual community infected with HIV, isn't their behavior, in itself, suicidal. So far in recent history in Tennessee there's been two suicides attributed to bullying but how many have died from self inflicted misfortune? The Scene could do a series on the subject and if only one innocent life is saved.... (There I go again, bringing perspective to an argument.) The point being that gays are far more harmful to themselves than any legislation being considered.
Is it just me or does gast's perspective make everybody nauseous? How many think they might have committed suicide from reading gast's comments? (He'd be proud as a peacock.)
Gast, nothing you say is any kind of argument, however terrible or uninformed, in favor of retaining the provision of the bullying act that appears to offer a get-out-of-jail-free card to bullies who pick on gay kids ostensibly for religious reasons. You merely obfuscate by bringing up another topic, which does happen to be a real problem among gay men, though your take on it is a little warped. Yes, bullying at school is a smaller problem than this one. So what? I guess you figure the two topics are linked because gay men's "behavior [is], in itself, suicidal." But it isn't. It CAN be dangerous but that's not the same as suicidal. Neither is straight people's behavior, even though HIV transmission can happen there too. You see yourself as "bringing perspective to an argument," but actually you're just muddying it up. Your post seems to suggest that because gay men sometimes transmit HIV to each other, and sometimes die from it, it's silly to worry about a few gay schoolkids dying because their lives are made miserable. I hope that I'm wrong in understanding it that way, because I think that would make you an obtusely callous and mean person.
Gast, if you're using germ transmission as a measure of worth, the lesbians have you beat. Female cervical cancer, for example, is caused mainly by germ transmission from males.
Gast, you persective is akin to that of an apologist for genocide. You don't like homosexuality, we get it. Your personal preferences don't amount to any display of logic or reason.
@Donna Locke: I've said it before, men are pigs.
Pete Wilson: What your desired legislation would lead to is that any homosexual that felt uncomfortable for any reason around anybody would be accusing them of hate crimes and the zealots of the left would be demanding justice and recriminations against kids who are just that, kids. And you bring up religion. What I've read so far is the problems have been caused by smart-ass kids, not smart-ass religious kids. The problem is more likely caused because the hateful little brats were not religious. And the position of the lawmakers is not to punish homosexuals, it's to keep legislation from going too far which, of course, homosexual zealots can't take far enough.
Packrat: I don't hate homosexuals. The reason for your criticism is that my critiques and analysis do not please you, not because they're in error.
You have no critiques or analysis to be in error. You just don't like a certain orientation so you try to come up with specious apologetics to back up your opinions. No matter, you're a dinosaur, generations from now, the vast majority of people will look back on the issue of gay rights with the same jaundiced eye that we now look at people who came up with all kinds of "logic" and "analysis" to denigrate interracial marriage. You're on the a$$ end of history, gast. I invite you to join those of us who look forward to a future in this country of more tolerance, openness and freedom. Come on board, gast, there's plenty of room on this Freedom Train.
BTW, your reading comprehension needs work, gast. I didn't say you hate homosexuals. I wrote that you don't like homosexuality, and that we all get that.
Gast: I do agree with you that a lot of harrassment of gay kids would have nothing to do with religion. Presumably no get-out-of-jail-free clause would apply to that, which is good. In your first sentence, you are speculating recklessly as well as exaggerating. Just because you can imagine a worst case scenario does not mean it is going to happen. Finally, I have more sympathy for the bullied kids than the bullying kids. Apparently you don't.
I'm in Brother Gast's corner! He is correct on everything and the rest of you are wrong! Period! You pansy libtards don't know what it's like to be bullied by militant gays, and targeted for conversion, simply because of your masculinity! Me and Brother Gast do!
@Pete Wilson: Smart-ass kids and disrespectful kids piss me off. They're an embarrassment to their parents and usually it's because the parents aren't paying attention. Somebody needs to smack the parents. At the same time, the legislation the LBGTs want, or any group wants for that matter, is over the top and an infringement of the 1st Amendment.
