Silencing Unpopular Opinions

Clayton Cramer

Clayton Cramer published an article about whether homosexuality is driven by childhood sexual abuse. I should note that in his follow up article that I was the blogger he was speaking up here:

Most simply ignored it; one (a supporter of SSM) was surprised that the left hadn’t already burned down my house.

I don’t think there’s anything illegitimate about Clayton’s line of inquiry, and I don’t think any journal should have to fear publishing it. Some of you might remember back in 1994, when this controversial book was published. I doubt today you could find a publisher who would dare publish it. I don’t buy the conclusions in “The Bell Curve” because I believe theory of Intelligence Quotient is crap, but as a society we should be free to discuss these kinds of things.

Today we fear controversial ideas, and to a large degree it seems large portions of our population have become infantilized. Is Clayton’s theory correct? I don’t know. But I don’t see why it should be beyond discussion and legitimate inquiry. The famous quote by Justice Louis Brandeis from Whitney v. California would seem to apply to the situation our society currently finds itself in: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

8 thoughts on “Silencing Unpopular Opinions”

  1. this guy is about 5 years behind the times. it doesn’t matter what the “source” of homosexuality is for reasons of public policy. people can be gay for whatever reason they want and they should be integrated into civil society, get hitched, settle down, and pay taxes. hell, maybe we can get the gay community to support gun rights and add a bit of sparkle and glitter to our outreach.

    1. I don’t disagree that’s it’s not a public policy matter, but it is curious sociologically and scientifically. The difficulty I’ve always had with the genetic theory is that it disfavors reproduction. So I think there has to be another explanation. That doesn’t make treating homosexuals with less dignity is justified. I don’t think asking the question Clayton is asking is much different than asking why black people have dark skin. At one time, we didn’t know that. Now we do. Same situation: it doesn’t justify discrimination, just explains why we are different.

  2. Cranmer is a really off the charts with his circa 1950s homophobia.take a look at his past posts on the topic

    1. I’m aware of Clayton’s views on the topic. It’s been the source of disagreement with him many times in the past. But I do stand for his right to hold and speak in favor of those views without having to worry about an Internet lynch mob.

      1. Sure, but he seriously damages his credibility with this, which unfortunately also negatively effects his gun rights advocacy.

        1. It’s pretty well documented that victims of child sexual abuse are homosexual as adults at a greater percentage then the normal population. Whether the abuse is the cause of it is still being researched.

  3. If homosexuality is caused by something – particularly something bad – then it is not natural and can be prevented and possibly cured. This is the reason the left would burn down his house. They do not and will not understand or accept that anything can and should be able to be examined, studied, and discussed. Honestly I think being outraged on behalf of others is itself a sign of mental illness.

    Instead of knee jerk outrage political activism, the correct move is to force government to treat all individuals as individuals, and protect their rights. The correct move is to eliminate the false idea of the “group right” and protect true rights – individual rights. Then, sick or not, a homosexual man or woman won’t be abused by government.

Comments are closed.