It's All About The Context

Over on his personal blog, we find Stephen Boissoin trying to "contextualize" his letter of 2002 by inserting attempts to explain "what he meant".

I have two problems with this - first of all, six years after the fact, it smacks of being little more than sophistry. (and perhaps in part, it's Boissoin thumbing his nose at the recent remedial decision handed down) While it is valid for him to make some of these claims, he hasn't made them publicly that most of us know about prior to this point.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the observation that we have to consider his letter in the form it was published. No matter how you slice it, the real question that needs to be asked is how a reasonable person would have read that letter - minus all of Mr. Boissoin's belated attempts to justify his spewage.

Then, there are some of the details of what he tries to wrap around his toxic words of six years ago.

This letter was not directed at gay individuals that are not involved in an activist agenda and it is especially not directed at those who are struggling with an unwanted attraction to the same sex. The following paragraph confirms this.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

By definition, anyone who is a member of a minority group that wants to be treated as equals in society is going to be generally supportive of such movements - to some degree or another. (I can't imagine too many homosexuals that were unhappy when homosexuality was decriminalized in the late 1960s, for example) Second, he makes the broad claim that GLBT people have "caused far too much damage". Damage to what, or whom, he doesn't say. I think most reasonable readers would still take his attempt at an "exclusion" as being little more than a broad swipe at anyone who is part of the broader GLBT community.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

'Banner' refers to the raising of one's standard. At the time of this letter I was the Executive Director of a Christian charity, active in youth ministry, an ordained minister, a leader of a Christian based political lobby group and a volunteer with other youth focused community initiatives. This letter was submitted to the RED DEER Advocate, not the National Post. War has been declared simply meant that I was making my standard 'public' and that I would no longer remain quiet since becoming aware of how pro-gay activists are indoctrinating young people. Anybody with a hint of common sense knew that this terminology had nothing to do with violence.

In a July 2008 Washington Times article, Barack Obama is speaking about gay rights and equality. He is quoted as saying that " we must fight for the world as it should be." Is he referring to violence by his usage of the word 'fight?' I don't think so. His usage of 'fight' is figurative and no different than similar statements like 'war on poverty' and' 'war on AIDS.' Heck, I even read that certain Muslim clerics had declared 'war' on condoms.

Obviously, I was declaring 'a public war of ideologies' against gay activism. This would have been accepted by the vast majority had Darren Lund not strategically and deceptively linked my letter to an uncorroborated, uninvestigated assault on a gay teen which occurred TWO weeks or more after my letter was published.

First of all, for most people, the "raising of a banner" as a metaphor is going to evoke images of the medieval battlefield - especially as they are portrayed in so many movies.

Again, putting in context of Mr. Boissoin as an ordained minister (etc. etc.), the language is surprising indeed. Most ministers I can think of would have come up with much clearer analogies. Boissoin did not speak of a "war of ideologies" as he now claims he was referring to. Subsequent language talking of "weapons" and "victory" etc. speaks of someone using the language of the medieval crusade, not the language of modern politics.

A letter like Boissoin's would have rippled around the editorial pages for more than a few days - and a violent assault against someone from the GLBT community within two weeks of the letter's publication certainly suggests some cause for concern. (Oh yes, as I understand it, the assault was investigated, but no charges were ever laid - that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Self-explanatory.

Self explanatory, Stephen? Horsefeathers. First of all, the paragraph in your letter is filled with assumptions and assertions - not a one of which the religious reich wing has ever been able substantiate. It is a paragraph filled with allusion that leaves the reader's imagination to run wild. This is a classic tool of propagandists - instead of citing something real about their target, they suggest something, and fail utterly to substantiate it.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay parades, gays undermining the traditional family and teaching children and youth that homosexuality is normal and acceptable.

Pure assertion. First of all, the original paragraph (in bold) suggests that the rights and lives of heterosexual people are being negatively impacted by the GBLT rights movement. But it doesn't even begin to suggest how or why this is the case. Again, Boissoin has left it to the reader's imagination what might be the case.

His attempt at substantiating his position is pure assertion. Boissoin's claims about gay rights in general (be it adoption, marriage, or for that matter teaching children that being gay is a normal part of the human experience - it is, and millenia worth of human history make that point for me, since GLB people have been clearly documented throughout recorded history. (The documentation for transgender people is perhaps a bit more obscure and rare - a good subject for another post later) He does not show in any way how heterosexual rights and liberties are being attacked; nor does it demonstrate any attempt that would lead a reasoning person to his conclusion.

Realize this is happening and be very concerned! Teachers are not presenting the facts. They are not informing young people that there are therapies available for those struggling with an unwanted attraction to the same sex. They are leading them to believe that a person is born gay. That it is normal to be gay. They are not highlighting the health risks associated with homosexual behaviour nor are they informing them that Health Canada is refusing to accept organ donations from men that have sex with men due to the risk to society.

Those "therapies" are highly questionable, Mr. Boissoin - to such an extent that the key professional bodies in the mental health world have expressed extreme concerns over them. Optimistically, they appear to be successful for a small fraction of people who are either gay or lesbian (and more correctly, I suspect, those that reparative therapy "works" for likely would qualify as bisexual (see my comment #4 here.

Second, I believe Mr. Boissoin is overly worried about homosexual males, and is conveniently ignoring the fact that the GBLT umbrella covers much, much more than homosexual males. Further, as I have criticized other anti-gay activists before, he is overly focused upon what he imagines of their sex life. I don't know about Mr. Boissoin, but personally, my own life doesn't revolve around sexual activity, I fail to see why he insists on getting so bent out of shape about what is likely a small part of someone else's life.

Gay activists want you to believe that homosexuals have it worse than everyone else. They want you to believe that they need special protections. They disguise a scientifically baseless pro-homosexual agenda that is desinged to promote homosexuality by telling us that it is all about tolerance. I am all for tolerance. Nobody has the right to physically harm a
person because of their sexual orientation! If the agenda stopped there, I would have little to say but instead it pushes homosexulity on our society, on our children and I am going to do my part of voice my opposition to it. Nothing normal about homosexuality in my books.

Scientifically baseless? Really Stephen? As I have said in previous discussions with you - if you are going to make assertions of that nature, then it is your responsibility - and obligation - to back up your assertions. Otherwise, all you are doing is making an assertion. Since your background doesn't appear to contain much science per se, I think it behooves you to provide credible sources for your claims. To date, you have made many such claims, and have failed horribly in your attempts to back them up.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

According to my personal and religious beliefs, teaching a child that homosexuality is normal and acceptable is JUST AS IMMORAL as how a pedophile, drug dealer and pimp seduces a child/young person.

Ummm...first of all, Boissoin is approaching this from the classic, and arguably questionable position that being gay is purely a matter of choice. In the face of a growing body of evidence that suggests that the picture is far more complex than mere behaviour. Additionally, Boissoin's position makes the mistake of assuming that pedophilia is closely correlated with homosexuality.

While I personally suspect that they are in fact parts of different axis of sexuality, and may coincide in specific individuals, I think the weight of evidence would show that most GLBT people are quite clearly NOT pedophiles. The second point here is that teaching children that being gay is part of the normal human experience is not going to 'recruit' a new homosexual. It doesn't work that way - any more than you "recruit" someone to be heterosexual.

Pedophiles present a unique and problematic danger, since the object of their interests is someone that we (society) agree is not competent to make their own decisions in such matters due to age. Quite rightly, society treats those who molest children as criminals, for they have taken advantage of - and abused - our children. On top of that, there are no known cures for pedophilia. At best the individual can keep themselves out of trouble, and with psychiatric intervention can learn to avoid situations that would arouse them. (In this respect, pedophilia is consistent with the GBLT narrative - it does not respond to clinical treatment that attempts to change it)

However, to draw the same conclusions about the impact of GLBT people as for pedophiles in general is simply bad logic which there is no evidence to substantiate.

Homosexual activists are an enemy of certain values that I hold as a Christian. It's time to start fighting back in an attempt to protect these values, the safety and future of our children is at stake.

I love it. Not only is Mr. Boissoin unable to articulate what the "evil gay bogeyman" is really doing that is so bad, he isn't even willing to give voice to what his values are that his imagined bogeyman is attacking. Very convenient for him of course, because it allows him to move the goalposts at whim, and self-justify his own anti-gay bigotry - while never having to actually think things through in light of real evidence.