Sunday Night Mailbag

People often ask me “hey Steve, how do you find time to procrastinate when you’ve got so much work to do?” I’ll admit it isn’t easy but fortunately I have a lot of help. Take this exchange between me and some guy in Ontario who for whatever reason thought it would be wise to send a letter to Prairie Dog condemning the right of same sex couples to have families:

From: Paul Kokoski
Sent: January 20, 2013 9:37 AM
Subject: letter

Dear Editor,

I have enclosed the following letter for publication. Please let me know if you intent to print it. Thank you.

I am disappointed that homosexual partners Elton John and David Furnish have adopted another child via a surrogate mother.

Last June, the American scientific magazine “Social Science Research”, the most prestigious peer reviewed publication of its kind, published two new innovative and definitive studies on children raised by same-sex couples. From the studies it emerged that 12% of children brought up by same-sex couples contemplate suicide (against 5% of children with heterosexual parents), they are more inclined to be unfaithful (40% against 13%), they are unemployed more often (28% against 8%) and they are more likely to visit a psychotherapist (19% against 8%). They are also more often under social service surveillance compared to peers who are raised by heterosexual couples. In 40% of cases they will catch a sexually transmitted disease at some point (against 8% of peers raised by heterosexual couples) and they are generally less healthy, poorer and more likely to smoke and commit criminal offences.

The few studies published so far that support the theory that there is no difference between children brought up in heterosexual and homosexual families are – unlike the new studies – based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for generalization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families.

It is time we realize that the rights of children trump the right to children.


Paul Kokoski

Naturally I couldn’t leave that one alone.

From: prairie dog feedback
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 7:00 PM
To: ‘Paul Kokoski’
Subject: RE: letter

Hi Paul, thanks for the letter. The study you cite is flawed. Here’s a link, and here’s the pertinent quote:

Other scientists say the research is deeply flawed, and does not measure the effect of same-sex parenting at all. The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time. That led to a “hodgepodge” group of people who Regnerus then compared with kids in stable, married homes, said Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University who was not involved in the research. “He doesn’t have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid’s childhood is that they were raised by gay parents,” Stacey told LiveScience. “These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don’t know.”

Regardless, your opposition to same-sex families is offensive, dumb, silly and un-Christian. On this issue, the world is moving toward a gentler, kinder, more loving and more civilized era.

I hope you will re-consider your bigoted viewpoints.

All the best,

Stephen Whitworth, Editor

Of course, Mr. Kokoskiwouldn’t be much of an anti-gay-agendavist if he let me get the last word. His response, and my response, after the jump.

From: Paul Kokoski
Sent: January 20, 2013 6:14 PM
To: prairie dog feedback
Subject: Re: letter

Hi Bigot,

The scientists you quote are homosexual advocates with a homosexual agenda – hardly worthy of any credence.

Regardless, your opposition to  normal heterosexual   families is offensive, dumb, silly and un-Christian. Christianity strongly condemns all queer associations.  On this issue, the world is moving toward a gentler, kinder, more loving and more honest civilized era that sees homosexual activity for the perverted, abnormal, and dysfunctional evil it is.

I hope you will re-consider your anti-Christian bigoted viewpoints. There is help out there for those like yourself who need to be sexually re-oriented. I love all men even homosexuals. But we have to call evil acts for what they are. I hope this helps my son.

All the best.

I had a lot to do so I didn’t reply. Psych! Of course I wrote back.

From: prairie dog feedback
Sent: January 20, 2013 7:44 PM
To: ‘Paul Kokoski’
Subject: RE: letter

Hello, Paul. I wasn’t aware the Discovery Channel had a homosexualist agenda. Thank you for the enlightenment. I apologize if I came across as someone who thinks you’re a frightened, angry coward with a broken moral compass who’s probably gay and in denial (because why else would anyone be so passionately opposed to gay rights?). I certainly don’t think you’re secretly aroused by men, and ashamed.

Peace, love and happiness,


To save time I’m just going to e-mail  my dear friend Paul this link, and he and his hordes of closet-case pals can comment directly on the blog as long as they don’t get too hate speechy (which, well, actually I guess that ship sailed on that when he called gay sex an “evil act”). Christians might want to comment too, since I suspect not all of them will agree with Mr. Kokoski’s interpretation of scripture. By the way, for new readers: I’m an atheist, and, shamefully, straight. It’s very sad for me and even sadder for women. (It’s the gay community’s gain, though.)

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

9 thoughts on “Sunday Night Mailbag”

  1. SW why are the “sent-time(s),out of sync?

    1st reply, line 4:

    I agree with your statement, I just wouldn’t have typed it..

  2. Nice, a Paul Kokoski letter. One of the first results on Google for Paul is the following:

    “Hamiltonian Paul Kokoski is a prolific, radical, Catholic keyboard warrior who e-mails his rigid proselytizing worldwide.”

    It’s also interesting to note that he claims in a variety of places to have had articles published in the Toronto Star. A search of the Star’s website reveals nothing but a series of letters he has had published. Someone should tell Paul the difference between having a letter and an article published; One implies a certain editorial support of the quality of an argument. A fucking letter does not!

    The first sign in his email that he’s just parroting a study he heard about without any actual knowledge of science is that he characterized the studies as “innovative and definitive”. In science, you very rarely get to be both innovative and definitive. Science depends upon replication and confirmation; if a study is innovative, it won’t have the replication and confirmation necessary to be declared “definitive” for years.

    The article you linked to, Steve, accurately covers the flaws in the study (the largest, of course, being failing to account for confounding variables in the comparison). Regardless of its inherent flaws, opponents of adoptions by same-sex couples are foolish to cite it as evidence for the fact that it does not measure a relevant variable of interest. The key scientific question re: adoption by gay or lesbian couples is the following: is there a statistically significance difference in outcomes between children raised in a “same-sex” family versus a traditional family? Despite Paul’s introduction of the study as addressing children of same-sex couples, it does not address family structure at all; Instead, it focuses on one aspect of either parent’s sexual history. Only two children in the study reported living with a same-sex couple as parents! Given that there were 248 children in the study who reported having a parent who has been in a same-sex relationship, it seems possible — or even likely — that the number of children with a gay parent who tried to “marry themselves straight” outnumbers the ones raised by a same-sex couple. If that is the case, a more reasonable conclusion of this study would be: “Gay people shouldn’t listen to Catholic blowhards like Paul and try to lead a heteronormative lifestyle: it’s bad for the kids.”

    Regarding the tone of the exchange, note that while Steve clearly disagreed with Paul, he attacked Paul’s positions (specifically his opposition to same-sex families and his bigoted viewpoints). While Steve did use harsh language, it was never directed at Paul’s person. On the other hand, Paul is the one who immediately began his second letter by calling Steve a bigot. For those who have a hard time distinguishing an ad hominem from a personal attack, see Paul’s “The scientists you quote are homosexual advocates with a homosexual agenda – hardly worthy of any credence.” Instead of addressing the contents of their arguments, he dismisses them out-of-hand based only on the source. This is textbook ad hominem.

  3. #5
    Now that I’ve read that you have a history with mr. kokoski, call him what you think he deserves to be called.

  4. I like the part where he says, “Hi Bigot”.

    Has that word taken on a new meaning that I’m not aware of? Was there a memo at the last copy editor’s convention in Boise, Idaho?

Comments are closed.