Post by: Perd Hapley on June 28, 2005, 08:28:48 PM
I ask because phobias are unreasonable fears, yet "homophobia" is almost always used to describe opposition to homosexuality rather than the fear of it. This being the case, current usage of the term seems to imply that anyone opposing homosexuality does so out of fear. That would seem an unwarranted assumption and one intended to deny the "homophobes" any sort of principled position. Can this be fair?
Of course, the inept construction of the word can also be rather distressing. "Homosexualaphobe" would seem to be a more appropriate construction. Those with Latin are welcome to advise me.
Post by: atek3 on June 28, 2005, 08:58:43 PM
atek3
Post by: Preacherman on June 28, 2005, 09:11:03 PM
Post by: atek3 on June 28, 2005, 09:25:09 PM
how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"? This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.
atek3
Post by: brimic on June 29, 2005, 03:50:40 AM
Quote from: Atek3
well since most homophobes don't mind watching lesbians go at it it should be "gayguysdoingitphobia"
From the looks of most of the real life lesbians I've met or known, I don't want to see them 'doing it' either. 
Post by: RaggedClaws on June 29, 2005, 04:03:53 AM
Post by: InfidelSerf on June 29, 2005, 04:33:38 AM
It's just part of the language warfare used to combat their opposition.
A common tactic of the left is to twist our language to simply label any opposition they face as either bigoted or racist.
Post by: Sean Smith on June 29, 2005, 04:42:22 AM
As far as I know it was never used as a real psychiatric term with a clinical definition. It isn't in the DSM-IV, for instance.
On the other hand, your more extreme "gay conspiracy" nuts might deserve to be called "homophobics."
Post by: atek3 on June 29, 2005, 04:50:00 AM
Quote
From the looks of most of the real life lesbians I've met or known, I don't want to see them 'doing it' either.
touche!atek3
Post by: RaggedClaws on June 29, 2005, 04:52:40 AM
ho·mo·pho·bia (n)
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
I think the "irrational" part is key.
Post by: InfidelSerf on June 29, 2005, 04:57:41 AM
So by simply pointing out that someone is homosexual is discrimination?
I imagine its stretchs in the definitions like this that lead to the distortion of our language.
Post by: Werewolf on June 29, 2005, 05:03:26 AM
Quote
Opposition to homosexual conduct is not in any sense "homophobia", in that opponents aren't afraid of homosexuals - they simply don't accept as valid their chosen sexual expression.
Exactly. The term is mostly used by homosexuals and the PC to denigrate the opinions of those opposed to homosexuality. Homophobe is an emotionally charged word. Emotionally charged words are often used in cases where one wishes to indirectly attack the messenger instead of the message.
Post by: Iapetus on June 29, 2005, 05:16:03 AM
Quote
according to Webster's second definition of discrimination " The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment"
So by simply pointing out that someone is homosexual is discrimination?
I imagine its stretchs in the definitions like this that lead to the distortion of our language.
That's "discriminate between" (know/detect the difference), rather than "discriminate against" (make unjustified judgements /actions towards someone on the grounds of differences). So by simply pointing out that someone is homosexual is discrimination?
I imagine its stretchs in the definitions like this that lead to the distortion of our language.
As for the meaning of "phobia", I've seen it variuosly defined as either "an irrational fear" or "an irrational fear or hatred".
And I've seen people here and on THR use "hopolophobe" to describe people who are opposed to guns/gun ownership, even when it wasn't obvious that they were "afraid" of them.
Post by: Preacherman on June 29, 2005, 05:25:56 AM
Quote
how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"? This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.
Atek, I was speaking in terms of moral validity, or accepting the moral appropriateness of an action. Again, this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...
Post by: Guest on June 29, 2005, 06:03:47 AM
Quote
...chosen sexual expression....
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?
Post by: Guest on June 29, 2005, 06:19:26 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
Quote
(atek3) how can an act between two consenting adults not be "valid"? This isn't about gay behavior this is a general question.
...this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...(sorry to seem to be picking on you, but we can't discuss topics like this if people are going to assert, "That's just wrong!"
I agree that "homophobe" is an ad hominem slur like "racist" or "anti-semite" that is not useful in logical discussions.
OTOH, I have never understood those that are "opposed to (or 'for') homosexuality". No one has any control whatsoever over the number or percentage of homosexuals in the world.
Post by: griz on June 29, 2005, 09:16:10 AM
Quote
Morality-talk is just a construct that describes behavior the speaker prefers.
It's not that clear cut. I prefer that people say please and thank you. But I don't believe it's immoral to skip those formalities. On the other hand, somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition. Obviously it gets fuzzy in between the two extremes.
Post by: Guest on June 29, 2005, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: griz
Quote
Morality-talk is just a construct that describes behavior the speaker prefers.
It's not that clear cut. I prefer that people say please and thank you. But I don't believe it's immoral to skip those formalities. On the other hand, somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition. Obviously it gets fuzzy in between the two extremes.The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal. Fuzzy and relative mean the same thing, IOW.
And "by any rational person's definition" is an ad hominem fallacy.
Post by: Guest on June 29, 2005, 10:10:46 AM
A few guys work at a store. Most are quite open minded and tolerant of other lifestyles, except Steve. Steve is a "proper"(Ie a bad) christian, who is quite intollerant and closed minded. He could be called a Homophobe, or merely a "Phobe".
If asked, I nor will most other gay guys I know dodge "the question". I havent sofar nor will I, I feel its wrong to lie to people. However its advantageous to my bloodpressure if I can identify the individuals I work or attend class with and are intollerant, I can then distance myself from them. Open confrontation, arguements yada yada dont help anyone. I havent, but guys I've known who have "come out" in a rather public way have indeed been harrassed. Dispite the fact that its a very small percentage of individuals who would say a word against somone elses lifestyle, those that do are often vocal and quite strong willed. The result is mocking, which soon spreads to his friends and so on and the possibility of assualt and vandalism.
The modern GLBT method of being "happy" is not making their sexuality an issue, this does two things. One it helps individuals go unnoticed and live happily without bother. Two, if Steve makes friends with me and then finds out I'm queer. He's less likely to make a snap judgement that I'm somehow "Out to get him". It gives me an open dialogue to try and reason with him in a mature manner. If it works, so be it. If it doesnt, it doesnt.
Post by: Preacherman on June 29, 2005, 01:20:53 PM
Quote
The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal.
Well, that's where we differ, because I believe that morality is objective and absolute in its broadest sense. Within that broad sense, yes, each person decides for him- or herself whether a particular action is moral or not: but I can never agree that morality is situational, relative and non-binding in a wider, societal sense.Please note, too, that I'm not only speaking about morality based upon religious revelation: obviously, since there are many religions, there can hardly be total agreement on faith-based morality. I believe that there is a "natural law" morality, that is freely available for anyone to discover, and which is universal. For example: the Christian commandment "Thou shalt not steal" has a natural law counterpart - one learns that theft is bad when one is the victim of theft! Thus, if theft is bad when committed against you, it's also clear that it's bad when you commit it against someone else. This is a logical progression of thought that is clearly objective and universal.
On a more complex subject such as homosexuality, I believe there is also a natural-law objectivity available. As I've frequently pointed out to prison inmates (most of whom share no particular religious faith, and therefore don't respond well to the "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not" type of approach), one can look at human sexuality in terms of the natural functions and processes of the human body. I have commented on numerous occasions to the effect that "the rectum and the anus form the outlet pipe to the body's sewage system, and are NOT the Tunnel of Love!" Whilst this gets a laugh, it also makes the very valid point that these portions of anatomy have a "designed function" that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity. The female vagina, on the other hand, is specifically developed for sexual activity, and the consequence of that activity, the birth of children. Natural function points to a natural law - sodomy is not "natural" or "normal", and therefore can be said to be objectively outside the "boundaries" of what is "normal" in sexual intercourse.
Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so: but I shall not be adopting their perspective, I'm afraid.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 29, 2005, 01:27:33 PM
Quote
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?
Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.
Post by: Guest on June 29, 2005, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Its called homophobia because racism was taken already. You can put anyone on the defensive by calling him racist and the homosexual community, seeking the legitimacy and moral high ground the civil rights movement garnered for itself, appropriated an analagous term.
I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.
I never chose to be queer..
Quote
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?
Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.
Post by: griz on June 29, 2005, 04:54:03 PM
Not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not a doctor either!
As to the morality of homosexuality, that's a tough one. My current feeling is that you are born predisposed one way or the other, and it harms no one, so I can't see the immorality of it. YMMV.
Post by: griz on June 29, 2005, 05:07:47 PM
Quote
The killer prefered to kill the spouse and receive the money. He thought he was doing the right thing - the "moral" thing. It was right for him.
I just re-read that and wanted to add this: The killer chose to kill. That does not mean he thought he was doing right. Indeed the ability to identify the action as right or wrong is one of the criteria for the insanity defense.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 29, 2005, 05:41:21 PM
I think there is often a certain amount of fear when a straight man encounters a homosexual man- fear that others will think that he is also a homosexual if he associates with him. I think this is why some react with hatred; because the homosexual has become an enemy in that he threatens the straight's reputation. Some think a violent reaction will prove their manhood. However, the term "homophobe" is usually used only as a smear against anyone who speaks out against homosexuality. "Hoplophobe" is used the same way, which is unfortunate.
MercedesRules,
Quote
we can't discuss topics like this if people are going to assert, "That's just wrong!"
Why not? Until you drew it out of him, Preacherman wasn't preaching, just responding to a question from myself and from Atek3. I'm afraid we can't discuss topics like this if people like you drag us into other topics, as you are trying to do. It doesn't help that you accuse griz of ad hominem, when he said nothing against you or anyone else.
Post by: stevelyn on June 29, 2005, 05:44:40 PM
Quote
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expresion.
I was born a womanizer. I can't help it, I'm genetically encoded to be that way. It's a leftover from evolution.
Post by: grampster on June 29, 2005, 05:44:59 PM
Regarding homosexuality: A person may or may not have to make a judgment about that. My personal judgement is this: I am heterosexual. But I choose not to go around wearing my sexuality on my sleeve. My sexuality is mine. It is no one else's business. Folks who choose to make a public issue about what they do in the bedroom (or anywhere for that matter) or that they prefer to be titilated this way or that way, or to dress in a fashion that is suggestive of their proclivity risk being judged by those who do not agree. Just as I have never felt the need to stand on the street corner and announce my sexual preferences, I am perplexed by those who do, who then wonder why they sometimes are shunned or worse.
To have a discussion about things of this nature on a forum on the internet is a horse of another color, though. It perhaps is a good place to find out things that help one make choices because it can be discussed with other people with no risk. A good thing imho.
I personally find the human condition full of behavior that is "sinful". Sin is described in many places. I think it is known by all who are sane without having to be told. Since I have been intimately aquainted with what I consider to be "sinful behavior" in my own life, I am quite careful not to indulge in throwing rocks at those who I believe to be sinners. The rock might just bounce of and strike me.
I would rather try and live my life in a fashion that causes others to not shun me or vilify me. As a Christian, example speaks louder than accusation and confrontation. In the end, each will have to stand judgment alone based on his choices. (or not, as some believe, and I leave you to keep to that if you wish)
I agree with Preacherman in that I believe that there are absolutes. The problem is living up to them. Thank God for Grace.
Post by: griz on June 29, 2005, 06:10:54 PM
Quote
the trouble came in when we started to give each one a different name.
That's great. Might even be true for all I know.Getting back to the topic, I have a friend who says he isn't bothered by gays but "doesn't like to have it shoved in his face". (Grampster, what you said reminded me of him, I'm not trying to imply this as your belief) But further talk showed that he wasn't talking about gay pride parades, he isn't comfortable with the knowledge that someone was gay.
Although I can't claim to speak for gay people, I can see a problem when they feel like hiding their identity is required for mere acceptance. Maybe that's the problem. In case I'm not clear, imagine someone you know from work. They have never told you they were married, but I'll bet you guessed it within a week of working with them. Beyond the family pictures, there are phone calls, refrences to "we" are going to whereever, you get the idea. Can you see how it would be a burden to hide that?
Post by: Stand_watie on June 29, 2005, 06:27:18 PM
Post by: Strings on June 29, 2005, 06:51:44 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 29, 2005, 07:05:59 PM
sexual immoral-a-phobe.
Which raises a good point, it's the behaviours that matter in terms of "rightness" and "wrongness".
Wherever your desires (sexual in this case) come from, genetics, nurture or sources to be determined later, my belief system states that you are absolutely able to control how you act on those desires.
The appropriateness of those actions will be determined by your personal moral beliefs, which in many folks cases are absolute because of their source. In my particular case, sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, straight or not. Which, while strict, is at least not hypocritical.
However, it leads to the obvious conumdrum that, since there is no basis in the foundations of my belief for gay marriage, persons who have desires for their own sex have no moral outlet to physically act on that desire.
So, in order to be "accepting" or "inclusive" of certain actions I would be logically forced to deny my own beliefs, which form the foundation of who I am. The closest I can come is "tolerance", while continuing to vote and act on my beliefs in the loving way I am expected to.
If I end up voting in the minority and the law is changed, so be it; but I can no more change my faith than (apparently) some people can change their sexual nature.
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 29, 2005, 07:18:36 PM
Quote
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?
Yep. As far as I'm concerned, sexual expression is all about choices, some large, some small.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 29, 2005, 07:52:35 PM
The behavior of the co-workers that you describe sounds pretty rough and also un-Christian.
I am one of those "bad" Christians, and we are indeed "'proper' Christians" in our disapproval of homosexuality. Christian doctrine is defined by the Bible, and whether one takes a predominately literalist or symbolic interpretation of it, the Bible at least takes a very dim view of homosexuality. However, "proper" Christianity is neither intolerant, nor close-minded, and it is somewhat reductionist to say that someone is close-minded or intolerant merely because they disagree with you on one issue.
The Bible nowhere teaches that homosexuals are "out to get" the rest of us, or that they should be singled out for ill-treatment. That I am aware, no major denomination teaches that the Old Testament laws for punishing homosexuals or witches should apply to Christians today. These were the legal code of a Jewish theocracy which perished long ago. And if Jesus meant for us to love even our enemies, we must also love the homosexual coworker that is not our enemy.
But I wonder what you mean by "intolerant." In order for a person to be tolerant, do they have to get along with you or do they have to approve of your homosexuality?
Post by: Strings on June 29, 2005, 08:11:16 PM
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 04:40:57 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
Quote
The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal.
Well, that's where we differ,Quote
...because I believe that morality is objective and absolute in its broadest sense. Within that broad sense, yes, each person decides for him- or herself whether a particular action is moral or not: but I can never agree that morality is situational, relative and non-binding in a wider, societal sense.
I agree that you believe that morality is objective, but you do admit that each person decides each time he acts. I still believe that morality is an opinion. Some here disagree and think that their morals are right and dissenters are insane.Quote
Please note, too, that I'm not only speaking about morality based upon religious revelation: obviously, since there are many religions, there can hardly be total agreement on faith-based morality. I believe that there is a "natural law" morality, that is freely available for anyone to discover, and which is universal. For example: the Christian commandment "Thou shalt not steal" has a natural law counterpart - one learns that theft is bad when one is the victim of theft! Thus, if theft is bad when committed against you, it's also clear that it's bad when you commit it against someone else. This is a logical progression of thought that is clearly objective and universal.
But when the thief commits the theft, he obviously believes that he is doing what is right for him. Thus, there is disagreement on the subject of theft. For instance, many argue that they deserve Social Security, Medicare or food stamps because the people from whom the money is stolen seem to have more than the recipient.Quote
On a more complex subject such as homosexuality, I believe there is also a natural-law objectivity available. As I've frequently pointed out to prison inmates (most of whom share no particular religious faith, and therefore don't respond well to the "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not" type of approach), one can look at human sexuality in terms of the natural functions and processes of the human body. I have commented on numerous occasions to the effect that "the rectum and the anus form the outlet pipe to the body's sewage system, and are NOT the Tunnel of Love!" Whilst this gets a laugh, it also makes the very valid point that these portions of anatomy have a "designed function" that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity. The female vagina, on the other hand, is specifically developed for sexual activity, and the consequence of that activity, the birth of children. Natural function points to a natural law - sodomy is not "natural" or "normal", and therefore can be said to be objectively outside the "boundaries" of what is "normal" in sexual intercourse.
Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so:
...due to their differing "morality"...Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so:
Quote
but I shall not be adopting their perspective, I'm afraid.
O.K., so I won't mention how, since hands are designed to grasp things, it is abnormal to play the violin.
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 04:54:06 AM
Quote from: griz
I just can't go for that Mercedes. It's the same as saying there is no right or wrong. Like Preacherman, I certainly agree with your point that individuals make decisons based on their own "morality". But for a large part of recorded history different and seperate cultures all over the world have largely agreed that premeditated murder for profit is wrong.
So "morals" are a matter of polling or voting rather than being absolute.Quote
As for the rational person fallacy, I would say that the 99+ percent of the population that thinks that murder for profit is immoral are rational. If the murderers truely think their decisions were moral (as opposed to an excuse) then they are insane.
It is still not an argument; it's an assertion that only states that dissenters are crazy because they are in the minority.
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 04:57:21 AM
Quote from: griz
Quote
The killer prefered to kill the spouse and receive the money. He thought he was doing the right thing - the "moral" thing. It was right for him.
I just re-read that and wanted to add this: The killer chose to kill. That does not mean he thought he was doing right. Indeed the ability to identify the action as right or wrong is one of the criteria for the insanity defense.Post by: The Rabbi on June 30, 2005, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: KaceCoyote
Quote from: The Rabbi
Its called homophobia because racism was taken already. You can put anyone on the defensive by calling him racist and the homosexual community, seeking the legitimacy and moral high ground the civil rights movement garnered for itself, appropriated an analagous term.
I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.
I never chose to be queer..Quote
Did anyone here choose their form of sexual expression?
Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
etc.
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 05:23:17 AM
Quote from: fistful
...MercedesRules,
Preacherman said "chosen sexual expression" (implying that sexual preference is chosen) and "this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...", implying that he does accept them. I think these concepts are crucial to the question of whether "homophobe" is a scientific or merely political term. Quote
we can't discuss topics like this if people are going to assert, "That's just wrong!"
Why not? Until you drew it out of him, Preacherman wasn't preaching, just responding to a question from myself and from Atek3. I'm afraid we can't discuss topics like this if people like you drag us into other topics, as you are trying to do.Quote
It doesn't help that you accuse griz of ad hominem, when he said nothing against you or anyone else.
griz stated, "On the other hand, somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition."I didn't say that he said anything against anyone. I stated that he committed an ad hominem fallacy. If I said that, "Anyone that doesn't think cherry lollypops are the best-tasting ones is a nutcase." I would be committing the same fallacy.
Post by: duck hunt on June 30, 2005, 05:55:26 AM
Quote
Everyone chooses his form of sexual expression.
I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
Rabbi, I think KaceCoyote misspoke when he said "sexual EXPRESSION." That's different than sexual ORIENTATION.I choose to be faithful to my wife.
Preacherman chooses to be celebate.
You can choose to be faithful, or celibate, or promiscuous. That's expression.
But you can't choose whether it's Angelina or Brad who makes your heart go pitty pat, or whether when you're in ninth grade it's the captain of the football team or the head cheerleader who makes your palms sweat. That stuff is hard-wired, you dig?
I was hot for Donny Osmond when I was five, and at no time did I make a conscious decision choosing him over Marie. My brain did it all on its own. That stuff is involuntary.
Post by: griz on June 30, 2005, 06:29:34 AM
At any rate I suppose we will have to disagree because that seems plainly wrong to me.
Post by: cordex on June 30, 2005, 06:54:05 AM
Do you really accept any one morality as just as good as any other? Or is yours "better", but you realize that others will have their own ideas?
Quote
I still believe that morality is an opinion. Some here disagree and think that their morals are right and dissenters are insane.
Okay ... so in your opinion is someone who likes to smack kids around with the owie-side of a running lawnmower until they're just smears on the grass just as sane as you or I? And are his activities are just as "moral" as the guy across town who is using his mower for the decidedly less bloody purposes of trimming his lawn since both think what they're doing is "right"?If you believe that no one can be held accountable to any standard for their actions since not everyone will agree on what is moral, do you also believe that all punishment (from fines to jail to execution) is wrong? After all, you wouldn't want to force your opinion on someone else, would you?
But if you believe that there is something inherently wrong with torturing and murdering a child then we're back to at least some form of morality that governs human interaction. Where you think that comes from, and the specifics of what it says about buggery are immaterial.
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 07:40:38 AM
Quote from: griz
Mercedes, given that there is no right or wrong, how about this. Do you believe a mother who dispassionately killed her baby is insane or just randomly picked that gruesome path over other equally valid options?
I don't know.
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 08:20:40 AM
Quote from: cordex
mercedes,
Do you really accept any one morality as just as good as any other?
If you mean do I endorse all actions taken by all persons, no. Do you really accept any one morality as just as good as any other?
Quote
Or is yours "better", but you realize that others will have their own ideas?
Yes. I'm working on making my behavior perfect. Quote
I still believe that morality is an opinion. Some here disagree and think that their morals are right and dissenters are insane.
Quote
Okay ... so in your opinion is someone who likes to smack kids around with the owie-side of a running lawnmower until they're just smears on the grass just as sane as you or I?
That's a suspicious thing to do but it doesn't tell me anything about his sanity. I have a very skeptical view of "mental illness". I prefer to judge behavior rather than sanity. But it is very hard to judge it knowing only a few facts about the example. Maybe the "kid" pulled the respirator plug on the mower's mother. If the mower randomly attacks others, he is announcing that he claims no "right" to life himself and could be killed by anyone. Quote
And are his activities are just as "moral" as the guy across town who is using his mower for the decidedly less bloody purposes of trimming his lawn since both think what they're doing is "right"?
He thinks they are.Quote
If you believe that no one can be held accountable to any standard for their actions since not everyone will agree on what is moral, do you also believe that all punishment (from fines to jail to execution) is wrong? After all, you wouldn't want to force your opinion on someone else, would you?
I never discussed being held accountable. Actions that cause actual losses to innocent, peaceful persons create debts owed to the victims. Calling the acts "wrong" or "immoral" is unnecessary. In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
Post by: Preacherman on June 30, 2005, 09:34:06 AM
), I must respectfully disagree most profoundly with your views on morality. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that morality in one's choice of action is totally dependent on the individual actor's view of what is (or is not) moral. In that case, we can't have a society at all - because without concensus on the basis of social morality, anything goes, and anarchy is the result, morally if not politically. It also destroys any concept of a criminal justice system, because no action can be described as "right" or "wrong" except in the eye of the actor, and therefore can't be punished societally. You're well within what I'd call the "Fletcher camp" of situation ethics: the context determines the morality of the action. This is rejected by almost everybody today, but was wildly popular in the 1960's.I, on the other hand, believe that there is, at the root of all human ethics, a "natural law" that can be rationally discovered, developed and codified, which governs our actions (or, rather, should govern our actions), and is the basis for law and order, and exists irrespective of situations, circumstances and contextual issues. Over and above this, there are also many different moral codes founded on religion, philosophy, etc., which are more or less successful, more or less universal, and more or less practical, depending on many factors for their success. However, the "natural law" morality does feed and inform the other, more "sectarian" codes - for example, every single major religion in the world incorporates the "Golden Rule" ("Do unto others what you would have them do unto you"), in differing expressions, but all expressing the same truth. Being a person of faith, I would say that this is because God has revealed His truth in many ways, and this fundamental truth has been identified by all major religions. Other, less religious persons would argue that this is, in fact, a "natural law" moral principle that can be worked out independently of any religion, and has therefore been a fundamental guiding principle that religions have "built in" to their "revelation". Argue it whichever way you like - it still makes moral sense, doesn't it?
I also must respectfully disagree with you that a person doing something "bad", or immoral, thinks that his/her actions are, in fact, moral and/or good. This is obviously not the case. A rapist may carry out his crimes for his own enjoyment, but don't try to tell me that he thinks he's morally right in acting as he does - he obviously recognizes that his actions are immoral and criminal, or he would not seek to conceal them and escape their consequences. You said earlier:
Quote
People always do what they think they should do.
I respectfully submit that this is clearly, obviously false. A child doesn't think it "ought to" raid the fridge and eat up all the desserts - it knows Mommy and/or Daddy will be mad at it if it does so: yet it eats them anyway. A dog will steal a steak and eat it, expecting punishment if and when discovered. The actors in these situations both know that their actions are wrong, and that they'll be punished for it: but the dog is acting out of canine instinct, whereas the child is choosing to do something it knows to be wrong, having been informed clearly about this, and understanding it. A rapist doesn't think he should commit rape: he rather does so because he wants to commit rape. Big difference.There are also moral considerations that go far beyond the individual actors in a situation. For example, you said:
Quote
In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
I must disagree. The consequences can be enormous, and far more widespread than just the two persons involved. Medically speaking, anal sex is far more risky from the point of view of infection, disease, etc. than normal (i.e. "vaginal") sex. The skin layers on the inside of the anus are paper-thin compared to the muscles and multiple layers of skin inside the vagina, which is built to take the rough-and-tumble of sex - the anus isn't. This is why it's so much easier for venereal diseases, AIDS, etc. to infect someone anally rather than vaginally - and this isn't conjecture, it's medical fact, clearly established. So, by choosing to participate in anal sex (which is the dominant homosexual act, according to most of the authorities I've read), the participants are also choosing to expose themselves to this much, much higher risk of infection. Furthermore, given the highly promiscuous sexual lifestyle of most homosexuals (and again, this is not a matter of conjecture, but established fact, illustrated by many surveys and authorities), the risk of passing on that infection to others is greatly increased. This, in turn, imposes life-shortening consequences on many people, which affects their families, costs society a great deal of money, etc. It also imposes a greater strain on society, in terms of the premature loss of a productive member, etc. (The same societal consequences are visible in Africa, where heterosexual transmission of AIDS has caused the depopulation of some areas, and the wholesale loss of members of the most productive and important strata of society - for example, Zambia is now training two teachers for every teaching post in the country, expecting to lose one of them to AIDS in due course, which is an enormous economic burden on the country.)I don't want to limit this to homosexuality, either. I can cite the example of a friend of mine, a computer executive who went to the Far East on business some years ago. While there, he had a one-night fling with a prostitute, who, unknown to him, was infected with AIDS. He came home and went about his life normally, including having sex with his wife, and told no-one of his actions. Tragically, he infected his wife with AIDS, and in due course, when she became pregnant with their third child, the child was infected in the womb. The whole story came out when tests during pregnancy disclosed the problem. I buried his wife and their child, and watched this man go insane with the guilt of knowing that his thoughtless, immoral actions had caused the death of his wife and child. He died a babbling maniac three years after they'd died.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Post by: BrokenPaw on June 30, 2005, 10:54:29 AM
I see and understand your position, but I must respectfully disagree.
There are plenty of behaviours that are not, in and of themselves, intrinsically harmful, when engaged in by people who have the mental capacity to decide for themselves what they wish to do:
Drinking alcohol in moderation. Driving really really fast on a race track. Owning and shooting guns. Having sex (whether "normal" by your definition, or not).
All of the consequences you listed for homosexual activity arise because of secondary behaviours associated with homosexual activity, not because of the activity itself.
We don't frown on a gun-owner, we frown on someone who abuses his guns by using them to harm the innocent.
We don't frown on a responsible drinker, we frown on someone who loses control of his drinking and harms the innocent by driving drunk or getting into a drunken brawl or beating up his wife or kids.
We don't frown on race-car drivers, but we would prosecute them if they drove the same way on the public roads and placed innocents in danger.
Why it is, then, that we should frown on two consenting adults having sexual relations in a way they both wish to? Because one of them might become promiscuous and have fourteen thousand partners and spread AIDS? Nope, that's a secondary activity. Because one of them might get a disease and not tell his wife, thereby infecting her (an innocent)? Nope. Secondary activity.
If we're going to tell gay people that the sex that they're having consensually is wrong because of what others have done in the past, what moral high ground do we have to then turn around and fight the anti-gun lobby? It's an incontrovertible fact that guns have been used to kill millions of people over the years, and many of those people were innocent. Is it therefore morally wrong for me to own one? We all know it is not, because I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, nor can I be legitimately penalized for what I might do.
Neither can homosexual partners.
Suppose that two completely disease-free men met, fell in love, and committed to spending their lives together. They both keep those promises, and are entirely faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. Suddenly there's no more risk of disease than with a healthy straight couple. So in this case, is their sex life morally acceptable to you? Because none of the risks and secondary effects you bring up are a factor here. Just two consenting adults living their lives and harming no one.
For what it's worth, I'm not actually trying to be antagonistic or attack you personally, Preacherman. I apologize if this post has seemed overly aggressive.
Namaste,
-BP
Post by: Preacherman on June 30, 2005, 11:08:47 AM
So, from the perspective of moral law, we're not opposing homosexual or lesbian conduct (note that I specify conduct rather than orientation - the latter involves no act, and therefore incurs no moral censure) because of their potential consequences: we're opposing them because they violate a basic moral principle. In the same way, we would not oppose gun ownership, or the activities of a driver on a racing track, because of any potential negative consequences stemming from those things - they don't violate any moral principle in and of themselves. It's the reckless and/or negligent conduct of those involved that would attract censure: and if there is no morally objectionable conduct, there's nothing to censure.
Quote
Suppose that two completely disease-free men met, fell in love, and committed to spending their lives together. They both keep those promises, and are entirely faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. Suddenly there's no more risk of disease than with a healthy straight couple. So in this case, is their sex life morally acceptable to you? Because none of the risks and secondary effects you bring up are a factor here. Just two consenting adults living their lives and harming no one.
Your example is thus based on a wrong principle. I'm not objecting to their homosexual relationship because of the potential consequences of their actions: I'm saying that the relationship, in its sexual expression (but not, repeat, NOT, in its orientation) violates moral law, irrespective of whether that moral law is natural or religious in its derivation. It's violating a fundamental human norm. For that reason, no, such a relationship will never be acceptable to me. However, I shall continue to regard the participants in such a relationship as my brothers in Christ, and I will not condemn them because of their activities. I'm as much a sinner, in my own way, as they are in theirs, when compared against the standards set by moral law. I need God's mercy, forgiveness and grace at least as much as they do. I will never accept or condone their actions, but I will accept them as fellow sinners in need of grace. May we all find it!
Post by: cordex on June 30, 2005, 01:12:20 PM
Quote
That's a suspicious thing to do but it doesn't tell me anything about his sanity.
You didn't read too closely than. I'd say the fact that he likes to smack kids to death with motorized lawn equipment is generally indicative of some form of problemQuote
He thinks they are.
Which means precisely what?If I was color blind and couldn't tell the difference between red and green, it wouldn't mean that they were the same color or shared similar wavelengths. Just that I was incapable of discerning the difference. If I pointed at a green tree and proclaimed how red it was it wouldn't be correct even if that's really what I thought.
Quote
I never discussed being held accountable.
You didn't, did you?Quote
Actions that cause actual losses to innocent, peaceful persons create debts owed to the victims.
Says who? Is this some sort of universal principle? I thought we were agin' such universal principles? Or is it just calling those universal principles "morals" that we're opposed to?Quote
Calling the acts "wrong" or "immoral" is unnecessary.
Er ... whyzat?Quote
In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
Actually, I agree with that much. Though I find the concept of me being involved in a homosexual relationship unattractive and very distasteful, personally I do not condemn others who have chosen to live that life (note: living that life is different from having that orientation as PM has pointed out). Not that anyone is seeking my approval, but ...Any violation of morality engendered by homosexual relationships is a violation of the type wherein the actor or actors have to deal with the consequences themselves and we need not mete out additional punishment.
Post by: USP45usp on June 30, 2005, 01:32:44 PM
I too am celibate. I've been doing some intense research over the pass month, and have before, been celibate for about 10 years now because I wanted to find a loophole and just this past month, after reading and understanding finally, I've decided (realized) that no matter my orientation seems to be, it's not natural law.
(I know that I'm going to really upset some here about that but it does give an explanation of why I did what I did awhile back).
Wayne
Post by: Monkeyleg on June 30, 2005, 02:23:01 PM
The term "homophobe" is appropriate because there are people who have a genuine phobia about homosexuals. I've known many.
Most recent is a neighbor of mine. He's mild as can be, but definitely has a problem with gays. When one of our gay friends visit our house (he knows who they are) he just stares. The funny thing is that I'm 90% certain his oldest daughter is a lesbian. I'm just waiting to see what kind of fireworks erupt four or so years from now if she comes out.
But "homophobe" is much different than believing that homosexuality is wrong. That boils down to religious or moral or philosophical beliefs. While I can believe that homosexuality is counter to the Christian beliefs I was raised upon, I can't hate the homosexual, because that would also run counter to the beliefs I was taught. Besides, many of my gay friends have fewer other vices/sins than I do. Cast the first stone, and all that.
At the same time, I think the gay community does itself a disservice by using the term "homophobe" so freely, since it denigrates the real meaning of the word, just as the use of the term "Nazi" by various political figures denigrates the meaning of the Holocaust.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 30, 2005, 02:36:43 PM
I have a problem with this:
Quote
Similarly, the use of the anus for sex is clearly intrinsically wrong - it's using the anus for a purpose or function which has nothing to do with what it's designed for.
On that view only genital sex would be OK in any context. I hasten to disagree.But I think you are onto something else. We probably understand the function of sex differently. I do not know Catholic doctrine on this (obviously). But in Judaism sex is not merely procreative (although it is certainly that too) but it represents also the legitimate expression of love between two married people. Its function is to bring couples closer together. The Hebrew term used for it in Genesis is translated as "know" (e.g. "And Adam knew his wife"). That is telling. One reaches a level of knowledge about another through a sexual act that cannot be reached in any other way. This level is appropriate for married couples, for whom the verse says "and they shall be one flesh." But it is not appropriate for strangers, acquaintances, and others. And I would include same-sex relationships in that.
Post by: Preacherman on June 30, 2005, 03:35:47 PM
Quote
On that view only genital sex would be OK in any context.
Perhaps I've lived too sheltered an existence... I thought that genitals were an indispensable part of sex? If it doesn't involve genitals, it's not sex, is it?
Post by: The Rabbi on June 30, 2005, 04:13:20 PM
Quote
If it doesn't involve genitals, it's not sex, is it?
I never figured you for a Bill Clinton supporter.Delicacy prevents me elaborating on this but maybe someone else could.
Post by: Strings on June 30, 2005, 04:17:21 PM
Don't believe in the place myself, so here goes... >
What is being refered to is sexual contact without the genitals themselves interacting: oral sex, manual stimulation. Essentially, anything but "fold tab A into slot B, repeat as necessary"...
If I go to Hell now Rabbi, I'm suing you...
Post by: Guest on June 30, 2005, 04:18:59 PM
"Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons." [Instapundit, Oct. 4, 2004]
Post by: Kharn on June 30, 2005, 04:36:50 PM
Kharn
Post by: Preacherman on June 30, 2005, 04:38:53 PM
In days of yore, we used to refer to this sort of thing as "foreplay". Sort of an appetizer before the main course, don't you know?
Post by: Strings on June 30, 2005, 05:14:39 PM
Post by: matis on June 30, 2005, 05:51:52 PM
I never chose to lust after large-breasted women either. But I do choose not to pursue them or act on my desires. You may not be able to choose your desires (although I think people can train themselves to some degree) but you can choose your actions, indeed must.
___________________________________________________________________
Carebear also wrote above (paraphrasing) that we can choose whether to act out our impulses.
And others above wrote that we choose our behavior even if we have forgotten our original choice points.
Judaism teaches that you can only trust your heart after you have trained it. Even then, you must always be on the lookout. Just "going with the flow" is to allow your evil impulses to rule you. And you thereby "waste" your humanity -- you cannot become what you might have become just by following your impulses.
The Lubavitcher rebbe said: You are the master over the animal within, not the slave. Just because it burns inside like a furnace doesn't mean you have to obey. (P.90 BRINGING HEAVEN DOWN TO EARTH.
I have personally found this approach liberating.
matis
Post by: Preacherman on June 30, 2005, 07:29:31 PM
Post by: Strings on June 30, 2005, 08:35:25 PM
Good thing I was wearing my riding boots. It gets AWEFULLY deep around here sometimes...
Post by: BrokenPaw on July 01, 2005, 01:33:33 AM
Perhaps (to ease yourself into the research without too much system shock) you might first investigate "kissing". You see, as I understand it, the mouth is an orifice specifically designed for taking food and liquids into the body, and serves also as a auxilliary respiration vent.
I'm not entirely convinced that mouths were designed to be stuck to one another (what with all of the horrible bacteria they contain and therefore have the potential of spreading). Certainly kissing involves considerable risk to the participants, given the sharp bony protuberances that exist within most
- . The tissue surrounding the mouth is relatively fragile and can crack or split easily, causing bleeding.
We'll be expecting full and detailed reports of your findings.
Namaste,
-BP
- I except, of course, those mouths which live in West Virginia.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 01, 2005, 03:07:32 AM
Quite frankly, I am worried about having the same kind of legal protections for my faithful, long-term, monogamous relationship with my wife that married opposite sex couples are granted by the government whether they are blissfully married or cheating morons worthy of a Jerry Springer appearance. If you are mainly worried about being called a name that you dislike in a political discussion, well, I guess Ill bemoan the decline of civility in politics with you.
Also, Id like to comment on the idea that gay people shove it in other peoples faces . Like Griz mentioned, "making a public issue" of "what they do in the bedroom" is often something as innocuous as mentioning that you spent time with your partner's family over the holidays or putting a picture of your partner on your desk at work.
Other people say that what they really have a problem with is gay pride parades:
We dont have Straight Pride Parades why do you have Gay Pride Parades?
Well, because they are fun and one time a year where you are in the majority! Let me put it this way, remember what your mom told you on Mothers Day when you asked why there wasnt a Childrens Day? Because every day is Childrens Day!
To give you an example, I could wake up and go grab the paper off my front lawn and open it up and see 10 wedding and anniversary announcements (Eww, I dont care what you do in bed!)
Then I could turn on the TV and watch people gushing about the newest celebrity romance and walk out to my car and see straight couples kissing their spouses goodbye as they leave for work. (Oh, thats disgusting! Why do they have to do that where children can see?)
I could go to Hallmark to pick out a birthday card and have to walk past a rack full of anniversary cards with men and women holding hands and walking on the beach (Ick, why do people have to flaunt it?)
But I DONT do that. Why? Whether you are attracted to men or women, I think its a beautiful thing when two people met, fall in love and create a family. Were not asking you to give us a standing ovation for being lesbian or gay, we are just asking that you leave us in peace with an option to have the same legal protections for our families that you have for yours.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 01, 2005, 04:40:15 AM
Of course it behooves them to present it in palatable fashion like that, because who could be against such Mom-And-Apple Pie things?
Glossed over are the realities of the bath-house scene, self-destructive acts of anonymous and demeaning sex, drug and alcohol abuse, various diseases chiefly associated with the "gay" lifestyle and so on. While some of this no doubt has changed since the '80s a lot of it still goes on. Further, I would say the committed loving long-term homosexual couple is far more the exception than the rule (for males; females seem more prone to that). The average male homosexual has multiple times the number of partners the average heterosexual male does.
But who cares and what difference does it make?
A lot. The "lifestyle" I have mentioned is an outgrowth of the extreme narcissism of our age: self-love quite literally made flesh. Personal fulfillment, personal enjoyment, pleasure seeking are the ultimate goals. It is no wonder that no culture that has embraced homosexuality has long endured. It is a mode that works against the common good, against subsevience of the self to anything higher or nobler. It is therefore destructive to society in and of itself and must be opposed.
Post by: Preacherman on July 01, 2005, 06:05:43 AM
1. Homosexual and lesbian individuals form a very, very small minority in society. Most authoritative surveys over the past couple of decades have comprehensively debunked the (sexually deviant) Kinsey statistic of 10% of society - it's now considered to be 2% to 3% of society. I'll willingly stretch a point and grant you a figure of 5% of society, to accommodate bisexual individuals: but that's still 1 in 20. In other words, 19 out of 20 people represent what is "normal". 1 out of 20 represents what is "abnormal". I don't say "dysfunctional" or "warped" or anything like that, as these are value judgements: but I do agree that homosexual and lesbian tendencies, on a statistical basis alone, are "abnormal". Therefore, you cannot hope to ever have your lifestyle accepted as "normal" - it is manifestly not normal, and never will be.
2. You said:
Quote
Should the GLBT community use the word homophobic? Politically speaking, it is important to have a term to describe the opposition. In the civil rights movement, it was racist , in the womens rights movement, it was sexist , for the gay rights movement, it is homophobic . Perhaps we could fight the political fight with one hand tied behind our back, referring to opponents of gay rights as devout and principled people who only want whats best for us and oppose same sex sexual activity on the basis of morality or natural law but homophobe is a little shorter and has a greater impact in the political arena. I know from reading posts and interacting with people that oppose gay rights that many of them are generally thoughtful, principled and upstanding citizens (albeit with a major blind spot IMHO) but Im going to get just a little bit testy when the same folks are trying to pass laws that make sure that my partner cant inherit the house we bought together tax-free if I die or visit me in the hospital if I am sick or injured.
I'm afraid I completely disagree with you here. To describe the "opposition" with a term that is manifestly inaccurate, a term alleging that they "fear" homosexuality, is ridiculous. If anyone described me as "phobic" about homosexuals or lesbians, I'd reject their description with contempt, and ram it down their throats if they persisted. I will not allow anyone to pin an inaccurate, insulting and untrue label on me, and I get very annoyed when others try to do so. Why would this surprise you? Furthermore, neither I nor any right-thinking person has any intention of passing laws to prevent inheritance, visits, etc. - and as far as I'm aware, no state has yet tried to do so. You're equating the definition of "marriage" as a heterosexual, monogamous relationship with the denial of rights. Nonsense! There's nothing stopping you going to a lawyer with your partner and contractually agreeing matters such as inheritance, visiting rights, etc, and having these on file in the event of need. I agree that laws need to be passed to make it easier for you to do this, particularly regarding situations such as hospitalization, etc. However, if you tell me that you insist on your relationship being identified as "marriage" as part of the package, forget it - I'm not going to support this, and in fact I shall actively work against it, because to me, and to the vast majority of persons in any race, culture, etc. you care to name, "marriage" is synonymous with a particular type of relationship, and we're not prepared to allow others to discredit this relationship or make it something else. That's the way it is. You may not like it - you almost certainly hate it! - but you do not have the right to impose your views on the vast majority of others who disagree with you. That's democracy in action. You can get many of the same benefits, rights, etc. - not all of them: I will strenuously oppose gay adoption, etc., because I regard this as inimical to the interests of the child - but you'll have to get them in a way that is acceptable to the society in which you live.3. Gay pride parades? I loathe them. I have nothing against people making their own choices about their sexuality - that's their God-given right, as it is mine, and if I expect others to allow me this freedom, I must allow it to them. However, the "in-your-face" flaunting of the gay lifestyle is extremely distasteful to me, in exactly the same way that a "Porn Pride Parade" would be distasteful to me. What you do in your bedroom is your business. When you thrust it under my nose and make it my business, I object, and I will continue to voice my objections as strenuously as I can. This is not bigotry or loathing - it's a matter of taste and decency. I won't have naked or semi-naked people of any sexual orientation parading across my lawn, and if they try, my shotgun is coming out of the closet post-haste! Oh, and remember the 5% figure? Even in a Gay Pride parade, I'm afraid you're still in a very small minority... Sorry about that. I was a (very reluctant) observer of the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco in 1996, and my reaction was that most of these people needed to be soundly spanked and sent to bed without any supper. Childish, irritating, immature, self-centred and narcissistic are the adjectives that came to mind.
4. You said:
Quote
Whether you are attracted to men or women, I think its a beautiful thing when two people met, fall in love and create a family. Were not asking you to give us a standing ovation for being lesbian or gay, we are just asking that you leave us in peace with an option to have the same legal protections for our families that you have for yours.
I agree entirely with you on this point - with the exception that I don't want you to have the right to adopt children, because I regard this as putting a "normal" child into an "abnormal" situation, which will cause problems for that child in "normal" society. I also don't want you to be able to re-define "marriage" in your terms, because it has a very specific societal meaning, which it's had for many, many generations, and I see no good reason for changing that to accommodate relationships that don't fit this norm. However, if you want to have a contractual relationship that isn't called "marriage", but gives you many of the same rights, that's fine with me. Personally, I think the State should butt out of the "marriage" business entirely: that way, the churches and/or religions that assign a specific meaning to this term could perform marriages for those who accept this meaning, and those who don't share these beliefs could have whatever ceremony they want and call it whatever they want. This might solve a lot of problems.I know a lot of what I've said here must be painful to you: but as I said, let's deal with facts, not feelings. Unless and until we're dealing with facts, there will be no progress in this debate.
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 06:50:11 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
Mercedesrules (I swear one day I'm going to register a username of BMWrules and debate motor vehicles with you! ),
Yuppie! ),Quote
I must respectfully disagree most profoundly with your views on morality. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that morality in one's choice of action is totally dependent on the individual actor's view of what is (or is not) moral.
I doubt if you can prove otherwise. Aren't individual humans moral agents?Quote
In that case, we can't have a society at all - because without concensus on the basis of social morality, anything goes, and anarchy is the result, morally if not politically.
Well, I am an anarchist but I advocate a private system of laws that create legal rights based on mutual promises. I would promise not to interfere with your life, liberty and property and you would promise me the same.Quote
It also destroys any concept of a criminal justice system, because no action can be described as "right" or "wrong" except in the eye of the actor, and therefore can't be punished societally.
There is no need to scream that acts are "right" or "wrong". The breaking of a promise would create the legal right to restitution from the promise-breaker to the victim. Quote
You're well within what I'd call the "Fletcher camp" of situation ethics: the context determines the morality of the action. This is rejected by almost everybody today, but was wildly popular in the 1960's.
What would the "Fletcher camp" say about homosexuality?Quote
I, on the other hand, believe that there is, at the root of all human ethics, a "natural law" that can be rationally discovered, developed and codified, which governs our actions (or, rather, should govern our actions), and is the basis for law and order, and exists irrespective of situations, circumstances and contextual issues. Over and above this, there are also many different moral codes founded on religion, philosophy, etc., which are more or less successful, more or less universal, and more or less practical, depending on many factors for their success. However, the "natural law" morality does feed and inform the other, more "sectarian" codes - for example, every single major religion in the world incorporates the "Golden Rule" ("Do unto others what you would have them do unto you"), in differing expressions, but all expressing the same truth. Being a person of faith, I would say that this is because God has revealed His truth in many ways, and this fundamental truth has been identified by all major religions. Other, less religious persons would argue that this is, in fact, a "natural law" moral principle that can be worked out independently of any religion, and has therefore been a fundamental guiding principle that religions have "built in" to their "revelation". Argue it whichever way you like - it still makes moral sense, doesn't it?
Ahh, the C.S. Lewis camp. What if someone wants to be tied up and whipped? I see morals as a sort of "don't do" list that we each compile and carry around with us to check before we act. Some acts are on almost everyone's list and some are not. The previously-discussed random child-killing is on most lists; killing Iraqi civilians is on about half and homosexuality is on some other percentage. It is still obvious to me that the lists will always differ.Quote
I also must respectfully disagree with you that a person doing something "bad", or immoral, thinks that his/her actions are, in fact, moral and/or good. This is obviously not the case. A rapist may carry out his crimes for his own enjoyment, but don't try to tell me that he thinks he's morally right in acting as he does - he obviously recognizes that his actions are immoral and criminal, or he would not seek to conceal them and escape their consequences.
Some people might know that others have a different morality list. They know that there are laws and law-enforcers. For instance, I know that some people don't think that taxes are theft.Quote
You said earlier:
I am a little hesitant to include children (and pets) in a discussion of moral agency since they aren't equipped with the tools to make fully-informed decisions. May we stick to adults?Quote
People always do what they think they should do.
I respectfully submit that this is clearly, obviously false. A child doesn't think it "ought to" raid the fridge and eat up all the desserts - it knows Mommy and/or Daddy will be mad at it if it does so: yet it eats them anyway. A dog will steal a steak and eat it, expecting punishment if and when discovered. The actors in these situations both know that their actions are wrong, and that they'll be punished for it: but the dog is acting out of canine instinct, whereas the child is choosing to do something it knows to be wrong, having been informed clearly about this, and understanding it. A rapist doesn't think he should commit rape: he rather does so because he wants to commit rape. Big difference.I don't consider guesses concerning the rapist's unknowable thoughts relevant or meaningful. If someone acts, they have chosen to do so. IOW, they weighed the options and risks and acted anyway. They thought it was the correct action to take. The act is not on their "don't do" list.
Quote
There are also moral considerations that go far beyond the individual actors in a situation. For example, you said:
Each act of sex has risks. Therefore, pointing out that gays that catch AIDS might have sex later with someone else is irrelevant. The new couple will consent to the risks also. Quote
In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
I must disagree. The consequences can be enormous, and far more widespread than just the two persons involved. Medically speaking, anal sex is far more risky from the point of view of infection, disease, etc. than normal (i.e. "vaginal") sex. The skin layers on the inside of the anus are paper-thin compared to the muscles and multiple layers of skin inside the vagina, which is built to take the rough-and-tumble of sex - the anus isn't. This is why it's so much easier for venereal diseases, AIDS, etc. to infect someone anally rather than vaginally - and this isn't conjecture, it's medical fact, clearly established. So, by choosing to participate in anal sex (which is the dominant homosexual act, according to most of the authorities I've read), the participants are also choosing to expose themselves to this much, much higher risk of infection. Furthermore, given the highly promiscuous sexual lifestyle of most homosexuals (and again, this is not a matter of conjecture, but established fact, illustrated by many surveys and authorities), the risk of passing on that infection to others is greatly increased. This, in turn, imposes life-shortening consequences on many people, which affects their families, costs society a great deal of money, etc. It also imposes a greater strain on society, in terms of the premature loss of a productive member, etc. (The same societal consequences are visible in Africa, where heterosexual transmission of AIDS has caused the depopulation of some areas, and the wholesale loss of members of the most productive and important strata of society - for example, Zambia is now training two teachers for every teaching post in the country, expecting to lose one of them to AIDS in due course, which is an enormous economic burden on the country.)Since I don't believe that humans owe anything to "society", reduced production is not a concern. The increased "cost" to society is due to socialistic welfare programs, not disease.
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 08:05:50 AM
He says X, she hears Y. She says A, he hears B. The result is niether get what they want and both become unhappy. Obviously there are many other issues which arise, and yes this is a quite simplistic view of things. There is no "well honey its the morally right thing to stay togather" and so they do, people do and will continue to do what is most necessary to them at any given moment. For some its company, for some its safety and compassion. For others its competition or purpose. People seek these things out, when they become necessary to reinforce who they view themselves as, or would like to be.
For the record, a good portion of the GLBT community is against the gay pride parades, it brings things best left in the bedroom to the public stage which is not where these things belong. I personally, like to keep my sexuality where it belongs..in private. Its none of your business whom I fall in love with, and how I love them. I no more wish to hear the specifics of your sex life than I wish to tell you the specifics of mine. I may wear my heart on my sleeve at times, but never my sexuality.
You guys have to remember, Ethics and morality are incredibly subjective in this context. I for one, dont agree with preacher and to some extent the Rabbi. The world is a completely different place depending on where you stand. Reguardless of if I act out my homosexuality, I am now and will always continue to be gay. Telling me something isnt right because the body wasnt designed for it doesnt really float with me.
Was the body designed to live past 35, no but it can so lets!
Was the body designed to be operated on, no but it can so lets!
Was the dog designed to be our pet, no but we made it so.
Was the American wilderness designed specifically so we could chop it down and urbanize it, no but we did it anyway.
Saying something is "wrong" fails to stop people from doing it, as from where they stand it may be the most necessary thing for them to lead a happy life. I disagree with the above stated views upon morality, I doubt I will ever be led to believe them anymore than I do at this very moment. It is "most necessary" to me, to find purpose and justification for me to continue living as it is for all of you at some time or another. I will not change, simply because I cannot.
Call it god, call it a genetic or psychological flaw but I was born like this. I have never been hetero, I cannot. There were times in highschool when trust me, I tried real hard to just be straight like everyone else and fit in. I didnt have a say in my sexuality, if I had to choose would I pick queer? Good question, If I wasnt already running with a guy whom I verymuch love then no I would not pick to be queer.
I could get married, I could have kids. I could invite associates I know from work over to my place of abode and introduce my significant other without a sheet of explainations and years of strange looks. I could live the proper American dream and vanish into the masses in suburbia, I dont enjoy being a minority but just as some are born African American or Native American..I was born queer.
Facts of life..
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
That's a suspicious thing to do but it doesn't tell me anything about his sanity.
You didn't read too closely than. I'd say the fact that he likes to smack kids to death with motorized lawn equipment is generally indicative of some form of problemQuote
Quote
He thinks they are.
Which means precisely what?Quote
If I was color blind and couldn't tell the difference between red and green, it wouldn't mean that they were the same color or shared similar wavelengths. Just that I was incapable of discerning the difference. If I pointed at a green tree and proclaimed how red it was it wouldn't be correct even if that's really what I thought.
The wavelength is the science; the color is the "morals". Quote
Quote
I never discussed being held accountable.
You didn't, did you?Quote
Actions that cause actual losses to innocent, peaceful persons create debts owed to the victims.
You said this: "If you believe that no one can be held accountable to any standard for their actions since not everyone will agree on what is moral,". I should have said, "I never said that people would not be held accountable for their actions". I argued that they should be so held.Quote
Says who? Is this some sort of universal principle? I thought we were agin' such universal principles? Or is it just calling those universal principles "morals" that we're opposed to?
It's how I would prefer civilized groups to voluntarily organize themselves. That is, a legal system of mutual promises not to interfere with the life, liberty and property of others. The promises would create legal "rights" that could be interpreted by private courts in those cases in which one party is accused of breaking his promise - as in the case of a murder, etc. Promise-breakers would be considered to have forfeited their "rights". Example: Having made the above promise, someone comes into your house claiming a "right " to confiscate your 11-round magazines. He thus forfeits his right to possess similar items and his right to not have you trespass into his house looking for things to take.Quote
Quote
Calling the acts "wrong" or "immoral" is unnecessary.
Er ... whyzat?Quote
Quote
In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
Actually, I agree with that much. Though I find the concept of me being involved in a homosexual relationship unattractive and very distasteful, personally I do not condemn others who have chosen to live that life (note: living that life is different from having that orientation as PM has pointed out). Not that anyone is seeking my approval, but ...Any violation of morality engendered by homosexual relationships is a violation of the type wherein the actor or actors have to deal with the consequences themselves and we need not mete out additional punishment.
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 10:36:26 AM
Quote from: KaceCoyote
..., Ethics and morality are incredibly subjective in this context. ...
So obvious, yet so hard to explain to some. :/Quote
Saying something is "wrong" fails to stop people from doing it, ...
Yes, and that's why it is meaningless, or even dangerous, to do so.
Post by: wasrjoe on July 01, 2005, 11:29:27 AM
Quote
Quote
Saying something is "wrong" fails to stop people from doing it, ...
Yes, and that's why it is meaningless, or even dangerous, to do so.Of course, none of these things will stop anyone from commiting murder or rape unless the victim tries to do something about it during the act (and even then you can't stop it all the time), but the simple fact is that morality is enough to stop most acts of murders. If you tell a group of people not to do something, a good number of them will try their best not to. Look at religion - the majority of humands alive follow several rules set forth by there religion that are not punishable by the state because they believe it is wrong. Punishment for doing something immoral (which I define pretty liberally - harm no one and do as you will, more or less) and reward for doing the something moral catches more. It's all about using several approaches to stopping things that we find to be harmful to society as a whole.
Please note that I believe the best way for achieving the greater good is to emphasive personal rights, and not rights of "the whole".
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 01, 2005, 02:02:07 PM
Anecdotally, the gay couples I know are just as faithful as the straight couples. In some cases, even moreso.
I'm opposed to legalizing gay marriage because the word "marriage" has a meaning that's been established for centuries, just as "homophobe" has a clear meaning. Muddying the meaning of either does no good.
However, common-law marriages--whether for gay or straight couples--should respect inheritance, Social Security, and other social contracts.
On the point of gay pride parades, I have to agree with you. In fact, it's a point I've been hammering home to my wife's uncle, who's 72 and been active in the gay rights movement for years. Here in Milwaukee, the Gay Pride Parade is always led by the S&M crowd, clad in kinky leather gear. And that's where the cameras go, just as they go to the guy with the "Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out" hat at gun events.
If you want respect, look and act respectable.
Preacherman, your last few posts remind me of an old Woody Allen line: "My psychiatrist asked me if I thought sex was dirty. I said 'only if you're doing it right.' "
Post by: SalukiFan on July 01, 2005, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
SalukiFan's post is a good example of homosexual advocacy rhetoric, maintaining that homosexuality is just like heterosexuality but in mirror image ("See, we're really just like you!"). The things desired all seem pretty reasonable: equal protection for family life, respect for life-style choice, being left alone.
Well, actually, I am not "just like you". I hate to break this to you but rights aren't doled out on the basis of whether or not someone has an All-American, bakin' cookies for the PTA-type lifestyle. They are based on the idea that all humans have inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the government only steps to curtail those rights or negotiate a compromise if they infringe on someone else's inherent rights. Quote from: The Rabbi
Of course it behooves them to present it in palatable fashion like that, because who could be against such Mom-And-Apple Pie things?
Glossed over are the realities of the bath-house scene, self-destructive acts of anonymous and demeaning sex, drug and alcohol abuse, various diseases chiefly associated with the "gay" lifestyle and so on. While some of this no doubt has changed since the '80s a lot of it still goes on. Further, I would say the committed loving long-term homosexual couple is far more the exception than the rule (for males; females seem more prone to that). The average male homosexual has multiple times the number of partners the average heterosexual male does.
But who cares and what difference does it make?
Pluh-leaze. Glossed over are the realities of the bath-house scene, self-destructive acts of anonymous and demeaning sex, drug and alcohol abuse, various diseases chiefly associated with the "gay" lifestyle and so on. While some of this no doubt has changed since the '80s a lot of it still goes on. Further, I would say the committed loving long-term homosexual couple is far more the exception than the rule (for males; females seem more prone to that). The average male homosexual has multiple times the number of partners the average heterosexual male does.
But who cares and what difference does it make?
1. So? I am a lesbian and as a population we have really low rates of STDs and non-monogamy. So are you saying that you're all about rights for me but think my gay male friends don't deserve rights on the basis of this?
2. This is the same tired argument that Broken Paw already artfully reputed. Here ya go:
Quote from: BrokenPaw
If we're going to tell gay people that the sex that they're having consensually is wrong because of what others have done in the past, what moral high ground do we have to then turn around and fight the anti-gun lobby? It's an incontrovertible fact that guns have been used to kill millions of people over the years, and many of those people were innocent. Is it therefore morally wrong for me to own one? We all know it is not, because I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, nor can I be legitimately penalized for what I might do.
Neither can homosexual partners.
Neither can homosexual partners.
Quote from: Preacherman
1. Homosexual and lesbian individuals form a very, very small minority in society. Most authoritative surveys over the past couple of decades have comprehensively debunked the (sexually deviant) Kinsey statistic of 10% of society - it's now considered to be 2% to 3% of society. I'll willingly stretch a point and grant you a figure of 5% of society, to accommodate bisexual individuals: but that's still 1 in 20. In other words, 19 out of 20 people represent what is "normal". 1 out of 20 represents what is "abnormal". I don't say "dysfunctional" or "warped" or anything like that, as these are value judgements: but I do agree that homosexual and lesbian tendencies, on a statistical basis alone, are "abnormal". Therefore, you cannot hope to ever have your lifestyle accepted as "normal" - it is manifestly not normal, and never will be.
Umm, okay - you did read my post right? I never tried to say that we were a huge percentage of the population. Also, I am not trying to debate people into accepting gays and lesbians as "normal", I am trying to argue that gays and lesbians should not be barred access to something like government recognition in the form of civil marriage or civil unions. The numbers really don't make a difference in a logical debate since rights shouldn't be affirmed or denied strictly on the basis of numerical superiority. I am also Jewish and Jews only comprise 2% of the United States population. I suppose that a person could argue that we are abnormal according to the majoritarian view and should not "be accepted" as "normal" too but I think most Americans would reject the idea that Jews don't deserve protection from something like workplace discrimination based on our religion being "abnormal". That's just draconian majoritarianism.Quote from: Preacherman
2. You said:
Oh, right! Sorry, I forgot about this. I don't think you're scared of gays. So, I guess that we could say that we do agree on this - if you interpret the term "homophobic" as being scared of gays rather than the more common connotation of "someone who finds homosexuality disgusting and unnatural" than I guess the term homophobe is inaccurate. Sometimes we use the term "heterosexist" instead but I'm not sure that people would be any more comfortable with that. Quote
Should the GLBT community use the word homophobic? Politically speaking, it is important to have a term to describe the opposition. In the civil rights movement, it was racist , in the womens rights movement, it was sexist , for the gay rights movement, it is homophobic . Perhaps we could fight the political fight with one hand tied behind our back, referring to opponents of gay rights as devout and principled people who only want whats best for us and oppose same sex sexual activity on the basis of morality or natural law but homophobe is a little shorter and has a greater impact in the political arena. I know from reading posts and interacting with people that oppose gay rights that many of them are generally thoughtful, principled and upstanding citizens (albeit with a major blind spot IMHO) but Im going to get just a little bit testy when the same folks are trying to pass laws that make sure that my partner cant inherit the house we bought together tax-free if I die or visit me in the hospital if I am sick or injured.
I'm afraid I completely disagree with you here. To describe the "opposition" with a term that is manifestly inaccurate, a term alleging that they "fear" homosexuality, is ridiculous. If anyone described me as "phobic" about homosexuals or lesbians, I'd reject their description with contempt, and ram it down their throats if they persisted. I will not allow anyone to pin an inaccurate, insulting and untrue label on me, and I get very annoyed when others try to do so. Why would this surprise you?Quote from: Preacherman
Furthermore, neither I nor any right-thinking person has any intention of passing laws to prevent inheritance, visits, etc. - and as far as I'm aware, no state has yet tried to do so. You're equating the definition of "marriage" as a heterosexual, monogamous relationship with the denial of rights. Nonsense! There's nothing stopping you going to a lawyer with your partner and contractually agreeing matters such as inheritance, visiting rights, etc, and having these on file in the event of need. I agree that laws need to be passed to make it easier for you to do this, particularly regarding situations such as hospitalization, etc. However, if you tell me that you insist on your relationship being identified as "marriage" as part of the package, forget it - I'm not going to support this, and in fact I shall actively work against it, because to me, and to the vast majority of persons in any race, culture, etc. you care to name, "marriage" is synonymous with a particular type of relationship, and we're not prepared to allow others to discredit this relationship or make it something else.
Okay, here we are getting into the meat of things. Allow me to explain: I have been to a lawyer. I spent almost $1,000 dollars trying to get even close to some of the legal protections that a $18 marriage license would get any opposite sex couple in my state. Because the state sees us as legal strangers, my partner is only allowed to inherit $100 from me without paying taxes on it. For spouses, there is no limit. If I died tomorrow, my partner would have to instantly come up with the money to pay taxes on my "half" of our house. If she cannot she loses the house. Oh, also, did I mention that I had to disinherit my entire family in my will because the wills of same-sex couples are often contested by blood relatives? If you don't specifically disinherit everyone, a judge may decide that you "actually" meant to leave your property to your "real" relatives. Heck, even with these documents, I'm told there is a chance that could happen. Real nice.I don't think that you are a mean-spirited ogre that wants to keep me from visiting my partner in the hospital or inheriting property from my partner. Right now, in every state except for Vermont or Massachusetts, am I considered a legal stranger to my partner because state and federal laws are either silent or state that we cannot have our relationship recognized by the government. Every day another law hits a state legislature seeking to make sure that the state "only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman". The side effect of this is that it can invalidate even private agreements like the one that my wife and I have.
Now I think we can come to a solution. It seems that some people are more opposed to calling some kind of legal recognition from the state "marriage" than they are to having the exact same rights called something else. If it's an issue of the word "marriage", I don't care - we can call it something else. You could call it civil unions, domestic partnerships or Tyne Daly for all I care! I don't care about the name, I just would like some basic protections for my family here - a few legal protections from our secular civil government.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 01, 2005, 03:18:52 PM
Quote
They are based on the idea that all humans have inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the government only steps to curtail those rights or negotiate a compromise if they infringe on someone else's inherent rights.
You have the exact same rights I do. The rights argument is a smoke screen. I wish we could lay that one down once and for all.
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 03:24:26 PM
Post by: duck hunt on July 01, 2005, 04:25:22 PM
Post by: griz on July 01, 2005, 05:51:32 PM
SalukiFan, I didn't know it was that problematic to get a "non-traditional" will done. I personally would prefer to keep the meaning of the word marriage to be one man-one woman, but then again I had no idea that the law was that biased toward married couples. I do like the idea of a civil union (whatever the name) and I would include polygamous relationships as well. In an ideal world, religions alone would take care of the marrying, and the state would take care of all the legal issues. So a hetero couple would need to go to the state AND the church to have what they have now. Anybody else (and that would open up a lot of possible combinations of consenting adults) would have the option of a civil union. But Im not sure that we can get the state to give up its monopoly on legal marriages, so you have got me leaning toward the idea of gay marriage as the only reasonable option. Its early in the metamorphosis of my beliefs so you might have to give me a little while to wrap my head around it.
And I hate to veer away so much from the topic but this sidetrack also has me interested.
Quote from: MercedesRules
It's how I would prefer civilized groups to voluntarily organize themselves. That is, a legal system of mutual promises not to interfere with the life, liberty and property of others. The promises would create legal "rights" that could be interpreted by private courts in those cases in which one party is accused of breaking his promise.
I just dont see this as remotely viable. Do I personally sign a contract with the other 275,000,000 people in the country? Do I have to update it every day as a couple thousand turn 18 and others enter the country? What if somebody else refuses to sign? Do we set up a promise monitor to keep him from driving on our roads? If he drives anyway and crashes into your car, is he off the hook because he wasnt a member of the club?I submit to you that the mutual promises you speak of are in reality called society or civilization. Ill admit nobody signs an agreement to be civil, it is forced upon them. But how else would a system of agreements be possible?
Post by: Preacherman on July 01, 2005, 08:22:13 PM
Quote
So, I guess that we could say that we do agree on this - if you interpret the term "homophobic" as being scared of gays rather than the more common connotation of "someone who finds homosexuality disgusting and unnatural" than I guess the term homophobe is inaccurate. Sometimes we use the term "heterosexist" instead but I'm not sure that people would be any more comfortable with that.
Hmmm... I don't know that "homophobe" has the connotation of finding homosexuality "disgusting and unnatural" - it doesn't in the circles in which I move, anyway. Is it perhaps used this way within GBLT circles? As to the "unnatural" part, I think I addressed that in terms of normality, in an earlier post. As for "disgusting", well, some practices I certainly find nauseating, but this is from the perspective of hygiene - anal sex, to me, might as well be sex with a sewer!Thank you for pointing out the difficulties with inheritance, etc. concerning gay/lesbian couples. I wasn't aware that the obstacles were so great - being from overseas, things are a lot different there, and if you want to contractually arrange these issues, it can be done relatively easily. I'd certainly agree that we need to change laws that prevent you from making appropriate arrangements for your surviving partner, as well as for hospital visitation, etc. Again, I don't see these things as being necessarily part of a State-recognized "marriage" at all, and perhaps the answer is to get the State out of the marriage business altogether, leaving such arrangements to the individuals involved and any organization (such as a religious denomination) they choose to involve.
There is one question I'd like to ask. From my pastoral experience, it seems to me that there are many lesbian women who have chosen such a lifestyle because of deeply unsatisfactory experiences - sometimes violent and tragic experiences - in their relationships with men. I'm not saying that they're a majority of lesbians, but based on the many lesbian individuals and couples with whom I've had contact over the past ten years, I'd venture a guess that as many as 25% to 30% would identify themselves in this way. Do you think this is a fair assessment? I certainly don't notice the same thing among homosexual men. I'd be interested to get an independent perspective on this.
Post by: Guest on July 01, 2005, 09:27:08 PM
I think the number is probably relatively small, although I do know some who are, I dunno what you'd call them..political lesbians? I'd have to think there were some tendencies in that direction anyway? I can't imagine "changing teams" just because you're cranky about men.
Post by: Strings on July 01, 2005, 09:44:05 PM
Post by: SalukiFan on July 02, 2005, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
Thank you for pointing out the difficulties with inheritance, etc. concerning gay/lesbian couples. I wasn't aware that the obstacles were so great - being from overseas, things are a lot different there, and if you want to contractually arrange these issues, it can be done relatively easily. I'd certainly agree that we need to change laws that prevent you from making appropriate arrangements for your surviving partner, as well as for hospital visitation, etc. Again, I don't see these things as being necessarily part of a State-recognized "marriage" at all, and perhaps the answer is to get the State out of the marriage business altogether, leaving such arrangements to the individuals involved and any organization (such as a religious denomination) they choose to involve.
No problem. I realize that most people aren't familiar with these issues because they haven't had to go through this frustrating and expensive process themselves. I'm hopeful that if these issues are publicized that other fair-minded citizens will advocate the changing of laws to make it possible for same-sex couples to be able to contractually arrange these things either through a government institution or privately without government interference. I would prefer a form of government recognition because a piece of paper from the government gets a lot more done than a stack of my private legal documents. For example, my insurance company doesn't care that I have my wife listed having power of attorney, healthcare power of attorney, etc. They will not consider me married for insurance purposes because they need "a marriage license issued by the state".
Quote from: Preacherman
There is one question I'd like to ask. From my pastoral experience, it seems to me that there are many lesbian women who have chosen such a lifestyle because of deeply unsatisfactory experiences - sometimes violent and tragic experiences - in their relationships with men. I'm not saying that they're a majority of lesbians, but based on the many lesbian individuals and couples with whom I've had contact over the past ten years, I'd venture a guess that as many as 25% to 30% would identify themselves in this way. Do you think this is a fair assessment? I certainly don't notice the same thing among homosexual men. I'd be interested to get an independent perspective on this.
I would ask for a little clarification on this. Am I right in thinking that your ministry deals mostly with prisoners? If so, I think that you might agree that the incarcerated population might have significantly different life experiences than those of us not in prison. In that case, I would not be surprised if many of the women (in general) in prison had experienced extreme forms of physical, sexual and verbal abuse at the hands of men. If 25% to 30% of women in prison have suffered trauma at the hands of men, then it would not be statistically significant if 25% to 30% of the lesbians in the prison had experienced trauma at the hands of men. Even if you are dealing with the general population, it would not be unusual to find that 25% to 30% of women had had some traumatic experience with men in their past. Just to clarify what my understanding of this issue is, I have i]never[/i] read any studies that found that lesbians are any more likely to have had bad experiences with men than heterosexual women. Even anecdotally, I can't think of any of my lesbian friends or acquaintances who have stated or implied that they ever had a traumatic experience with men in the past. Also, those who come to you for spiritual guidance are likely more troubled than their counterparts who do not. Basically then it would not be possible to draw conclusions about the general lesbian population based on that sample. Please don't take this the wrong way, I don't think those who come for spiritual guidance are crazy, but they are a self-selected group who are likely troubled by events in their past and looking for answers.
I am a sociologist by trade and conduct surveys and analyze research for a living. One thing that I know is the importance of forming your research questions and how the way that you ask your questions affects your outcomes. If your research question is something like "Lesbians - What happened that caused them to become this way?" then the researcher is making a presupposition that "something went wrong", the only question to be answered is "what went wrong".
If you've never seen it before, the heterosexual questionnaire below is an interesting way of seeing how the way that questions are framed about sexuality can be problematic. It's a bit flip and may be offensive to some, but it can be helpful to show heterosexuals how the way that people question the "origins of homosexuality" can limit the answers that can be discerned.
Heterosexual Questionnaire
What do you think is the cause of your heterosexuality?
When and how did you first decide to become a heterosexual?
Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you will
grow out of?
Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear
of others of the same sex?
If you've never had sex with a person of the same sex, then
how do you know it isn't for you? Is it possible all you really
need is the right homosexual lover?
To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies?
How did they react?
Why do heterosexuals insist on flaunting their sexuality?
Why can't you just keep it quiet?
Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
Why do heterosexuals feel the need to seduce others into their
lifestyle?
Would you want your child to be a heterosexual, knowing the
problems they would face?
A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexuals.
Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual
persons?
With the high level of sexual harassment committed by heterosexuals,
do you feel that heterosexuals should be barred from military
service? If not, how should heterosexuals be dealt with to preserve
unit cohesion and morale?
With the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the
heterosexual population, do you feel that heterosexuality is
unnatural, immoral, or perhaps, condemned by God?
Considering the menace of overpopulation, how can the human
race survive if heterosexuality is allowed to continue?
More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce.
With all the societal support marriage receives, why are there
so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Do you
feel that such a therapist would try to influence you in the direction
of his or her leanings?
How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to
compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality and fail to develop your
natural, healthy, homosexual potential?
There seem to be so few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have
been developed which might enable you to be cured if you really
wanted to. Would you consider trying this therapy?
written by
Martin Rochlin, Ph.D.
Psychologist[/i]
I have been asked all of the "gay" counterparts of the questions you see above. Basically, because of the way that the questions are framed, the answerer is always on the defensive. The questions shown here are based on the presupposition that there is something screwy about straight people and that they need to explain why "they are that way". I hope that this gives everyone some insight on what it's like...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 11:03:41 AM
Quote
I never chose to lust after large-breasted women
Is this a Jewish doctrine? I hope not. In any case, I must disagree. I am very attracted to women, but whether I lust after them is certainly something I choose. A sexual attraction is natural and God-given. Lust consists of our twisting these healthy desires into immoral desires. To make things more practical, it is acceptable for me to desire sex with any woman, but immoral for me to have fantasies about someone elses wife, or to dwell on my sexual desire for anyone other than my own wife. However, I agree that whether or not one chooses to have a homosexual orientation is quite beside the point. Some people are born with a pre-disposition toward alcoholism, but it is not acceptable for them to be alcoholics. I tend to unwarranted anger, but it is not okay for me to be angry all the time.
BrokenPaw,
The two men you hypothesized, living in happy homosexual harmony, are indeed hurting someone: one another. As Preacherman has pointed out, and as should be obvious to you, anal sex, regardless of the sex of the participants, is not good for us. Legally, these men should be able to hurt one another all they please, if thats what they agree to, but many of us will also feel free to say it is morally wrong.
Even without sex, homosexuality is not a healthy expression of sexuality. Only God-given heterosexual marriage is a good place for it. Speaking of which, I have been married two months, now, and have experienced none of the side-effects of kissing you speak of. Okay, we smack into one anothers teeth now and then, but I cant see the harm in it. Its actually quite pleasant.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 11:06:12 AM
I think you two may be arguing past each other, but I don't have time to read all of your voluminous posts. It seems as though Preacherman is using "morality" to mean a code of right and wrong that exists outside of our ability to change or alter it - something that really exists, and doesn't depend on what we think of it. Mercedes seems to use "morality" to mean "conscience;" whether individuals feel guilty when they do something or neglect to do something.
Quote
morality is relative and personal (obviously),
Preacherman is not saying that everyones dos and donts list is exactly the same, he is saying that there is a correct list we should all obey and that homosexuality is a dont.Quote
a pronouncement of "homosexuality is evil." could justify the genocide of all gays and lesbians.
Could justify it under some systems, but there are plenty of things we regard as evil without genocide. We regard murder as evil, but we do not kill even very many murderers. Most of us on this forum regard gun control as evil, but it does not justify hunting down the gun-grabbers. It is offensive for you to claim that disapproval of homosexuality leads directly to murder. (Actually, genocide refers to genes, meaning the destruction of a race of people. So, this could not apply to homosexuals, as a group.) Regarding grizs ad hominem:
Ad hominem means that the arguer is attacking his opponent, rather than dealing with the substance of what is under debate. If griz had said that YOU were insane to make the argument you were making, that would be ad hominem. Instead, he was dealing with the substance of the argument, as he sees it.
Quote
People always do what they think they should do.
I must correct you on this point. I frequently do things I know I shouldn't do. Consider this a flat refutation of your above statement, against which you cannot argue.Quote
Preacherman said "chosen sexual expression" (implying that sexual preference is chosen) and "this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...", implying that he does accept them. I think these concepts are crucial to the question of whether "homophobe" is a scientific or merely political term.
I must also slap you down on this one. The original discussion was over civility between two parties who sharply disagree. The disagreement itself is immaterial to the way in which we debate it and, as you have demonstrated for us, actually gets in the way of laying down ground rules, such as the use of homophobe. I do not expect you to realize this, as your anarchist view clearly reveals that you are either new to such discussions or that you are not very serious about them. To be fair, I think the society you describe is best approximated by a somewhat more libertarian United States, as governed by the current system. As God has given us no direct list of our God-given rights, we democratically decide what those rights are. Ideally, government protects those rights, though not without abuse. Your anarchy is, Im afraid, really a way of giving up on the proper structure of power, and just hoping it will work itself out. Like guns, power exists and someone will have it. So we must make sure it stays out of the wrong hands. Government legitimizes power, ritualizes it in a way, so that it may be controlled. The world of private contracts and agreements you describe has existed in before it was called feudalism.
I think the preacher has tried to point out that societies must subscribe to a certain basis of rights and wrongs, much as in your proposed system everyone must honor promises or face certain consequences. In the end, some brand of morality is eventually forced on someone. What if I think it is not necessary to honor my promises, and that punishment for breaking them is wrong? Any punishment then is an imposition of morality. Of course, morality must impose now and then, when a person doesnt sufficiently impose it on himself.
Quote
since hands are designed to grasp things, it is abnormal to play the violin
1. During violin play, the hands are indeed grasping things. One grasps the bow, the other grasps the neck while fingers grasp various strings. This is not harmful to the hands; in fact, it probably makes them more dexterous. 2. As you claim the hands are designed, may I assume you believe our bodies were designed by some intelligence, rather than developing through a naturalistic evolutionary process?
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 11:07:12 AM
Quote
Preacherman: is any form of foreplay actually using the body in it's "natural" role?
This is a hard question to address. If by natural, you mean what was selected by nature during the process of atheistic evolution, then the answer is no. But without a god, who cares what we do? We can decide.But since we know, from scientific observation, that there must be a Creator for these complex forms of life, we must also assume He would be intelligent enough to know how humans would use the bodies He designed. I would further hypothesize that the mouth, fingers, etc, are intended, by God, to be applied to the genitalia of the spouse. In other words, the answer is yes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 11:08:30 AM
Quote
Saying something is "wrong" fails to stop people from doing it
Often, it does not fail. Even if it did, wrong is still wrong, and people must be told about it. Believe me, if I were your co-worker, I would not put it in your face everyday. But if you wanted to talk about it, I would tell you the truth. Why? Because Christian love demands it. If I hated you, I would let you go on, and smile at your destruction. Quote
You guys have to remember, Ethics and morality are incredibly subjective in this context.
You have to remember. You cannot support your argument with a statement that is itself a main point of contention. MercedesRules might tell you that is a fallacy called begging the question. Quote
Was the body designed to live past 35, no but it can so lets!
What are you talking about? I could tell you that the body was not designed to die, but that is not provable, either. Quote
Was the dog designed to be our pet, no but we made it so.
Again, who says what it was designed for? Quote
Was the body designed to be operated on, no but it can so lets!
Surgery is undertaken to correct serious medical problems. It is generally not regarded as pleasant, and there are no pride parades in support of it. No one would choose it as a lifestyle, although it is done by choice. Are you implying that homosexuality is a way of dealing with serious problems? In that case, psychologists are available to help you deal with these problems and symptoms such as homosexuality.Quote
Was the American wilderness designed specifically so we could chop it down and urbanize it, no but we did it anyway.
In each of these run-on sentences, you ask a question you presume to be rhetorical. They are not. A Christian like myself, who holds a biblical view of the world, would answer them in ways that would surprise you. These last two questions deal with issues that only arose after men sinned, thus cursing the world. God intended we should run about naked, eating from plants in an incredibly fertile world. This is the picture presented in the book of Genesis. However, our fallen state brings with it diseases and other ills which require surgery and also demands we clear forest land for farms and cities. As you keep using the term design, may we assume you believe that life was designed by some intelligence, rather than developing through a naturalistic evolutionary process?
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 11:22:01 AM
Quote from: griz
...
What country? Quote from: MercedesRules
It's how I would prefer civilized groups to voluntarily organize themselves. That is, a legal system of mutual promises not to interfere with the life, liberty and property of others. The promises would create legal "rights" that could be interpreted by private courts in those cases in which one party is accused of breaking his promise.
I just dont see this as remotely viable. Do I personally sign a contract with the other 275,000,000 people in the country? This is a proposal for a libertarian, market anarchist community. You would only need promises/contracts with those with whom you actually live and work. Paperwork would only be needed for business agreements. Other squabbles could be arbitrated by private judges respected (by the market) for their consistant application of fairness.Quote
... What if somebody else refuses to sign? Do we set up a promise monitor to keep him from driving on our roads?
All roads (and land) are now private. They are operated as toll roads. Many already have electronic gizmos that regulate the traffic. Quote
If he drives anyway and crashes into your car, is he off the hook because he wasnt a member of the club?
The road owner would review the case. Using the road would imply agreement with the rules. Insurance might be a requirement for road use.Quote
I submit to you that the mutual promises you speak of are in reality called society or civilization. Ill admit nobody signs an agreement to be civil, it is forced upon them. But how else would a system of agreements be possible?
Yes, the promises are civilization, but that is a worthy goal. I question that they are forced on us. By whom? At any rate, they should be voluntary. I think most people figure out that peaceful cooperation is more economical than constant warring. The basic promise is, "I agree not to interfere with your life, liberty or property if you will promise me the same thing." A person who breaks the promise creates a legal right to restitution for the person injured by his action. Business agreements would be on paper and filed in a safe place where they can be referred to later, if needed. Someone who breaks his promises and doesn't offer restitution would be adjudicated as one who now has no similar rights. A murderer would have no legal right to life. Anyone could punish him without sanction.
Post by: Preacherman on July 02, 2005, 12:59:38 PM
So, the 25% to 30% figure that I mentioned is based on the groups and individuals with which I've had contact, both in South Africa and in the USA. I accept that this may not be typical of the lesbian "scene" as a whole, hence my question. Do you have a more accurate figure than mine? I'd be interested to hear it.
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 01:09:25 PM
Quote from: fistful
Mercedes and Preacher,
I think you two may be arguing past each other, but I don't have time to read all of your voluminous posts. It seems as though Preacherman is using "morality" to mean a code of right and wrong that exists outside of our ability to change or alter it - something that really exists, and doesn't depend on what we think of it. Mercedes seems to use "morality" to mean "conscience;" whether individuals feel guilty when they do something or neglect to do something.
Let's shorten that list until there is 100% agreement.I think you two may be arguing past each other, but I don't have time to read all of your voluminous posts. It seems as though Preacherman is using "morality" to mean a code of right and wrong that exists outside of our ability to change or alter it - something that really exists, and doesn't depend on what we think of it. Mercedes seems to use "morality" to mean "conscience;" whether individuals feel guilty when they do something or neglect to do something.
Quote
morality is relative and personal (obviously),
Preacherman is not saying that everyones dos and donts list is exactly the same, he is saying that there is a correct list we should all obey and that homosexuality is a dont.Quote
Quote
a pronouncement of "homosexuality is evil." could justify the genocide of all gays and lesbians.
Could justify it under some systems, but there are plenty of things we regard as evil without genocide. We regard murder as evil, but we do not kill even very many murderers. Most of us on this forum regard gun control as evil, but it does not justify hunting down the gun-grabbers.Quote
It is offensive for you to claim that disapproval of homosexuality leads directly to murder. (Actually, genocide refers to genes, meaning the destruction of a race of people. So, this could not apply to homosexuals, as a group.)
Unless it's genetic. Calling Iraq "evil" led to its invasion. Quote
Regarding grizs ad hominem:
Ad hominem means that the arguer is attacking his opponent, rather than dealing with the substance of what is under debate. If griz had said that YOU were insane to make the argument you were making, that would be ad hominem. Instead, he was dealing with the substance of the argument, as he sees it.
griz - "somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition."Ad hominem means that the arguer is attacking his opponent, rather than dealing with the substance of what is under debate. If griz had said that YOU were insane to make the argument you were making, that would be ad hominem. Instead, he was dealing with the substance of the argument, as he sees it.
It still looks like an assertion that anyone that doesn't agree with his argument is irrational.
Quote
Quote
People always do what they think they should do.
I must correct you on this point. I frequently do things I know I shouldn't do. . You thought of several things you could do and chose one. Given all of the pros and cons, that is what you thought you should do at that moment - unless satan was controling you. Quote
Quote
Preacherman said "chosen sexual expression" (implying that sexual preference is chosen) and "this depends on the acceptance of moral absolutes - which many folks don't accept today, I'm afraid...", implying that he does accept them. I think these concepts are crucial to the question of whether "homophobe" is a scientific or merely political term.
I must also slap you down on this one. The original discussion was over civility between two parties who sharply disagree. The disagreement itself is immaterial to the way in which we debate it and, as you have demonstrated for us, actually gets in the way of laying down ground rules, such as the use of homophobe. I do not expect you to realize this, as your anarchist view clearly reveals that you are either new to such discussions or that you are not very serious about them.Quote
To be fair, I think the society you describe is best approximated by a somewhat more libertarian United States, as governed by the current system...
..but in which we can buy the toilet tank of our choice.Quote
As God has given us no direct list of our God-given rights, we democratically decide what those rights are.
...so if tomorrow 51% vote to ship all gays to Antarctica, off they go!Quote
Ideally, government protects those rights, though not without abuse. Your anarchy is, Im afraid, really a way of giving up on the proper structure of power,
Your favorite structure, I presume?Quote
and just hoping it will work itself out.
I would rather risk anarchy than to have a state and hope it stays small.Quote
Like guns, power exists and someone will have it.
Power and guns are apples and oranges. Guns are physical tools while power is a concept. If you mean that some men have greater abilities than others, O.K., but they still shouldn't have different legal "rights".Quote
So we must make sure it stays out of the wrong hands.
A state is the wrong hands for power.Quote
Government legitimizes power, ritualizes it in a way, so that it may be controlled. The world of private contracts and agreements you describe has existed in before it was called feudalism.
A state doesn't control power, it monopolizes it. If market anarchy existed before, let's return to it. If not, let's try it.
Quote
I think the preacher has tried to point out that societies must subscribe to a certain basis of rights and wrongs, much as in your proposed system everyone must honor promises or face certain consequences. In the end, some brand of morality is eventually forced on someone. What if I think it is not necessary to honor my promises, and that punishment for breaking them is wrong? Any punishment then is an imposition of morality. Of course, morality must impose now and then, when a person doesnt sufficiently impose it on himself.
To use an example from a friend in England, if you are occupying my apartment and there is contract stating that you have to pay me $100/mo to do so, it's pretty hard to say that you don't think it's necessary to pay me but O.K. to stay there. It's not "right" or ''wrong, "good" or "bad" - it's just not what anyone can see you agreed to. There is no "punishment"; either you pay up or you no longer have property rights yourself.Quote
Quote
since hands are designed to grasp things, it is abnormal to play the violin
1. During violin play, the hands are indeed grasping things. One grasps the bow, the other grasps the neck while fingers grasp various strings. This is not harmful to the hands; in fact, it probably makes them more dexterous. Quote
2. As you claim the hands are designed, may I assume you believe our bodies were designed by some intelligence, rather than developing through a naturalistic evolutionary process?
Haha! No. It was a joke more than anything else. The "what body parts are designed for" rant doesn't sway me.
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: fistful
...But since we know, from scientific observation, that there must be a Creator for these complex forms of life, ....
:/ If it will help you understand me, I don't share this view. If labels help, I would be called an agnostic.And given that I am neither "for" nor "against" homosexuality, I'll let others post for awhile.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 01:34:12 PM
Preacherman has done a very good job of making most of the points I agree with. But I might as well stick my neck out here, since it's never stopped me before, eh?
1] This thread's title would lead us to believe that we're talking about homophobia, but we're not. We're talking about disapproval. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. But we as individuals and as a society are capable of disapproving of something based on things other than fear. Through the length of this entire debate, I've never seen anyone from the pro-gay side of it ascribe anything but fear, revulsion, disgust, or hatred to someone who disagrees with their choice of lifestlye.
The simple fact is that a person or indivicual is capable of disapproving of something based upon their education and world-view. That does not in and of itself make something intricisally based upon fear/disgust/revulsion, or whatever else you would have it be. It is irresponsible to say that someone can not disagree with you based upon their education or personal experience.
2] Anyone with a modicum of responsibility in psychology or sociology will admit that religious instruction and world-views are a valid normative influence. They are a source of education. To say otherwise violates the very principle of "tolerance" that is being demanded.
3] My education has led me to understand that, among male homosexuals at least, monogamy is a myth. Therefore the argument of moral equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual "marriage" does not carry much weight with me. Every study I've read and everyone I've known from both sides of the issue only reinforce to me the principle that as a whole practicing homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
4] I have spent 15 years searching every bit of medical documentation I can get my hands on and I have yet to see a supported, peer-reviewed study that indicates homosexuality is both congenital and unchangeable.
5] My experience and education has led me to believe that homosexual lifestyles are not as psychologically or emotionally healthy as heterosexual ones.
These are the reasons that I disapprove of the ACCEPTANCE of practicing homosexuality as a societal norm. I am not afraid of practicing homosexuals. I am not disgusted by the idea of homosexual acts. I feel no hatred towards persons who practice homosexuality. If someone is being overtly sexual in front of me, my revulsion is equal regardless of the gender-identity of the persons involved. That's simply not something someone else has the right to subject me to.
None of these beliefs are irrational, nor are they based upon fear, disgust, or hatred.
Therefore I do not believe that this is homophobia.
How about the words, "Informed disapproval"?
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 01:36:55 PM
Have we already started another thread on that and I just missed it, or should I start one?
Post by: Strings on July 02, 2005, 02:28:45 PM
Now, I'm straight. But I've had lots of gay friends over the years. And this constant harping on "harm because of anal sex" is starting to get to me. First off: if they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't do it. You really have no right to call what someone enjoys "harm" because of your beliefs. Second off: many of the gays I've known didn't engage in intercourse: they didn't like the feeling, so they found other ways. I think they used lots of what Preacherman called "foreplay". Given that, where IS the harm now?
BTW... what on Earth does ANY of this have to do with the original posters question? Talk about thread veer...
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 02:42:25 PM
No. You're probably not going to ever have a conversation about a controversial behavior without hearing in some fashion about the primary normative force in the world: Religous beliefs.
It is laughable to say that something enjoyed cannot be called harmful. Erotic asphyciation, illicit drug use, and even some abusive situations can all be called enjoyable at the moment. Each of them has long-lasting and serious harmful effects. I'd imagine that over-dosing on heroine is very pleasurable right up to the point where your heart stops.
Post by: Strings on July 02, 2005, 03:39:06 PM
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 03:50:27 PM
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 04:04:54 PM
If we're going to judge marriage based on a lack of monogamy, or stability, or possibility of procreation, we're gonna have to cancel a whole lot of heterosexual relationships.
If we're going to base our belief that gay marriage should be illegal on the Bible or religious book of our choice, aren't we obligated to follow through to banning many other things prohibited by..well, come on..basically Leviticus, right? So, het. couples living together: Illegal. Cheating on your spouse: Grounds for execution. Right? That's not even getting into all the other things that are "abominations" that all the people quoting Leviticus conveniently ignore.
There is church and there is state.
The Church (each Church) has the right to say what can or cannot be accepted by their denomination. I'd no more demand that a Presbyterian Church be forced to marry two men than I would demand the local synagogue host a hog roast.
This right, however, does not extend to the state banning same sex relationships. There is no more fundamental right than that of deciding who to love or who to share one's life with. We claim the legal right to look at dirty pictures, or to sing smutty songs or go about wearing t-shirts with offensive statements (and I'm not arguing we don't have the right to do those things) but we refuse to allow two persons of the same gender to enter into a relationship that heterosexuals do with no more thought, sometimes, than getting a new pair of shoes. There is no ethical, moral, legal, reasonable reason I can think of to ban same sex civil unions.
Post by: Preacherman on July 02, 2005, 04:17:33 PM
Quote
There is no ethical, moral, legal, reasonable reason I can think of to ban same sex civil unions.
Well said, Barbara! That's it, right there, in a nutshell. There is no reason whatsoever for the State to impose a particular view of sexual morality on its citizens. For me, as a Christian, I can't approve of such unions, and as a pastor I most certainly won't bless them: but my views are not binding on others who don't share my religious beliefs, and the last thing I want to do is to deny them the right to express and live their beliefs. After all, if I do that to them, they have every right to do the same to me!Also, irrespective of another person's beliefs, lifestyle, sexuality, etc., I must accept them as made in the image and likeness of God, according to my own beliefs, and I dare not judge them, for fear of being judged myself. I most certainly can take a stand on their actions, the morality (or otherwise) of which is determined by the beliefs I hold, but I cannot judge the actor, because his/her soul is God's, not mine, and the final judgement is up to Him (at least, I think He's masculine!
). It's a whole lot easier to do this with and for the average gay or lesbian person of my acquaintance than it would be with (for example) Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Reverend Phelps...
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 04:23:54 PM
I try not to dwell on such things because I get depressed. (Many people I know and care about practice a homosexual lifestyle.) But, since you asked:
Michael Bailey, in his commentary on the research on homosexuality and mental illness (Archives of General Psychiatry, 1999, Vol. 56, 883-884), concluded,
Quote from: Michael Bailey
"These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder."
Quote
Recent Studies on
Homosexuality and Mental Health
By Dale O'Leary
In its October 1999 issue, Archives of General Psychiatry published some very intriguing research on the relationship between homosexuality and mental-health problems, reopening a very controversial subject.
Suicide Attempts. In a twin study, Herrell et al found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as their co-twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained, however, by the subjects' mental-health or substance-abuse disorders.
Mental-Health Problems. The second article reported on a New Zealand study which followed 1007 individuals since birth. At age 21, the 28 subjects classified as gay, lesbian or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental-health problems than the 979 classed as heterosexual.
In a commentary, J. Bailey, who has published a number of studies on homosexuality, wrote:
Several reactions to the new studies are predictable:
First, some mental health professionals who opposed the successful 1973 referendum to remove homosexuality from DSM-III will feel vindicated.
Second, some social conservatives will attribute the findings to the inevitable consequences of the choice of a homosexual lifestyle.
Third, in stark contrast to the other two positions, many people will conclude that widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy, or worse, mentally ill.
Commitment to any of these positions would be premature, however, and should be discouraged. In fact, a number of potential interpretations of the findings need to be considered, and progress toward scientific understanding will be achieved only by eliminating competing explanations.
After looking at a number of other explanations, Bailey concludes,
It is unlikely that any one of these models will explain all of the differences in the psychopathology between homosexual and heterosexual people. Perhaps social ostracism causes gay men and lesbians to become depressed, but why would it cause gay men to have eating disorders? Two things are certain, however.
First, more research is needed to understand the fascinating and important findings of Fergusson et al and Herrell et al.
Second, it would be a shame, most of all for gay men and lesbians whose mental health is at stake, if socio-political concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis.
What can we learn from these studies?
First, they confirm previous research on the relatively low incidence of homosexuality in the general population. The incidence was 2.8% of the 1007 subjects in the New Zealand study (20 people who self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and eight others who reported same-sex experience after age 16). Of the 6,537 men in the Herrell et al study, only 120 reported any same-gender partners (1.8%).
Second, contrary to claims made by gay activists, homosexually active persons as a group appear to be less psychologically healthy than the general population.
Even if these problems could be proven to originate solely from social oppression which created internalized homophobia, as claimed by gay activists, this question would remain: "What is the proper response?"
If homosexual attraction were an untreatable, unchangeable condition, then treating internalized homophobia would be the only remedy; but given the evidence that homosexual attraction may be preventable, and that homosexuality can in many cases (though certainly not all) be successfully treated in adulthood--then given the risks associated with homosexual attraction, shouldn't the public be fully informed of the options?
References:
"Sexual Orientation and Suicidality," Archives of General Psychiatry, Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, No. 10, pages 867 - 888. Related articles in the same issue were:
"A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men" by R. Herrell, J. Goldberg, W. True, V. Ramakrishnan, M. Lyons, S. Eisen, M. Tsuang.
"Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" by D. Fergusson, L. Horwood, A. Beautrais.
"Homosexuality, Psychopathology, and Suicidality," R. Friedman.
Suicide and Sexual Orientation," G. Remafedi.
"Homosexuality and Mental Illness," J. Bailey.
http://www.narth.com/docs/recent.htmlHomosexuality and Mental Health
By Dale O'Leary
In its October 1999 issue, Archives of General Psychiatry published some very intriguing research on the relationship between homosexuality and mental-health problems, reopening a very controversial subject.
Suicide Attempts. In a twin study, Herrell et al found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as their co-twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained, however, by the subjects' mental-health or substance-abuse disorders.
Mental-Health Problems. The second article reported on a New Zealand study which followed 1007 individuals since birth. At age 21, the 28 subjects classified as gay, lesbian or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental-health problems than the 979 classed as heterosexual.
In a commentary, J. Bailey, who has published a number of studies on homosexuality, wrote:
Several reactions to the new studies are predictable:
First, some mental health professionals who opposed the successful 1973 referendum to remove homosexuality from DSM-III will feel vindicated.
Second, some social conservatives will attribute the findings to the inevitable consequences of the choice of a homosexual lifestyle.
Third, in stark contrast to the other two positions, many people will conclude that widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy, or worse, mentally ill.
Commitment to any of these positions would be premature, however, and should be discouraged. In fact, a number of potential interpretations of the findings need to be considered, and progress toward scientific understanding will be achieved only by eliminating competing explanations.
After looking at a number of other explanations, Bailey concludes,
It is unlikely that any one of these models will explain all of the differences in the psychopathology between homosexual and heterosexual people. Perhaps social ostracism causes gay men and lesbians to become depressed, but why would it cause gay men to have eating disorders? Two things are certain, however.
First, more research is needed to understand the fascinating and important findings of Fergusson et al and Herrell et al.
Second, it would be a shame, most of all for gay men and lesbians whose mental health is at stake, if socio-political concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis.
What can we learn from these studies?
First, they confirm previous research on the relatively low incidence of homosexuality in the general population. The incidence was 2.8% of the 1007 subjects in the New Zealand study (20 people who self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and eight others who reported same-sex experience after age 16). Of the 6,537 men in the Herrell et al study, only 120 reported any same-gender partners (1.8%).
Second, contrary to claims made by gay activists, homosexually active persons as a group appear to be less psychologically healthy than the general population.
Even if these problems could be proven to originate solely from social oppression which created internalized homophobia, as claimed by gay activists, this question would remain: "What is the proper response?"
If homosexual attraction were an untreatable, unchangeable condition, then treating internalized homophobia would be the only remedy; but given the evidence that homosexual attraction may be preventable, and that homosexuality can in many cases (though certainly not all) be successfully treated in adulthood--then given the risks associated with homosexual attraction, shouldn't the public be fully informed of the options?
References:
"Sexual Orientation and Suicidality," Archives of General Psychiatry, Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, No. 10, pages 867 - 888. Related articles in the same issue were:
"A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men" by R. Herrell, J. Goldberg, W. True, V. Ramakrishnan, M. Lyons, S. Eisen, M. Tsuang.
"Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" by D. Fergusson, L. Horwood, A. Beautrais.
"Homosexuality, Psychopathology, and Suicidality," R. Friedman.
Suicide and Sexual Orientation," G. Remafedi.
"Homosexuality and Mental Illness," J. Bailey.
Quote from: NARTH
CDC Issues Alert On New Disease Infecting Gays And Bisexuals In Europe
November 1, 2004 - The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an alert to health officials on October 29 on a rare venereal disease (STD) spreading through Europe among homosexual and bisexual males. The CDC believes it is just a matter of time before the disease reaches the U.S.
The disease is Lymphogranuloma Venereum (LGV), a variety of the Chlamydia trachomatis bacterium. According to the CDC, this STD rarely occurs in industrialized nations but has appeared in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Sweden.
LGV has increased dramatically in the Netherlands, which typically has less than five cases a year. During the 17 months preceding September, 2004, the nation had diagnosed 92 cases. Thirty of these cases occurred in 2003 and 62 during 2004.
Of the 62 patients diagnosed in 2004, all of the patients were white and among the 30 whose HIV status was known, 23 (77%) were HIV positive. According to the CDC, "Other preliminary findings suggested that concurrent sexually transmitted infections were prevalent and that the majority had participated in casual sex gatherings (e.g., 'leather scene' parties) and unprotected anal intercourse or other unprotected anal penetration (e.g., fisting) during the 12 months before onset of symptoms." The STD is associated with genital ulcers and various gastrointestinal ailments.
The CDC also noted: "Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of LGV in the United States are difficult to obtain; the disease is not nationally reportable, and the diagnosis is not straightforward. The clinical presentation of LGV might easily be missed, as evidenced by the large number of retrospective cases identified in the Netherlands."
The complete CDC report is available in the October 29, 2004 issue of the MMWR: Lymphogranuloma Venereum Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- Netherlands, 2003--2004.
Far from hatred or irrational fear, I don't want any man or woman I love to be involved in a lifestyle that leads to more pain, more disease, more mental illness, social ostracization, and lower physical health.November 1, 2004 - The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an alert to health officials on October 29 on a rare venereal disease (STD) spreading through Europe among homosexual and bisexual males. The CDC believes it is just a matter of time before the disease reaches the U.S.
The disease is Lymphogranuloma Venereum (LGV), a variety of the Chlamydia trachomatis bacterium. According to the CDC, this STD rarely occurs in industrialized nations but has appeared in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Sweden.
LGV has increased dramatically in the Netherlands, which typically has less than five cases a year. During the 17 months preceding September, 2004, the nation had diagnosed 92 cases. Thirty of these cases occurred in 2003 and 62 during 2004.
Of the 62 patients diagnosed in 2004, all of the patients were white and among the 30 whose HIV status was known, 23 (77%) were HIV positive. According to the CDC, "Other preliminary findings suggested that concurrent sexually transmitted infections were prevalent and that the majority had participated in casual sex gatherings (e.g., 'leather scene' parties) and unprotected anal intercourse or other unprotected anal penetration (e.g., fisting) during the 12 months before onset of symptoms." The STD is associated with genital ulcers and various gastrointestinal ailments.
The CDC also noted: "Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of LGV in the United States are difficult to obtain; the disease is not nationally reportable, and the diagnosis is not straightforward. The clinical presentation of LGV might easily be missed, as evidenced by the large number of retrospective cases identified in the Netherlands."
The complete CDC report is available in the October 29, 2004 issue of the MMWR: Lymphogranuloma Venereum Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- Netherlands, 2003--2004.
That is the harm.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 04:38:13 PM
You make some valid points. But I have two reservations:
1] Government also has in interest and right to pass laws in interest of public health. (No shirt no shoes no service etc)
2] The right of religious persons for representation in a Representative Republic is no less than that of non-religious persons. So, in effect we religious persons should not be denied the right to pass and enforce laws based upon our world-view simply because it is derived from religous faith.
Post by: Preacherman on July 02, 2005, 05:02:12 PM
Quote
The right of religious persons for representation in a Representative Republic is no less than that of non-religious persons. So, in effect we religious persons should not be denied the right to pass and enforce laws based upon our world-view simply because it is derived from religous faith.
Midge, ol' buddy, I have a HUGE problem with this view. If it's OK for "us" to pass laws based upon our Christian religious outlook, then it's equally OK for a Scientologist, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Confucian or a Zoroastrian to do the same - and all of the latter six "outlooks" differ significantly in various respects from ours. I don't believe that the law of the land should incorporate any religious perspective unless the "land" in question is governed by a theocracy - the Vatican can pass such laws, but the USA should not.The problem is that many actions may be legal, in terms of the law of the land, but immoral, in terms of a given moral outlook or compass (e.g. abortion). Others may be illegal in terms of the law, but moral and good in terms of one's religious views (e.g. try being an evangelist in Vietnam or China - the government will lock you up for it!). For this reason, I think that "natural law" is a good foundation for secular law, because it can be approached by all who seek to understand it, can be debated without infringing on the religious field, and can be the subject of a broad concensus. It doesn't go into some aspects of current law at all, but that's not a bad thing - it deals only with the broad outline, and with certain actions that all can agree are bad (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.).
Let's use abortion as an example of a problematic legal situation. When it comes to arguing about abortion, I remain categorically and adamantly opposed to it on religious grounds, and will do all in my power (including demonstrations, etc.) to prevent it happening anywhere that I can exercise influence: but there are those who don't agree with my religious views, and even though I may regard their actions as murder, I don't have the right to force them to conform to my way of thinking. All I can do is seek to persuade them, by example more than words, to amend their lives and their moral outlook. I would certainly support any law outlawing abortion, on the grounds that this act is the same as murder - the unlawful and unjustifiable killing of a human being - but I know that if such a law were passed, abortions would simply go underground, and would continue (although perhaps not in such numbers as occur now). The only way to stop them would be to convert the people involved, if not to Christianity, then at least to a moral outlook that recognizes the evil of abortion.
The separation of Church and State is basically a good thing, IMHO. There will always be tension between them, but this can be kept at a level of healthy discussion and dialogue, given a reasonable separation. If they get too close, there will be problems.
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 05:27:38 PM
I'm fond of the separation of church and state and like Preacherman, believe some things that I'd advocate being left legal are immoral. But where does the line get drawn as far as the state? Are we prepared to create a Taliban-like government, where pre-marital or extramarital sex is grounds for execution? I think you absolutely have the right to choose candidates based on who most closely follows your religious beliefs, and so you do still have representative government. What I'm trying to say is that religious opposition to gay marriage is fine with me..I even tend to agree on a purely religious basis, truth be told, but I cannot accept that a limited government, as this representative Repubic was set out to be, has the right to tell any citizen whom they may love or accept as their family. I'd go further than to say its a state's right issue and say its a fundamental right of human beings in general.
Post by: Guest on July 02, 2005, 05:59:12 PM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Mercedes, I'm with Preacherman about inherent complexity of the natural world indicating a creative force. But I don't want to muddle discussions.
Have we already started another thread on that and I just missed it, or should I start one?
I am neither interested in, nor qualified for, debating creationism vs. evolution, if that is what you are asking. That is not a promise not to post in the thread, however. Have we already started another thread on that and I just missed it, or should I start one?
Post by: The Rabbi on July 02, 2005, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: Barbara
Not true. She doesn't have the right to choose the person she will marry or who will be her next of kin, both of which should be a fundamental human right.
Of course she does. Every bit as much as I do. If I wanted to marry my first cousin I couldnt do that (even though my religion allows it). There are many restrictions civilly on who can marry whom and none of them has been a problem.For inheritance, this is an issue with estates over $1M only. Less than $1M and there is no inheritance tax. Personally I favor scrapping inheritance taxes altogether.
This gets back to the issue that homosexuals dont want the same rights as everyone else (a canard, since they obviously have them) but they want special rights.
Let's say I have a close attachment to a male friend that is not sexual (and believe it or not not every close friendship has to involve sex), I would have the same issues as a gay couple. The state recognizes "marriage" as occurring between two people of certain description. The state has a compelling interest in doing so because the stability of society is at stake.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 02, 2005, 06:31:16 PM
Societies throughout time have always discriminated when it comes to marriage. Ours has as well.
We discriminate on the basis of relation: You cannot marry your sister, no matter how much you two may be in love.
We discriminate on the basis of age: You cannot marry a 12 year old, no matter how the two of you feel about it. (In fact, most states that will get you life in prison if you try.)
We want our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters to be discriminating in marriage. We don't want them to get into a marriage where they are harmed. We don't want our boys to marry women who will run around on them. We don't want our women to marry men who will beat or abuse them. Marriage, as an institution, has always involved discrimination. And if someone believes that homosexual relationships are damaging to the individual and society, then it is natural for those people to discriminate.
But such discrimination is not necessarily based upon fear or hatred, but a desire for what is best for society and for the individual.
Post by: Stand_watie on July 02, 2005, 06:37:36 PM
Quote
Let's say I have a close attachment to a male friend that is not sexual (and believe it or not not every close friendship has to involve sex), I would have the same issues as a gay couple. The state recognizes "marriage" as occurring between two people of certain description. The state has a compelling interest in doing so because the stability of society is at stake
I have to agree with (what I think is) your premise that the issue is much broader than just the legal issue of gay "marriages". Another example I can think of is my two Aunts who live with my widowed Grandmother - certainly if gay couples can marry, it leads to the question of why shouldn't they be able to marry so that one of my Aunts could carry company insurance benefits etc on the other two? They've been together for 50 odd years now, 37 since my grandad has died, why deny them marital "rights"?BTW, I'm not neccessarily saying they shouldn't (or should) have marital rights, I'm just putting it out there as an alternate scenario for discussion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 08:50:44 PM
Let me heartily welcome the title "heterosexist." I do not object to it at all. It is much prefferred to the inaccurate and insulting "homophobe." I promise to answer the questionaire within the next couple of days.
RE: homosexual marriage and civil unions
Saluki and others have expressed a desire to have the legal arrangements attendant on marriage for their homosexual partners. However, if marriages or homosexual civil unions deserve such consideration, then other pairings or groups of people should not be excluded. If they are, sex (or a romantic relationship) is made the basis of public policy in a way it was not previously. Certainly homosexuals would not wish to discriminate against those who choose not to have a sexual or romantic relationship. I suggest, then, that if civil unions are introduced, it must not be done in behalf of homosexuals only, and in fact should not be linked at all with sex or romantic love.
Allow me to present my:
Secular Argument against homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions
Here is my thesis; critique away:
The law should not treat monogamous homosexual relationships differently than it treats similar relationships that do not involve sex.
Or to put it another way:
If homosexuals do not want government in their bedrooms, then why do they want their sexual relationship to be recognized?
Supporting argument:
If we have no grounds to discriminate between marriage and homosexual relationships, then neither have we grounds to discriminate against other long-term friendships or partnerships. Advocates of homosexual marriage, hereafter referred to as HM, say that married couples receive certain benefits denied to homosexual couples. However, it would hardly be right to deny such benefits to other pairings or groups of people. Such rights, if extended to homosexual couples, ought also to apply to friends or adult relatives who live together or can claim some other lasting bond. To recognize HM is to say that any long-term sexual or romantic relationship is equivalent to marriage. It is to bring sex into legal scrutiny in a way that marriage never has.
Consider two fictional men named Jake and Ramon. In a possible future which includes HM, Jake and Ramon have shared a house together for twenty years, but because they do not have sex with one another, or enjoy a romantic relationship, they presumably cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage. Hector and Cecilia live next door, and they may get married even if they hate each other and never touch one another. Why? Because marriage is not the private behavior protected by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Sex, love, romance; these are private. Hector and Cecilia may partake of them as they wish. Marriage is a public commitment, solemnized by religious and/or social recognition and supported by law.
If the state has any reason, justification or interest in recognizing Hector and Cecilias relationship, it because it is expected that a man and woman living together will have children - a third party that did not agree to the union. That marriages usually produce children differentiates them not only from homosexual relationships, but from all other relationships. Only long-term heterosexual cohabitation could come close to having the potential to produce children that a marriage does perhaps that is why these are often considered common-law marriages. The state does not probe to find out whether a married couple loves one another or whether they have sex or children. The state doesnt care, unless divorce occurs, and neither do we. The minister who conducts their wedding ceremony may counsel them and may refuse to marry them if he finds they do not love one another, but this is the business of churches and other social groups. It is not within the purview of a secular state.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that the state should be involved in marriage, only that children produced thereby would be the only obvious reason for that involvement.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 09:36:49 PM
1. As Mercedes is a feminine name, I will assume you are female. Correct me if necessary.
2. Labeling yourself an agnostic does not much help. Do you mean that you don't know whether a god exists? Do you mean that you believe in God, but that we cannot know about Him? Or do you mean that you don't think there is a God, but aren't yet sure? Anyway, I addressed that comment to Hunter Rose.
I said:
Quote
It is offensive for you to claim that disapproval of homosexuality leads directly to murder. (Actually, genocide refers to genes, meaning the destruction of a race of people. So, this could not apply to homosexuals, as a group.)
MercedesRules said:Quote
Unless it's genetic. Calling Iraq "evil" led to its invasion.
No. Genecide refers to killing people based on their ethnicity or race, not simply on an inherited condition. No one has called Iraq evil. Iraq's former regime was called evil and this led to Iraq itself being rid of them. Saddam himself is still alive. Hopefully not for long. Unless you really are this obtuse, I must take you for a troller. In any case, I have already explained that establishing moral standards has never led to the wanton extermination of all who fail to meet them. Who among us would be left?Quote
griz - "somebody who kills his spouse to collect on the life insurance has committed an immoral act by any rational persons definition."
It still looks like an assertion that anyone that doesn't agree with his argument is irrational.
No again. He is saying that anyone who doesn't have murder on his don't list is irrational. Unless you or others in this debate are OK with the murder he described, he has not accused you of being irrational, at least with that statement.It still looks like an assertion that anyone that doesn't agree with his argument is irrational.
Quote
If you mean have I ever participated in a heated discussion where one side is opposed to homosexuality and the other is for it, you are correct - I haven't; that would be like a debate in which one side is against argon gas and the other for it.
Again, your obtuseness is simply grand. To anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language and the prevailing social conditions, "opposing" homosexuality entails believing that it is morally wrong. The alternative is the view that homosexuality is morally acceptable. I will use the term "disapproval" if that is easier for you to understand. Can't shake the feeling a troller is playing with me.I said:
Quote
As God has given us no direct list of our God-given rights, we democratically decide what those rights are.
MercedesRules said:Quote
...so if tomorrow 51% vote to ship all gays to Antarctica, off they go!
No again. This is so tiresome. How do you think Americans decide what our basic human rights are? We codify them by democratic processes. In the case of your right to keep and bear arms, this right was secured, and can only be formally denied, by amending the Constitution. That cannot be done by a simple majority plebiscite. Similarly, citizens cannot be deported without due process by the means you describe. Quote
A state is the wrong hands for power.
I disagree with your moral judgement. Ha!Quote
To use an example from a friend in England, if you are occupying my apartment and there is contract stating that you have to pay me $100/mo to do so, it's pretty hard to say that you don't think it's necessary to pay me but O.K. to stay there. It's not "right" or ''wrong, "good" or "bad" - it's just not what anyone can see you agreed to. There is no "punishment"; either you pay up or you no longer have property rights yourself.
You don't think of the denial of property rights as "punishment"? Nice system you have there. I agree, though, that I would prefer to choose my own toilet tank. Thanks for playing,
fistful
Post by: Ron on July 02, 2005, 09:42:05 PM
If you want to enter into a relationship with someone you shouldn't have to ask the governments permission. That essentually is what has happened to marriage.
The problem is with the statest regulation and financial underwriting of the "institution" of marriage.
If the public at large wasn't asked to give it's stamp of approval by including gay marriage in the governments tax schemes the problem wouldn't exist.
Give everyone the ability to have civil contracts with anyone of their choosing as far as inheritance, visitation etc..
Leave "marriage" to the churches. Some churches will marry gay couples and some churches will not recognize them as legitimate. It should have no bearing on issues regarding the couples legal arrangements.
Trying to force the public through judicial fiat to recognize something as normal or moral isn't going to work. it needs to go through the slow meat grinder of the legislature.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 09:56:28 PM
Quote
Gee... can we have a discussion about homosexuality that DOESN'T involve religion? Sorry fistful, but talk of a Creator means religion. And the existance of a Creator has NOT been "scientifically proven", at least it hadn't been the last *I* heard...
Something wrong with religion? Seems an obvious place to turn when discussing moral and social issues. As I started the thread, I'll drag in anything I want, thanks. I did not say that science proved the existence of a Creator. I will say that the all the evidence points in that direction, and strongly enough that only willfull blindness prevents belief. To quote Christian apologist Hank Hanegraf, "Belief in evolution is no longer tenable in an age of scientific enlightment."
Quote
Many here are strict libertarian in their views, and feel people SHOULD be allowed to harm themselves if that's what they want to do
Agreed. I do not support laws against sodomy or homosexuality in general. Neither do I support government endorsement of homosexual relationships, such as homosexual marriage. See my above post.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 02, 2005, 10:12:43 PM
You are way off. No one here is saying that churches cannot marry homosexuals, or that homosexuality should be illegal. You are supporting the government regulation of homosexual relationships. WE, my side of the argument, is saying there is no justification for forcing we, the people, to recognize homosexual relationships by treating them as heterosexual marriages.
"Banning same sex civil unions"? I think we have all supported the idea of civil unions, in one way or another.
Regarding your remarks on Leviticus, such laws were intended for a Jewish theocracy (the ancient nation of Israel) that disappeared thousands of years ago. The New Testament, though, specifically condemned homosexuality, adultery, and other sins, but without prescribing legal penalties. Please make some attempt to understand the Bible and its followers before dictating to us our doctrine or our politics.
Post by: Guest on July 03, 2005, 01:53:11 AM
I'd prefer there be no regulation of marriage at all except by clergy..but since heterosexuals continue to demand special rights, rather than equal rights, and nearly every argument boils down to either "God said" or "it makes me uncomfortable." Neither of these are valid reasons to ban state civil unions.
Gays do not have the same rights as any of us. If you want to marry your first cousin, you can do so in several states. In Alabama, the age of consent is 12, and the heterosexual who wants to marry when they are 12 but cannot has the option of waiting a year or to. Even more importantly, if you marry your 12 year old cousin and its legal in your state, that marriage must be recognized by all other states.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 03, 2005, 03:58:55 AM
There is no constitutional right to marry, as far as I know. Therefore not allowing a relationship to be called marriage is not depriving someone of rights. It is simply refusing to endorse a relationship.
No one is saying that homosexuals should not have the right to have long-term, committed relationships. I will say that society is not bound by any means to provide that relationship with legal benefits and special protections.
Oh yes, Barbera, Leviticus is often quoted because it is the easiest to demonize and ridicule as old fashioned/out of date/ theocratic/ etc (which, even though I'm not a practicing Jew, I still find very intollerant). Every instance of homosexuality in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures that I'm aware of either tacitly or explicitly condemns the behavior as immoral, and worthy of damnation. Note: This does not make it a WORSE sin than many others, but a sin nonetheless by the internal standards of the documents.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 03, 2005, 04:01:53 AM
Please read post #105
All that stuff about twelve-year-old first cousins is nice, but I would like to marry my father and my sister and our dog. The dog is spayed, and we're gonna have the sister operated on, too, so having kids with three arms shouldn't be a problem. If my state will recognize our right to do this, do you think those other states will recognize our love for one another?
Seriously, though, you keep saying there is no reason to ban civil unions. In truth, there is no reason to create special legal arrangements called civil unions just to please a small minority who insist on making life hard for themselves. If we need civil unions, they should be available to all, regardless of sexual orientation. Pardon me if I don't want to make laws based on who people are sleeping with.
Post by: Guest on July 03, 2005, 04:18:22 AM
If religion is the only reason to get married, then we should ban all civil unions, which is what a secular marriage really is, correct? There are already the arrangements..we just don't allow all citizens equal access to them.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 03, 2005, 07:09:28 AM
Quote
Secular Argument against homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions
+1 Fistful. One of the best arguments I have seen that does not mention religion at all.Some people have mentioned Leviticus and I want to address that.
I often point out that there is no word for homosexual in Hebrew. There are words for homosexual acts (maasei S'dom--the act of Sodom, mishkav zachor--lying with a man) however and this is what is forbidden. More specifically, sodomy performed by two men will incur the death penalty under the right circumstances. This is so whether the two parties are "gay" or not. Notice that other acts are not so stigmatized and that female homosexuality is an entirely different category.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the whole notion of people being "gay" is a modern construct. In Sir Kenneth Dover's Greek Homosexuality he makes a good case that in that society homosexuals per se did not really exist: men did homosexual acts at different times intheir lives for different reasons.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 03, 2005, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
Salukifan, no, most of my ministry has been outside prison, apart from the last three years or so which have been as a full-time prison chaplain (and that's about to change too). Although I'm guided by my faith in judging the appropriateness (or otherwise) of a particular form of sexual expression, I'm not by any means "closed" to the gay and lesbian community, and have worked with them quite extensively in both personal counseling and in groups - not to "convert" them, but to discuss issues, bring a different perspective, and help those in need. I also spent quite a while as a volunteer in a gay AIDS hospice in South Africa, helping those dying from this disease.
That's wonderful. It sounds like you really have made an important decision to work with those most in need of spiritual guidance...Quote from: Preacherman
So, the 25% to 30% figure that I mentioned is based on the groups and individuals with which I've had contact, both in South Africa and in the USA. I accept that this may not be typical of the lesbian "scene" as a whole, hence my question. Do you have a more accurate figure than mine? I'd be interested to hear it.
I spent quite a bit of time researching this. Finally, I found a journal article that stated that no reliable peer-reviewed studies have been done on whether lesbians are more likely to have been the victims of trauma at the hands of men. So, I'm sorry Preacherman, I can't give you anything beyond anecdotal evidence there...I did find lots of research however on violence against women as a general population. Here's an example of some of the stats:
Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.3
Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4
Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.33
These statistics are from the following site if you'd like to see the references: Family Violence Prevention Fund
Based on these statistics, it sounds like the rate of trauma that you found among the lesbians you ministered to is comparable to the rate of women in general, i.e. not necessarily a statistically significant difference.
I'm glad to have these exchanges with you Preacherman. You've shown yourself a thoughtful and compassionate man. We disagree on the morality of homosexual relationships but agree on that the separation of church and state is important as well. As far as the use of the term "homophobia" goes, I seldom use it anyway but I can see your argument that using such a term can cause people to bristle and limit free and fair debate.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
2] Anyone with a modicum of responsibility in psychology or sociology will admit that religious instruction and world-views are a valid normative influence. They are a source of education. To say otherwise violates the very principle of "tolerance" that is being demanded.
Oh my! I hope that isn't a subtle slap at my credentials as a sociologist! Sociologists aren't in the business of ruling normative influences as "valid" or "invalid". We just study the way that our society is socially constructed and if we occasionally, as private citizens, try to influence the social structure, it does not invalidate our graduate degrees or make our calls for tolerance insincere.Overall, I think that the original discussion on the use of the word "homophobic" basically centers around the idea that opponents of homosexuality can't have a reasoned objection to homosexuality. It's a topic people feel strongly about. Personally, I tend to think of people who oppose gun rights as well-meaning but misinformed and I've seen plenty of them labelled "hoplophobic" on this website. I guess that assumes that there is no reasonable objection IF you've really studied the facts.
I tend to think the same way about gay rights. I'm not really totally convinced that all of the opposition is really based on sound reasoning.
A lot of the opposition that I've seen tends to be based on religious beliefs. Let me make it clear that I think that it is perfectly acceptable to use your religion to inform your beliefs and understandings. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong because of your religion, I respect your ability to make that call. I just become uneasy when religious beliefs are used to determine civil laws. I agree with Preacherman in that separation of church and state is a good thing because of the pluralistic society that we live in.
My rabbi won' t perform wedding ceremonies between Jews and non-Jews but I would not seek to pass a law that said that Jews and non-Jews cannot marry. Likewise, I understand that Catholics cannot be remarried after divorce in the church (unless an annulment is issued) but there is no federal law forbidding such marriages. Arguably, each of the above scenarios could be seen as destructive to the family (intermarriage, divorce) but the government issues marriage licenses without concerning itself with these things because we don't live in a theocracy.
Other arguments tend to be based on "public health" concerns. People might site statistics that show that STDs are prevalent in gay men or that gay men have more sexual partners than straight men and that there is a public health interest in discouraging homosexuality. I'm never really sure what to make of this. First of all, they very seldom can come up with "public health" reasons why lesbianism is a health threat but the don't exactly advocate for lesbian rights but reject gay male rights on that basis. Most people who take this tack also say that GLBT people are only maybe 1/2% to 2% of the population so I'm not really sure what huge health impact that this 1/4% to 1% of the population is supposed to have on the world's population. You'd really be a lot better off limiting the rights of smokers or drinkers to get married if government disapproval stopped people from performing certain behaviors.
Finally, there is the "society as we know it will collapse because gay rights will destroy the family" argument. Well, I'm assuming that you're not arguing that government civil unions are going to make homosexuality so incredibly appealing that formerly heterosexual men and women are going to stop marrying each other and start marrying same-sex partners.
I'm guessing that you think that the whole institution will be cheapened and men and women won't want to stay married or get married in the first place. Well, I hate to tell you this, but I have very little control over what heterosexuals choose to do and so I'd rather not be penalized for what you think other people will do if I can get a civil union or marriage from the government. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
4] I have spent 15 years searching every bit of medical documentation I can get my hands on and I have yet to see a supported, peer-reviewed study that indicates homosexuality is both congenital and unchangeable.
Nobody knows what causes left-handedness either. My grandma was born left-handed but was forced to use her right hand since left-handedness was seen as abnormal. I don't think knowing what "causes" something has anything to do with whether the minority (left handers or GLBT folks) are allowed to live as they feel most comfortable.Quote from: The Rabbi
For inheritance, this is an issue with estates over $1M only. Less than $1M and there is no inheritance tax.
Okay, I see where you are confused here. I am talking about state inheritance taxes. The state of Indiana will be the ones who can take our house if my partner can't come up with the taxes...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 03, 2005, 06:44:49 PM
You have already made your sexual orientation clear. I said what I did because civil unions based on homosexual relationships bring government into the bedroom in a way that heterosexual marriage does not. That is, a homosexual civil union is based only on sex or a romantic relationship while the state's only interest in marriage is the welfare of children who may result therefrom. I expand on this in post #105.
I didn't say you were not a Christian, but you seem wholly unfamiliar with the Christian understanding of the Old and New Testaments. I said,
Quote
Regarding your remarks on Leviticus, such laws were intended for a Jewish theocracy (the ancient nation of Israel) that disappeared thousands of years ago. The New Testament, though, specifically condemned homosexuality, adultery, and other sins, but without prescribing legal penalties.
This is not my opinion, it is the historical position of Christians for the past two thousand years. To quote Bemidjiblade,
Quote
Every instance of homosexuality in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures that I'm aware of either tacitly or explicitly condemns the behavior as immoral, and worthy of damnation. Note: This does not make it a WORSE sin than many others, but a sin nonetheless by the internal standards of the documents.
Barbara wrote:Quote
liberty and basic secular freedoms should extend to all citizens....
If religion is the only reason to get married, then we should ban all civil unions, which is what a secular marriage really is, correct? There are already the arrangements..we just don't allow all citizens equal access to them.
Special legal arrangements are not a basic secular freedom. Who said religion was the only reason for marriage? What are you talking about? If religion is the only reason to get married, then we should ban all civil unions, which is what a secular marriage really is, correct? There are already the arrangements..we just don't allow all citizens equal access to them.
We do allow all citizens equal access to marriage, but those who wish to marry anyone other than a member of the opposite sex are not meeting the qualifications of an actual marriage. A homosexual couple simply are not the same as a married couple and never could be, and are not really trying to be. If they wanted marriage, they would behave as heterosexuals, now wouldn't they? But they don't, so why do they want the bennies of actual marriage when they don't intend to actually marry, but only to have a harmful and perverse relationship, and ask me to endorse it via the officials of my duly elected government?
If homosexuals want to visit their partners in ICU or give them inheritance rights, then they should pursue these objectives without reference to sexuality. If Saluki wants her "wife" to visit her in ICU or inherit her half of the house, that is fine with me. The problem is that she and people like her want to do this on the basis of the fact that they are sleeping with the person in question. The law should not address this fact. If two life-long housemates who are not sleeping with each other want the same legal arrangement, should they be denied?
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 03, 2005, 06:45:56 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 03, 2005, 11:27:06 PM
As posed by SalukiFan. For the sake of brevity, I have shortened the term "homosexual" to "homo" in my responses. Take note I do this with all due respect and not as an insult.
What do you think is the cause of your heterosexuality?
It is obviously God-ordained, but we could go on forever discussing how God created two different sexes with different roles, and how their attraction and love for one another reflects the relationship between Christ and His chuch or even the relationships between the three Persons of the Trinity. Also, it brings about procreation.
When and how did you first decide to become a heterosexual?
Always have been. First noticed it at about four or five years.
Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you will grow out of?
No. It is the natural condition of mankind, which we are all born with.
Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
See my above answers. I think I fear pretty girls far more than any other type of person. (And I'm a guy, by the way.)
If you've never had sex with a person of the same sex, then how do you know it isn't for you? Is it possible all you really need is the right homosexual lover?
Well, it isn't for me, because homosexuality isn't for anyone. It's morally wrong. Even if I did enjoy such an experience, that fact would not change.
To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies?
My wife, maybe a few of my friends.
How did they react?
My wife married me, the rest had little reaction at all.
Why do heterosexuals insist on flaunting their sexuality?
Because of human sinful nature. Properly, folks should keep it to themselves. I don't know that homosexuals are quieter about it than we are.
Why can't you just keep it quiet?
What do you mean? If I said much at all about my sexuality, the wife would brain me. She's a better shot than I am, so I try to behave.
Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
As opposed to homosexuals who brave social ostracism and AIDS in order to have sex?
Why do heterosexuals feel the need to seduce others into their lifestyle?
I don't know about seducing, but most of us know, deep down, that it is best for you homo's to go straight.
Would you want your child to be a heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?
Such as?
A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual persons?
Can you flip this question around this way? If the question originally was prefaced by the statement that molesters are usually homo, then it is a bogus question.
With the high level of sexual harassment committed by heterosexuals, do you feel that heterosexuals should be barred from military service? If not, how should heterosexuals be dealt with to preserve unit cohesion and morale?
Same problem as above.
With the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the heterosexual population, do you feel that heterosexuality is unnatural, immoral, or perhaps, condemned by God?
See answer #1. I remained celibate until I married, and have used no intravenious drugs, so I am an especially low risk for STDs. Amarital sex and shooting-up must be the evil behavior you are looking for.
Considering the menace of overpopulation, how can the human race survive if heterosexuality is allowed to continue?
Saluki claims to have been asked a "gay counterpart" to this question. I wonder about that. However, we do know that underpopulation has become a problem in the West. Therefore, we need to begin marrying earlier, having more children, and treating abortion as murder.
More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. With all the societal support marriage receives, why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
I wonder about the "gay counterpart" to this question as well. Also I question the statistic. Even if true, it takes into account only current divorce rates (in America, or in the world at large, I don't know), without appreciating the stability of marriages throughout history. In any case, the answer is again human sin. Divorce is too easy and too socially acceptable. If custody were biased in favor of the father, fewer divorces would occur, and the children of divorces would fare better. Additionally, infidelity may be sharply curbed if young people never become accustomed to having sex without marriage. Alcoholism also plays a role, so drinking should be less socially acceptable. Most importantly, married people need a proper understanding of love, as found in Christian doctrine.
Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Do you feel that such a therapist would try to influence you in the direction of his or her leanings?
Therapist? What for? My heterosexuality was only a problem until I was able to healthfully express it in my relationship with my girlfriend/fiancee/wife.
How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality and fail to develop your natural, healthy, homosexual potential?
What?
There seem to be so few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed which might enable you to be cured if you really wanted to. Would you consider trying this therapy?
Before I met my wife - yes. Unfulfilled desire can be quite hard to deal with.
How soon can I expect my results?
Post by: SalukiFan on July 04, 2005, 01:37:45 AM
Quote from: fistful
Heterosexual Questionnaire
A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual persons?
Can you flip this question around this way? If the question originally was prefaced by the statement that molesters are usually homo, then it is a bogus question.
Some people associate child molestation with homosexuality and assume that a disproportionate number of child molesters are gay. However, research seems to point out that about 99% of children are molested by someone other than a gay or lesbian adult: Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994). Reference A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual persons?
Can you flip this question around this way? If the question originally was prefaced by the statement that molesters are usually homo, then it is a bogus question.
This has led some people to extrapolate that 99% of child molesters are heterosexual - thus explaining this question.
Quote from: fistful
With the high level of sexual harassment committed by heterosexuals, do you feel that heterosexuals should be barred from military service? If not, how should heterosexuals be dealt with to preserve unit cohesion and morale?
Same problem as above.
I think you are putting me on here Same problem as above.
The original "gay" questions was something like this, "With the possibility of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals sexually harassing men or women in their units, do you think that homosexuals and bisexuals should continued to be barred from military service to preserve unit cohesion and morale?" The irony here (if you missed it) was that right after there was a big hoopla about Clinton considering lifting the ban on gays in the military there was a huge scandal involving men sexually harassing women in the military and a subsequent cover up by the brass. Tailhook ring a bell?
Quote from: fistful
With the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the heterosexual population, do you feel that heterosexuality is unnatural, immoral, or perhaps, condemned by God?
See answer #1. I remained celibate until I married, and have used no intravenious drugs, so I am an especially low risk for STDs. Amarital sex and shooting-up must be the evil behavior you are looking for.
Yup, I couldn't agree with you more! I hate it when people confuse immoral and irresponsible behavior with responsible sexuality. See answer #1. I remained celibate until I married, and have used no intravenious drugs, so I am an especially low risk for STDs. Amarital sex and shooting-up must be the evil behavior you are looking for.
Quote from: fistful
Considering the menace of overpopulation, how can the human race survive if heterosexuality is allowed to continue?
Saluki claims to have been asked a "gay counterpart" to this question. I wonder about that. However, we do know that underpopulation has become a problem in the West. Therefore, we need to begin marrying earlier, having more children, and treating abortion as murder.
Look Fistful, believe me when I say I have been asked the "gay counterpart". Saluki claims to have been asked a "gay counterpart" to this question. I wonder about that. However, we do know that underpopulation has become a problem in the West. Therefore, we need to begin marrying earlier, having more children, and treating abortion as murder.
I have had multiple people with "I am a freshman in college and now know everything" disease ask me how the world would survive and propagate if everyone were gay.
1. I think that what they are going for here is a sociobiological argument that being "oriented" (or whatever term you'd like) towards people of the same-sex is biologically maladaptive. That kind of argument comes out of someone with a really limited understanding of biological epistemology in my opinion. Some scientists are now looking at animal populations and stipulating that having some individuals who do NOT have their own offspring is a benefit to the community at large. These individuals often act as helpmates to care for others in the animal society because are free to help the sick or orphaned because they are not totally occupied with their own offspring. Now isn't that interesting?
2. Plenty of gay and lesbian couples I know (especially lesbian couples) have children. Heck, I'm going to a gay family 4th of July picnic today - maybe I should count the number of children there and get back to you...
Quote from: fistful
More than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. With all the societal support marriage receives, why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
I wonder about the "gay counterpart" to this question as well.
Now you're really pulling my leg. People arguing against gay rights or homosexuality often cite instability of relationships or promiscuity among gays as "proof" that it's unhealthy, unnatural or immoral to be gay. For example:I wonder about the "gay counterpart" to this question as well.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Further, I would say the committed loving long-term homosexual couple is far more the exception than the rule (for males; females seem more prone to that). The average male homosexual has multiple times the number of partners the average heterosexual male does...It is therefore destructive to society in and of itself and must be opposed.
As BrokenPaw said in an earlier post, this is a case of secondary behaviors that are seen as associated with homosexuality being used to condemn homosexuality. The point of this question is to point out that just as pointing to bad behavior among opposite-sex couples does not invalidate heterosexuality itself, pointing to bad behavior among same-sex couples does not invalidate homosexuality.Quote from: fistful
How soon can I expect my results?
You got 'em.The reason that I posted the "heterosexual questionnaire" was to give an example of how the way that people frame their questions about sexuality can limit the answers that they get. Questions like these put the questioned person on the defensive from the start and IMO limit thoughtful discussion and empathy. The questionnaire might provoke thought from some or glib answers from others but I think it's an interesting tool for discussion of a sensitive topic.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 04, 2005, 02:02:31 AM
Quote from: Salukifan
As BrokenPaw said in an earlier post, this is a case of secondary behaviors that are seen as associated with homosexuality being used to condemn homosexuality. The point of this question is to point out that just as pointing to bad behavior among opposite-sex couples does not invalidate heterosexuality itself, pointing to bad behavior among same-sex couples does not invalidate homosexuality.
Fan, I don't believe that I'm putting things too harshly that there is a large difference. Some heterosexuals are promiscuous. Among male homosexuals, I believe that it is universal. There is no such thing as long-term homosexual monogamy. Since promiscuitiy is potentially fatal in our current era, I feel it is valid to point out that a choice of behavior such as homosexual acts leads one to life-threatening circumstances.S
Post by: The Rabbi on July 04, 2005, 03:54:10 AM
Quote
As BrokenPaw said in an earlier post, this is a case of secondary behaviors that are seen as associated with homosexuality being used to condemn homosexuality. The point of this question is to point out that just as pointing to bad behavior among opposite-sex couples does not invalidate heterosexuality itself, pointing to bad behavior among same-sex couples does not invalidate homosexuality
I dont believe this is a "secondary behavior" (whatever that is). I believe it is endemic to homosexuality to always be searching for the ultimate thing. Bad behavior by heterosexuals is not endemic to heterosexuality. We see many many couples who have been happily married for 30, 40, even 75 years.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 04, 2005, 05:31:16 AM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Quote from: Salukifan
As BrokenPaw said in an earlier post, this is a case of secondary behaviors that are seen as associated with homosexuality being used to condemn homosexuality. The point of this question is to point out that just as pointing to bad behavior among opposite-sex couples does not invalidate heterosexuality itself, pointing to bad behavior among same-sex couples does not invalidate homosexuality.
Fan, I don't believe that I'm putting things too harshly that there is a large difference. Some heterosexuals are promiscuous. Among male homosexuals, I believe that it is universal. There is no such thing as long-term homosexual monogamy. Since promiscuitiy is potentially fatal in our current era, I feel it is valid to point out that a choice of behavior such as homosexual acts leads one to life-threatening circumstances.Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont believe this is a "secondary behavior" (whatever that is). I believe it is endemic to homosexuality to always be searching for the ultimate thing. Bad behavior by heterosexuals is not endemic to heterosexuality. We see many many couples who have been happily married for 30, 40, even 75 years.
Okay, not that you'll believe it but here is a reference for you:MYTH #8: Gay, lesbians, and bisexual people cannot and do not want long-term relationships.
The stereotype is of the lonely gay man or woman drifting from one sexual liaison to another, never satisfied and never committed.
Studies have shown that between 40-60% of gay men are in steady relationships. These figures are probably higher because men in long term relationships tend to be older and less likely to go to bars, where these statistics were recorded.
Between 45-80% of lesbians are in steady relationships. In most studies, the proportion of lesbians in an on-going relationship was close to 75%.
It is hard to judge how long these partnerships last given the lack of marriage records. The few studies on older lesbians and gay men have shown that relationships lasting longer than 20 years are common.
Another study compared the rate of break-up between lesbian, gay, and co-habitating and married heterosexual couples over an 18 month period. For all couples who had been together for more than 10 years the rate of break-up was:
6% for lesbians,
4% for gay men,
4% for married couples.
For couples together for less than 2 years, only 1 in 5 relationships ended over the 18-month period. Overall the difference in break-up rates between homosexual and heterosexual couples is almost insignificant.
In general, a pattern of continuity and stability was seen in all the relationships.
...
MYTH #10: Gay men can not be monogamous.
A study of gay male couples indicated that only 20% of relationships were sexually open. Many of the other couples followed a wide variety of patterns -- as diverse as a similar survey of heterosexual couples indicated (Blasband & Peplau, 1985).
Another point that I would like to make is that differences in number of sexual partners has a lot more to do with gender than sexuality. Men (in general) want lots and lots of sex partners. Women (in general) tend to be more selective. Why do gay men have more sex partners that heterosexual men? Believe me, it's not because heterosexual men are inherently more faithful, moral, etc., it has a lot more to do with finding willing sex partners. Women are the barrier to straight men having more sex partners. For gay men, their sex partners generally have the same ideas and desires about sex so there's no problem there...
BTW, just curious Rabbi, where did you get ordained? YU, JTS? Just wondering...
Post by: The Rabbi on July 04, 2005, 06:15:59 AM
Quote
BTW, just curious Rabbi, where did you get ordained? YU, JTS? Just wondering...
Usually I have a disclaimer somewhere that I am not a rabbi but do play one on the internet. Maybe I didnt put that on my profile here. If I had actually gotten smicha (ordination) it probably would have been from NICS or MTJ, iow a pretty Orthodox place.The study is sort of misleading since it asked how many people were in a relationship now. that relationship could be 6 hours old or 6 years old. But you did aknowledge that. Your analysis of promiscuity among straight men vs gay men is probably right on the mark.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 04, 2005, 10:51:35 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote
BTW, just curious Rabbi, where did you get ordained? YU, JTS? Just wondering...
Usually I have a disclaimer somewhere that I am not a rabbi but do play one on the internet. Maybe I didnt put that on my profile here. If I had actually gotten smicha (ordination) it probably would have been from NICS or MTJ, iow a pretty Orthodox place.Quote from: The Rabbi
Your analysis of promiscuity among straight men vs gay men is probably right on the mark.
Thanks. The gender similarities are more striking than the sexuality differences in a number of ways. It's funny because I know that there is a stereotype that gay men are more "effeminate" or "like women" but in many ways they are like "Men Squared".
Post by: The Rabbi on July 04, 2005, 01:07:35 PM
Quote
Oh okay, I didn't realize because there wasn't much info on your APS profile. I'm familiar with MTJ but what is NICS? Didn't they approve my last handgun purchase?
You actually know what MTJ is? You must have some background somewhere.When I wrote NICS I was having a senior moment or daydreaming about guns. I meant NIRC.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 04, 2005, 03:28:04 PM
Toda raba, sir, for your well-balanced and thought-out input. I really appreciate it.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 04, 2005, 03:34:19 PM
Sorry if this gets a bit technical, but I felt the best way to address promisfcuity among practicing homosexual men (Again, Rabbi reminded me of the crucial difference between actions and the modern construct of "orientation", thanks for keeping me honest.) was to go more towards peer-reviewed documentation, as opposed to pamphlet wars.
Quote from: A Dean Byrd, PH.D., MBA, MPH
Promiscuity is not a myth among gay men. Gay author Gabriel Rotello noted that "Gay liberation was founded ... on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions" (p. 112). Rotello's perception finds support in the literature. Bell and Weinberg (1978) found that 75% of white, gay men had sex with more than 100 different males during their lifetime, 15% claimed to have had sex with 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed sex with 250-499 partners; 15% claimed 500-999 partners and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Subsequent to AIDS, instead of averaging six different partners per month, there was a decrease to four partners per month (McKusick, 1984). More recently. the CDC reports that from 1994 to 1997, the percentage of gay men reporting multiple partners and unprotected sex increased from 23.6% to 33.3%, with the largest increase among men under 25 (1999). In another CDC report. 30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive. Forty-six percent of the study participants had unprotected anal sex during the previous months, and less than 30 percent realized that they were infected (Sternberg, 2001).
While promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, recent Australian research reports that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (Price, 1996). It is interesting that 93% of lesbians reported a history of sex with men. Other research has been supportive (Ferris, 1996; Skinner & Stokes, 1996).
Monogamy is usually defined as sexual fidelity. Perhaps the most extensive study on sexual fidelity was conducted by Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994), who found that the vast majority of heterosexual couples were monogamous while the marriage was intact. Ninety-four percent of married couples and 75% of cohabiting couples had only one partner in the previous 12 months. In contrast sexual fidelity is so rare among gay men that a new term has been offered: "Monogamy without fidelity." Gay men who were coupled reported that they had sex with some one other than their partner in 66% of their relationships during the first year, rising to 90% if the relationship lasts for five years. In one study, 15% of gay men and 17.3% of lesbians had relationships that lasted for more than three years.
Another extensive study on homosexuality and monogamy was conducted by McWhirter and Mattison (1984), focusing on evaluating the quality and stability of long-term homosexual couplings. The study was actually undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves are a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist and the other a psychologist. After much searching, they were able to locate 156 couples who had been in relationships that had lasted from one to thirty-seven years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The results demonstrated that of the 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple capable of maintaining sexual fidelity for more than five years.
The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couple. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last "until death do us part," whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships would survive (p. 3).
McWhirter and Mattison (1984) admitted that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem and dependency. However, they believed that
the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10 year mark, is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256)
A more recent study published in the journal AIDS (2003) found that gay relationships last 1 1/2 years on the average and had an average of eight partners per year outside those relationships.
http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.htmlWhile promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, recent Australian research reports that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (Price, 1996). It is interesting that 93% of lesbians reported a history of sex with men. Other research has been supportive (Ferris, 1996; Skinner & Stokes, 1996).
Monogamy is usually defined as sexual fidelity. Perhaps the most extensive study on sexual fidelity was conducted by Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994), who found that the vast majority of heterosexual couples were monogamous while the marriage was intact. Ninety-four percent of married couples and 75% of cohabiting couples had only one partner in the previous 12 months. In contrast sexual fidelity is so rare among gay men that a new term has been offered: "Monogamy without fidelity." Gay men who were coupled reported that they had sex with some one other than their partner in 66% of their relationships during the first year, rising to 90% if the relationship lasts for five years. In one study, 15% of gay men and 17.3% of lesbians had relationships that lasted for more than three years.
Another extensive study on homosexuality and monogamy was conducted by McWhirter and Mattison (1984), focusing on evaluating the quality and stability of long-term homosexual couplings. The study was actually undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves are a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist and the other a psychologist. After much searching, they were able to locate 156 couples who had been in relationships that had lasted from one to thirty-seven years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The results demonstrated that of the 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple capable of maintaining sexual fidelity for more than five years.
The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couple. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last "until death do us part," whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships would survive (p. 3).
McWhirter and Mattison (1984) admitted that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem and dependency. However, they believed that
the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10 year mark, is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256)
A more recent study published in the journal AIDS (2003) found that gay relationships last 1 1/2 years on the average and had an average of eight partners per year outside those relationships.
I'm afraid both personal experience and documnation has left me feeling secure in my assertions about promiscuity among practicing gay males. This is simply not a standard that one sees among heterosexual couples. Among "straights" (I really don't like that term but for the sake of argument) monogamy is the nearly universal expectation in the institution of marriage. This is nearly opposite of the case for homosexual male unions, therefore it is difficult to see the legal endorsement of such unions as 'marriages'.
No one is saying that homosexuals should not be free to chose to act upon their age-appropriate desires. But again, we're not talking permission, we're talking approval, and society and individuals have the right to withhold the same.
Also, it goes a long way towards demonstrating the ability to disapprove based upon issues other than fear/hatred/blind intollerance, which is the original source of the thread.
Post by: grampster on July 04, 2005, 06:51:12 PM
Post by: SalukiFan on July 05, 2005, 06:32:51 AM
Quote from: Blackburn
I'm just going to gape at how gol-danged polite this is. Somewhere, a snowball is hurtling through hell.
Quote from: grampster
And I've come to expect nothing less from this group, Blackburn. Very interesting topic that has inflamatory written all over it. Very passionate but polite. Again, I salute ya'll.
I agree with you Blackburn and grampster - It's great to see such civility in action! Wonderful, thoughtful folks here on APS...As far as the information that you have given me above, it's a bit of a mixed bag. I agree that at least some of the information is from reliable, peer-reviewed studies (i.e. Bell and Weinberg, CDC) but some warning flags did go up when I read the piece you quoted.
To give an example, Byrd writes:
Quote from: A Dean Byrd, PH.D., MBA, MPH
"In another CDC report. 30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive. Forty-six percent of the study participants had unprotected anal sex during the previous months, and less than 30 percent realized that they were infected (Sternberg, 2001)."
If you look at the study he is quoting, you might see a problem:Quote from: CNN
The CDC survey was based on interviews with 2,401 gay men between the ages of 23 and 29 who were tested for HIV between 1998 and 2000. They were tested at parks, bars, clubs and other gay meeting places in Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Seattle, Washington; and New York City.
ReferenceIf he were citing statistics for a message board I would give him the benefit of the doubt but if he is expecting to be taken seriously by professional colleagues, he deserves to be seriously chastised for misrepresenting statistics. Is the statistic of HIV infection a startling 30% for young black men between the ages of 23-29 in urban areas? Yes. Based on this study can you say that a "CDC study" found that "30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive"? Of course not!
That would be like me saying that according to the a study by the Havard School of Public Health, half of all Americans have binged on alcohol in the past two weeks. Believe me when I say that this is either gross incompetence or academic dishonesty.
Also, I would like to point out that this is not the only statistic that taken out of context and twisted to prove Byrds point:
Quote from: A Dean Byrd, PH.D., MBA, MPH
While promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, recent Australian research reports that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (Price, 1996). It is interesting that 93% of lesbians reported a history of sex with men. Other research has been supportive (Ferris, 1996; Skinner & Stokes, 1996).
1. The first study in question was conducted in an Australian STD clinic. It was not a sample of the general lesbian population, only lesbians who had contracted STDs and sought treatment for them. This not the sample of the general lesbian population that Byrd treats it as. BTW, the 4.5 times figure comes from 9% of their STD clinic lesbians having 50+ partners versus 2% of heterosexual women just in case you got the impression that some huge percentage of lesbians (even in this sample) had been having sex with more than 50 men.2. I hate to say it, but I have worked with the homeless youth population and a huge percentage of them are GLBT youth. Many have been kicked out of their homes for being gay or ran away because of harassment at home or school. Like many homeless youth, GLBT youth, including lesbians, often use prostitution to get money, a place to sleep, food, drugs, etc. Its likely that some of the lesbians (perhaps most, if not all of the 9%) that they are treating in the STD clinic are current or former prostitutes, thus the 50+ male partners figure is not nearly as shocking when you consider that&
3. The second study (Ferris) is a study of lesbians with cervical neoplasia. Thats abnormal, cancerous or pre-cancerous cells on the cervix. HPV (a sexually transmitted infection) is the primary cause of over 99% of cases of cervical cancer. [/b] Reference Hmm, once again we are back to saying that lesbians with STDs represent the general lesbian population.
4. The third study he sites (Skinner et al) was published in, drumroll please&.Sexual Transmitted Infections! A fine publication Im sure but see my above points please.
I am a social scientist and I have published in a peer-review journal. I may not be an expert in all areas but I think you would agree with me when I say that it is professionally suspect of Byrd to misrepresent peer-reviewed data in a literature review.
I promise not to base my understandings of heterosexual sex practices and behaviors only on statistics from heterosexuals who are being treated for sexually transmitted diseases. I think its only fair to expect the same behavior from the researchers at NARTH.
As far as the Bell and Weinberg data goes it was ground-breaking at the time but it is from 1978! Marty Weinberg is a colleague and friend of mine. I have great respect for his work but you might need some more recent data if youre going to be drawing conclusions about what gay men are doing 27 years later, post-AIDS crisis.
I cant finish tearing apart Byrds lit review right now as I have to finish a report on a study I did but frankly, Im not impressed. Im just sorry that hes putting this out there where it can mislead the public&
Post by: griz on July 05, 2005, 06:36:31 AM
reasoning behind it)Back to the topic; I will point out that if one of your primary objections to homosexuality is the promiscuity, you should welcome gay marriage as a way to encourage monogamy. But all in all this thread has reinforced my belief that the state should get out of the marriage license business and leave that to the churches. Although not without its problems, I would prefer a system where the state decided inheritance, insurance benefits, etc, and the church decided whos marriage it would endorse.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 05, 2005, 07:28:01 AM
Quote from: griz
Back to the topic; I will point out that if one of your primary objections to homosexuality is the promiscuity, you should welcome gay marriage as a way to encourage monogamy.
That's an excellent point griz! It does seem like a logical course of action to me.Quote from: griz
But all in all this thread has reinforced my belief that the state should get out of the marriage license business and leave that to the churches. Although not without its problems, I would prefer a system where the state decided inheritance, insurance benefits, etc, and the church decided whos marriage it would endorse.
Seems fair to me!
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 05, 2005, 06:32:05 PM
I'm afraid that we must continue to disagree. Primarily I believe that I must ask you to consider whether or not you are applying a double-standard in research analysis towards those who advocate your positions and those whom you disagree with. And to be honest, I found your inclusion of quotation marks around researchers when speaking about the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality to be more than a little indicative of bias that undermines your subsequent evaluation. This is an association of licensed professionals who disagree with the current trends in the APA, and we are addressing their primary area of practice. Therefore I believe they are due a bit more consideration if your critiques are to be taken as objective and not reactionary. I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, I'm simply stating how I feel about the research and what I believe would be required to pursuade me. As you put it, that sends a large red flad up for me. I do not believe that Dr. Byrd's paper, nor my own posts, have made similar denigrations about homosexual activists. In fact, a number of the studies cited were done specifictally by the same.
If Dr. Byrd could have phrased some things more satisfactorally for you, well and good. However one of the first principles of analyzing a document is determining the source and target audience of the document. In thi8s case Dr. Byrd is addressing legal and sociological concerns regarding homosexual adoption. The passage I quoted above is a relative footnote comprising a minority of the paper's time and attention. As such, I'm wiling to give Dr. Byrd a little more leeway in this
I believe that a study covering 3 years, more than 2000 self-reporting individuals, and covers most of the major cities in our nation more than meets the requirements for Dr. Byrd's assessment. Also, my own research into this area has left me with the strong impression that the trend in the gay community is that of underreporting of HIV Positive status. So if I were to accept your argument (and I'm afraid I don't quite, but it did make me think) that the CDC study was not indicative of male sexuality in america given our currents rates of urbanization and "hot spots" among the gay community, it would seem logical to me to assume a higher rate and not a lower one.
To respond to your points:
Quote from: Salukifan
That would be like me saying that according to the a study by the Havard School of Public Health, half of all Americans have binged on alcohol in the past two weeks. Believe me when I say that this is either gross incompetence or academic dishonesty.
Perhaps, but then I must hold your assertions to your own standards. I, too, have done more than a few years with the underpriviledged in the inner-city, gang members etc. It seems vastly oversimplistic to relegate problems of homelessness as simply an issue of homophobic persecution. Are you saying that domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, and poverty have no impact upon the rates of homelessness in America? This seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.Also, I would say your analogy is taken a bit too far. It seems to me that it would be more like saying that half of all Americans who consumed alcohol engaged in binge drinking in the past two weeks. Working as a graveyard waiter around bar rushes, and living in a college town, I'd have to say that I find that statistic rather more believable. Also, that seems a more fit analogy for the data we're considering.
As far as the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV for short), I agree completely about its significance in the growing plague of cervical cancer among American women. However, I'm still not convinced that it is underreported. The first I was aware of it was a 1993 CDC report that indicated approximately 50% of sexually active women (in the study) were HPV positive by the end of their freshmen years of college. At first I found it absurd, and wondered if it were not hyperbole, until one day at work when 4 out of 10 of my female coworkers were DISCUSSING their own surgeries for HPV. If those are the rates for STD's among collegiate women, and statistically homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, is it logical to assume a worse or better scenario for STD's among the homosexual population?
I have to go to work, so I have to apologize that time restraints do not allow me the time to give your post the full attention that it deserves.
My closing thought is about statistical research in general. No research is capable of indicating rates and statistics outside of its sample. That is one reason why samples as large as possible are sought out. But it seems like a logical fallicy to ignore data that we DO have simply because it is not universal. And in the lack of contradicting indicators, we cannot dismiss said data. So while I concede your point that the studies did not include everyone who is a practicing homosexual or a lesbian, I cannot value an argument from silence over more concrete evidence.
Sorry that I don't have more time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 06, 2005, 08:06:16 PM
Saluki, I at first thought you posted the questionnaire just to demonstrate how absurd the traditional view on homosexuality must seem from your perspective. But you are correct that it can be a little bit eye-opening. I hope my answers have been, and will be, both glib and thoughtful.
In this post, as above, I have used the terms hetero and homo merely for convenience, intending no disrespect to homosexuals.
over- or under-population I still find it hard to believe you were asked such a question - just because it's so dumb!
Quote
how the world would survive and propagate if everyone were gay.
The next time you hear this one, tell them they are still too smart to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts. Theyll think its a compliment.Childless animals? Not sure what that has to do with homosexuals.
Homosexuals with children? Not sure what that means to our discussion.
unstable relationships I see what you are saying, now. Guess I didnt understand at first, because the instability of homosexual relationships really has little impact on our society. Broken marriages, however, often mean broken families, which leads to all manner of social ills. Another example of why homosexuality can never approximate an actual marriage.
sexually transmitted diseases
Quote
I hate it when people confuse immoral and irresponsible behavior with responsible sexuality.
And I hate it when people confuse homosexual sex with legitimate sexuality. I said that amarital sex spread STDs and homosexuality is by definition amarital. Im just trying to explain my position, not begging the question.heteros v. homos in pedophilia cases: Judging by the conversations between you and Bemidjiblade, you may be more qualified to discuss this point than I am. However, I did read the article you cited, (from a pro-homosexual website) and have some questions about it.
The statistic you cite was a study of 352 medical charts of molested children. Only two charts identified the molester as a gay or lesbian adult. Did the other charts list the sexual preference or history of the molester, or is heterosexuality just assumed? Could there have been 100 more molesters that carefully hid their orientation? Why would medical charts even list such an item?
But there is a larger, and glaring, flaw in the article. It takes great pains to convince us that a man who molests a boy is not necessarily a homosexual or a pedophile, and that in fact, a man who usually prefers women is not a homosexual. This axiom, which apparently descends from the gods on high, is used to butcher a study that apparently was effective in concluding a link between homosexual behavior and pedophilia. I must insist that anyone who engages in homosexual behavior, unless he forswears this activity, must be considered a homosexual. At the same time, the author is not troubled that a fifteen-year old molested by an adult may be called a child, when a sexual attraction to a teenager is obviously much different than a sexual attraction to a child. So, when a fifteen-year old boy is seduced by a man, this is not homosexuality at all, but pedophilia. Absurd.
Another of the studies purports to show that homo men are no more aroused by children than are hetero men, but,
Quote
all of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners.
I dont know if this invalidates the study, but it sure seems likely to weed out any of the potential child molesters in the group. How many heteros and how many homos were turned away because they did NOT prefer adults? That comparison might tell us something.I don't know if homosexuals are more likely to molest kids, but I do know that such flawed and slanted reasoning looks suspiciously like a snowjob.
homosexuality in the military: Theres really no irony here. The government was addressing one type of wrong behavior when another type of wrong behavior also grabbed headlines. Heterosexual harassment, by the way, would probably decline if the military was less integrated on gender lines; that is, if the military didnt attempt to post men and women in places where one of the sexes doesnt belong. You seem to view this controversy as one of heteros fearing harassment by homos. While this may be part of the problem (both the harassment and the fear) gay-bashing is probably a bigger reason for the militarys proscription of open homosexuality. In other words, it in no way helps the military to have soldiers assault or simply persecute other soldiers, and excluding homosexuals has been the easiest way to deal with this. Besides this, AIDS was still new to most people, and the possibility of battlefield wounds passing on the disease was a major concern. The militarys major complaint about homosexuals, however was unit cohesion. Many soldiers just wont work well with them.
When I arrived in Fort Hood, Texas, fresh from Basic, (1997) some members of my Mechanized Infantry company were a bit confused by my virginity. I dont remember how it came up, but I guess in an all-male military unit, guys like to compare scores and exploits and such. Anyway, one large, lantern-jawed corporal wanted to know if I liked dudes. I was a little confused, bewildered, and just didnt know how to respond to something I dont remember being asked before. Where I come from, homosexuality is so rarely heard of its just not that often discussed. A sergeant eventually had to stop him from asking me such questions.
Later, I met a medic from our headquarters company. He was a slightly built fellow, with a Hispanic name and swarthy complexion, all topped by a thin moustache and huge glasses. He had spent part of his life in Israel, and was a devout Messianic Jew. He also liked to dance, apparently in some traditional Jewish style. All fine and dandy, but he was very effeminate. This had caused him problems all his life, he said, and he never felt welcome in various churches that he attended, because everyone thought he was a homosexual. The same was true in the military. I tried to be nice to him, and be his friend, but I just didnt like being around him all that much, and not all because of his effeminacy. To be honest, I did shy away from him in part so as not to be the subject of rumors and speculation. Both in Fort Hood and in Bosnia, the mere suspicion of homosexuality was a problem.
These two examples dont prove anything. In fact, there are no homosexuals involved in them. But since I lived them, they are evidence to me of the damaging effect of homosexuality, or even the appearance of it, on unit cohesion.
Post by: grampster on July 06, 2005, 08:18:04 PM
I have been following the thread and the argument. Here's what bothers me.
1. Why do folks argue about subjects about which they will never change their position? Think of all the beer drinking time is wasted in the above.
2. What sort of a usefull life is it to become an expert at refuting evidence that will change no ones mind? (Think of all the beer drinking...uhhh well)
3. Why did you find it necessary to explain your need to diminish two words to abbreviations? (Oops the subject just changed.)
4. Why do they need to be abbreviated in the first place? (Do you begin to wonder whether you are in the "Twilight Zone"?
Post by: Guest on July 07, 2005, 09:50:38 AM
Quote from: griz
.. It sounded to me as if you thought my statement was fallacious, ....
This is correct. No harm done.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 08, 2005, 05:19:14 PM
Quote
This is a great discussion. It's not only civil, I'm learning things! griz, post # 76
I'll start with that, gramps. I am learning stuff, myself. Quote
1. Why do folks argue about subjects about which they will never change their position?
2. What sort of a useful life is it to become an expert at refuting evidence that will change no ones mind?
Good questions. I probably do spend too much time on this stuff. However, my professional goal is to get paid to argue about political and social issues. (At a think tank, or some other institution, I suppose.) So, obviously, I believe it is a useful life. Im afraid I just cant let people make wrong-headed statements without setting the record straight. 2. What sort of a useful life is it to become an expert at refuting evidence that will change no ones mind?
Whether you call them arguments, debates or discussions, they can be very helpful. I don't think any of us will change any of our fundamental beliefs because of this discussion. However, we did gain a better understanding of various issues, and a better understanding of our opponents position. Hopefully, some of the homosexuals or sympathizers who participated in or read this thread learned why people like myself resent the use of the term homophobe. I began this thread with a very specific question. It soon became a discussion on the nature of homosexuality and morality in general, marriage, the proper role of government, and even the existence of God. On the original question, I intended to make people think about a word we often hear, because I think it affects the way we think about that issue. I think it is highly likely someone could change their mind about that little matter of rhetoric. On the larger points, of course, that is less likely.
An important part of this kind of interchange, to me, is that I can test my ideas. I put them out there for consideration, and they are ruthlessly refuted, forcing me to think about why I believe the things I do. For example, I wrote my Secular Argument Against Homosexual Marriage a few months ago, but it was only through this thread that I realized that civil unions might be acceptable, if they are totally unconnected with sex.
Quote
3. Why did you find it necessary to explain your need to diminish two words to abbreviations? (Oops the subject just changed.)
4. Why do they need to be abbreviated in the first place? (Do you begin to wonder whether you are in the "Twilight Zone"?
I abbreviated the words because I dont like the repetition of long, latinny words. Sounds too dryly academic. I explained myself, because the term homo is usually an insult aimed at a heterosexual, in my experience. I was afraid it would be too much like using the word *Not nice word for gay men*. 4. Why do they need to be abbreviated in the first place? (Do you begin to wonder whether you are in the "Twilight Zone"?
I do not use the word gay because I am tired of surrendering fine words to the more sordid segments of society. Gay, tit, ass, cock: all are fine words that I should like to use, if perverts had not twisted them into something dirty.
Gay: happy
Bitch: female dog
Cock: male bird, especially a rooster
Tit: the mammary gland of an animal (but not the same as a human female breast)
ass: a donkey
Pussy: a cat
Puss: slang for face
Im sure I could think of more, but Ive gone off topic enough.
Post by: Guest on July 11, 2005, 05:24:17 AM
Quote from: cordex
mercedes,
Do you really accept any one morality as just as good as any other? Or is yours "better", but you realize that others will have their own ideas?
If you believe that no one can be held accountable to any standard for their actions since not everyone will agree on what is moral, do you also believe that all punishment (from fines to jail to execution) is wrong? After all, you wouldn't want to force your opinion on someone else, would you?
But if you believe that there is something inherently wrong with torturing and murdering a child then we're back to at least some form of morality that governs human interaction. Where you think that comes from, and the specifics of what it says about buggery are immaterial.
First off let's please not pull the strawmen out for this discussion. Your analogy seems inflamatory to push a point, at least to me. Do you really accept any one morality as just as good as any other? Or is yours "better", but you realize that others will have their own ideas?
Quote
I still believe that morality is an opinion. Some here disagree and think that their morals are right and dissenters are insane.
Okay ... so in your opinion is someone who likes to smack kids around with the owie-side of a running lawnmower until they're just smears on the grass just as sane as you or I? And are his activities are just as "moral" as the guy across town who is using his mower for the decidedly less bloody purposes of trimming his lawn since both think what they're doing is "right"?If you believe that no one can be held accountable to any standard for their actions since not everyone will agree on what is moral, do you also believe that all punishment (from fines to jail to execution) is wrong? After all, you wouldn't want to force your opinion on someone else, would you?
But if you believe that there is something inherently wrong with torturing and murdering a child then we're back to at least some form of morality that governs human interaction. Where you think that comes from, and the specifics of what it says about buggery are immaterial.
I cannot agree that absolutes in morality exist; for all comparisons context will determine morality of actions IMHO. The Lawnmower example sounds pretty absolute and irrefutable until you mention that those children were holding a gun to the guy with the lawnmower. Or maybe your wife killer had conspired with his spouse to kill her, in order to raise the money for an open heart surgery that their child must have to live. While your still on the murder is immoral side, possibly you can see where the slippery slope begins from here.
Black is only black until you find something darker, then it's just a darker shade of grey.
Of course this is all sort of OT. In regards to Homophobe, I would say that while it is somewhat overused now, it's still pretty valid. Adulterers have not been assaulted and tormented, where homosexuals have. Expression doesn't make a difference in this case. I have not heard a case where a "Gay Basher" has asked the victim if they are sexually active. Simply being gay tends to be enough to villify someone, regardless of wether they may be celibate. Keep in mind being a homosexual in the closet also means that you can never mention what you think is attractive. So, if your standing around the water cooler (or wherever) and one of the guys mentions how hot the new employee is, you would just have to stand there and keep quiet.
A classic case of Homophobia would be Fred Phelps (reverend), here is someone who took the opportunity to extend hate, by using a very sad incident. He has used his fame to incite hatred, and to urge people to violence. I cannot think of a better example of someone showing a strong fear, dislike, or aversion for something.
The rest of the people that feel that it is appropriate for someone to have less rights, because they don't conform to their morality, are just sexualists. Or maybe they are promoting sexualism?
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 11, 2005, 08:51:51 AM
Quote
Adulterers have not been assaulted and tormented
I'm sorry, but you'll have to reconsider that example. Go get in bed with your neighbor's spouse, and wait until the neighbor comes home. You might change your mind.Quote
one of the guys mentions how hot the new employee is, you would just have to stand there and keep quiet.
How terrible. I really don't understand why you bring this up. Why should guys casually discuss the attractiveness of every female that walks by? I am one hetero guy that has never liked it. If you mean that we should all have the right to express ourselves, I suppose I agree with you. However, there are certain behaviors society won't approve of, and are therefore dangerous to express. Homosexuality ought to be one of them, but that is where we disagree, I suppose.In closing, I certainly do promote sexualism, or heterosexism, or whatever you will call it. But homosexual marriage is not a right, it's an unreasonable demand.
Post by: Guest on July 11, 2005, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: fistful
Ego,
This nearly proves that you don't really want to understand. He, of course, meant assault by third-party yokels, not cuckholded spouses.Quote
Adulterers have not been assaulted and tormented
I'm sorry, but you'll have to reconsider that example. Go get in bed with your neighbor's spouse, and wait until the neighbor comes home. You might change your mind.Quote
Quote
one of the guys mentions how hot the new employee is, you would just have to stand there and keep quiet.
How terrible. I really don't understand why you bring this up. Why should guys casually discuss the attractiveness of every female that walks by? I am one hetero guy that has never liked it. If you mean that we should all have the right to express ourselves, I suppose I agree with you.Quote
However, there are certain behaviors society won't approve of, and are therefore dangerous to express. Homosexuality ought to be one of them, but that is where we disagree, I suppose.
By "dangerous to express" I guess you mean "open season on attacking the person". What are some of the other behaviors that warrant an asswhup?MR, 62-yr.-old, married, near-atheist grandfather.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 11, 2005, 04:33:28 PM
Quote
Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so:
For the record, I can simplify your breakdown of human physiology:There are "in" holes.
There are "out" holes.
As a good Lutheran, I certainly know the difference, as does my wife.
But I refuse to be labeled as a homophobe. I'm not afraid of 'em, hell, I'd love to have Christopher Lowell redecorate my home. In my heart of hearts, I feel it's wrong. I don't persecute, I don't crusade, I don't even tell off-color jokes about upside-down barstools seating four each. I simply believe what I believe, and appreciate if they don't try to force their beliefs upon me. Live and let live.
Nor will I accept being painted into a corner because my beliefs, faith-based or otherwise, make me choose an orientation that's not gonna get me a part as the cast on Queer Eye.
Although, I noticed it's rather trendy to declare one's homosexuality over the last several years. Helen Degeneres got her own show, right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 11, 2005, 07:12:56 PM
Quote
By "dangerous to express" I guess you mean "open season on attacking the person".
No, that's not what I mean. Do not twist my words.Quote
I cannot agree that absolutes in morality exist; for all comparisons context will determine morality of actions
So you do not disapprove of Fred Phelps for his actions? And do you also reject the notion of equal rights, as these are moral constructs which may be tailor-made to each individual? Quote
The Lawnmower example sounds pretty absolute and irrefutable until you mention that those children were holding a gun to the guy with the lawnmower. Or maybe your wife killer had conspired with his spouse to kill her, in order to raise the money for an open heart surgery that their child must have to live. While your still on the murder is immoral side, possibly you can see where the slippery slope begins from here.
In the first example, you have changed the situation. Cordex was talking about: Quote
someone who likes to smack kids around with the owie-side of a running lawnmower.
In the second example, you have only ascribed different motives to what is still an immoral, illegal act (murder/suicide and fraud). We will keep looking for the slippery slope. The more I reflect on adultery and homosexuality, the more similarities I see.
Both are believed to be wrong by the majority of humans, even many who practice them.
Both are forbidden by most religious and ethical systems.
Both are punishable by death in the Hebrew law.
Both are proscribed by the Christian scriptures.
Both are illegal, more or less, in the military.
Both are legal for civilians in the United States.
Both can make you an outcast.
Though both are potentially sexual unions, neither homosexuality nor adultery is legally the same as a marriage.
Of course, adultery is like bank-robbery. Most of us can understand the urge to do it; but we wouldnt, because of the consequences. Homosexuality, though (bear with me), is like pedophilia, in that most people dont even understand how someone could do it, or why. I dont mean to say that one is as bad as the other, but we do persecute people for other unusual sexual behaviors: incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution. Consider the lowly child molester; forced to register his name in a list of shame, sometimes murdered in prison simply for his offense. Naturally, he has done something far worse than homosexuality. Then again, what if the child was 17? In any case, it is a fact of human nature that certain sexual practices are especially stigmatizing. Prostitutes are scorned in our culture, but in many places, just being found alone with a man can get a girl killed.
Post by: Stetson on July 12, 2005, 05:44:46 AM
Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/ = Consenting adults
Pedophilia = adult and a child that cannot consent.
There is a BIG difference.
Post by: Guest on July 12, 2005, 07:13:55 AM
Quote from: fistful
Ego,
In closing, I certainly do promote sexualism, or heterosexism, or whatever you will call it. But homosexual marriage is not a right, it's an unreasonable demand.
I was saying that if I was to say I was an Adulterer in most places of the world, that would not get me beaten to death. On the other hand if I state that i'm a homosexual, I have a resonable chance of getting killed in some places. It really doesn't have much to do with actions, as it does a state of being. Keep in mind someone can be a homosexual and be celibate, it's a matter of what they find attractive. technically someone could be a homosexual and an adulterer, but if you go to that end we are likely all adulterers as god doesn't see a diference between the thought and the action, correct?Quote
Adulterers have not been assaulted and tormented
I'm sorry, but you'll have to reconsider that example. Go get in bed with your neighbor's spouse, and wait until the neighbor comes home. You might change your mind.Quote
one of the guys mentions how hot the new employee is, you would just have to stand there and keep quiet.
How terrible. I really don't understand why you bring this up. Why should guys casually discuss the attractiveness of every female that walks by? I am one hetero guy that has never liked it. If you mean that we should all have the right to express ourselves, I suppose I agree with you. However, there are certain behaviors society won't approve of, and are therefore dangerous to express. Homosexuality ought to be one of them, but that is where we disagree, I suppose.In closing, I certainly do promote sexualism, or heterosexism, or whatever you will call it. But homosexual marriage is not a right, it's an unreasonable demand.
Obviously the attractive worker example was just that, an example. You could fill in hundreds on non offensive topics into that situation. Use "discussing our wives favorite meal to cook", if you prefer. or whatever you would like. The point is you cannot discuss your life, in many aspects.
Personally, my opinion is that marriage should not be a state sanctioned contract. It is a religous institution, and as part of religion should be seperate from the state. I don't see why being married should give people tax or any other state benefit, even if I take advantage of it.
That goes along with my opinions that the government has far, far overstepped it's bounderies in terms of what it regulates.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 12, 2005, 07:51:00 AM
Please go past that distintion, since fistful clearly stated that he was not placing the two behaviors on a plateau of moral equivalence. What he was doing was demonstrating that both behaviors are outside of the realms of the average human being's inclinations. Therefore they have a difficult time having any compassion/understanding for the behavior. Many people believe that both behaviors are wrong.
When someone does something that one believes is wrong, and it is something one cannot understand the motivations for, it is easier to de-humanize those who commit such behaviors. Once someone has been dehumanizted, violence, hatred and other crimes against them become possible.
True homophobia, the hatred that Phelps embodies and that I condemn, seems to stem from this same idea. The "average" or shall we for the sake of argument say, the "typical" American does not feel same-sex attractions on any regular or insistant basis. The men I've spoken with feel very uncomfortable, even fearful at the idea that such a foreign interest might be directed at them. A psychologist I know put it well: "Anger is never the first emotion. It is always born of hurt or fear." And it has indeed been my experience that admissions of how uncomfortable homosexual attraction makes men are followed by comments like, "If someone were lookng at me like that, I'd bust his face."
I've seen this entirely too often, or heard it voiced, to try and deny its existence. This sort of emotional chain reaction lies behind a great deal of darkness in human history.
That being said, there is a significant differeince between the reaction I have just described, and disapproval of homosexuality as a behavior.
Homophobia says, "I fear this, it makes me feel uncomfortable and unknown, so I will lash out in anger to drive it away."
Informed disapproval says, "I do not believe that this is what's best for the individual, the couple, or society."
Taking it back to the original threat topic, these are vastly, vastly different stances. One is fearful of the behavior to the point of hating the individual. The other values the wellbeing of society and the individual above the behavior.
Post by: Guest on July 12, 2005, 08:34:31 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
>>Snip<<
For my moral code, I cannot accept Phelp's method's. But that is why I say moral absolutes is not something I believe exist; because what he does may be perfectly acceptable to others.Quote
I cannot agree that absolutes in morality exist; for all comparisons context will determine morality of actions
So you do not disapprove of Fred Phelps for his actions? And do you also reject the notion of equal rights, as these are moral constructs which may be tailor-made to each individual?Quote from: fistful
Quote
The Lawnmower example sounds pretty absolute and irrefutable until you mention that those children were holding a gun to the guy with the lawnmower. Or maybe your wife killer had conspired with his spouse to kill her, in order to raise the money for an open heart surgery that their child must have to live. While your still on the murder is immoral side, possibly you can see where the slippery slope begins from here.
In the first example, you have changed the situation. Cordex was talking about: Quote
someone who likes to smack kids around with the owie-side of a running lawnmower.
In the second example, you have only ascribed different motives to what is still an immoral, illegal act (murder/suicide and fraud). We will keep looking for the slippery slope.Quote from: fistful
The more I reflect on adultery and homosexuality, the more similarities I see.
Both are believed to be wrong by the majority of humans, even many who practice them.
Both are forbidden by most religious and ethical systems.
Both are punishable by death in the Hebrew law.
Both are proscribed by the Christian scriptures.
Both are illegal, more or less, in the military.
Both are legal for civilians in the United States.
Both can make you an outcast.
>>SNIP<<
Your using Christian, Hebrew, Islamic doctrine as a basis for your argument? Do you follow all of the scriptures in the Old Testament or the Torah? as an atheist why should I be forced to conform to the laws of a religion. Would you like it to be illegal to eat pigs meat, because it is unclean?Both are believed to be wrong by the majority of humans, even many who practice them.
Both are forbidden by most religious and ethical systems.
Both are punishable by death in the Hebrew law.
Both are proscribed by the Christian scriptures.
Both are illegal, more or less, in the military.
Both are legal for civilians in the United States.
Both can make you an outcast.
>>SNIP<<
Quote from: fistful
Though both are potentially sexual unions, neither homosexuality nor adultery is legally the same as a marriage.
Of course, adultery is like bank-robbery. Most of us can understand the urge to do it; but we wouldnt, because of the consequences. Homosexuality, though (bear with me), is like pedophilia, in that most people dont even understand how someone could do it, or why. I dont mean to say that one is as bad as the other, but we do persecute people for other unusual sexual behaviors: incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution. Consider the lowly child molester; forced to register his name in a list of shame, sometimes murdered in prison simply for his offense. Naturally, he has done something far worse than homosexuality. Then again, what if the child was 17? In any case, it is a fact of human nature that certain sexual practices are especially stigmatizing. Prostitutes are scorned in our culture, but in many places, just being found alone with a man can get a girl killed.
Of course, adultery is like bank-robbery. Most of us can understand the urge to do it; but we wouldnt, because of the consequences. Homosexuality, though (bear with me), is like pedophilia, in that most people dont even understand how someone could do it, or why. I dont mean to say that one is as bad as the other, but we do persecute people for other unusual sexual behaviors: incest, bestiality, bigamy, prostitution. Consider the lowly child molester; forced to register his name in a list of shame, sometimes murdered in prison simply for his offense. Naturally, he has done something far worse than homosexuality. Then again, what if the child was 17? In any case, it is a fact of human nature that certain sexual practices are especially stigmatizing. Prostitutes are scorned in our culture, but in many places, just being found alone with a man can get a girl killed.
Preacherman- does your in/out anatomy argument apply farther? I mean the mouth is only meant for food, and communication. Breasts are only meant for nursing young. As soon as you qualify that anatomy can only be used for it's intended purpose, you may lose some supporters.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 12, 2005, 08:59:58 AM
Quote from: Ego_archive
Your using Christian, Hebrew, Islamic doctrine as a basis for your argument? Do you follow all of the scriptures in the Old Testament or the Torah? as an atheist why should I be forced to conform to the laws of a religion. Would you like it to be illegal to eat pigs meat, because it is unclean?
Do you have any idea how overly simplistic and tired that argument is? It didn't impress me when I heard it on television in the mid 80's on some made for TV movie. If you'd actually bothered to look into Judeo-Christian application of the Torah, I think you'd find that there are several different KINDS of rules. There were rules that were about ritual cleanliness that had to do with priestly duties as well as an unbelievably effective formula for controlling disease in a primitive society (undercooked pork is REALLY bad for you). There are rules that had to do with the legal codes of a nation, the same as any other nation would have (the forumae for redressing grievances, cities of refuge, etc). Then there are moral teachings, which are absolute, for all times, all places, and all peoples. If you can't be bothered to learn the distinctions, please don't waste our time with wild ideas. You're only proving that you criticize what you have not studied and/or have not understood. While I have a bit of disappointed respect for those who study a position and reject it, you don't seem to have bothered to do the homework required to create an informed opinion on the matter.As far as the proscriptions against homosexuality in Scripture, they occur BEFORE the law is given (Genesis), while the law is given, and continue after the law is given (all the way through the Rabbi known by Christians as St. Paul saying that it is immoral fully 1500 years later). Sexual immorality (homosexuality included) is condemned in Christian texts that specifically exclude dietary restrictions like the one you mention (It may be painful for you to read romans, but hey, look at it as "know thine enemy" or something). And if you'd take the time to read the context of the proscriptions, you'd see that it refers to natural order "Abomination" meaning contrary to nature, is the actual english translation I find most often. If it were simply a purity ritual, then there'd be washing, a sacrifice, a required offering or time of withdrawal as is found with other cleanliness codes such as skin diseases, mildew, or nocturnal emissions.
Quote from: EGO
It comes down to whether the action harms another. Adultery harms another, much like pedophilia. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone else, as it is 2 consenting adults.
Adultery and pedophilia are both harmful. There are those, myself included, who do not agree that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone else. I believe that it is medically harmful, associated with greater rates of chemical abuse, associated with higher rates of violence, shorter length of committed relationships, higher rates of promiscuity, and ultimately social and emotional ostracism by society at large.Quote from: Ego
Preacherman- does your in/out anatomy argument apply farther? I mean the mouth is only meant for food, and communication. Breasts are only meant for nursing young. As soon as you qualify that anatomy can only be used for it's intended purpose, you may lose some supporters.
You ever get a yeast infection of the throat because of oral sex? How about impacted bowels? Have you ever had to type up the physical report on a woman with a venerial disease in her armpit? I have. Medically, there's not a lot wrong with mutual masturbation, my moral objections to homosexuality aside, but many, many other commonly practiced homosexual activities "barebacking" for example, are about as healthy as wiping your own stool in your eyeball.Edited Post Script: Rabbi and other members of the Jewish community, please forgive me if I've misconstrued anything. I can only discuss the Torah in the regards to my best understanding, and I've done my best to be responsible about it.
Post by: Guest on July 12, 2005, 11:59:18 AM
1> nice that you discount my argument out of hand, by trying to paint me as uniformed. In fact I have more then a little knowledge of religion. I'm really not interested in making this a penis sizing debate about how well we are informed regarding religion, but rest assured that I have a relatively good grasp of religions.
The point was you don't get to pick and choose which apply when you use them in an argument. If your going to blanket statement, that something is not acceptable because it doesn't follow "God's edicts", then you need to apply that across the board. A tired argument isn't bad if no one has resonably discounted it, which you have not. In fact these distinctions you discuss, are something that has risen within the recent history, and do not bear on the discussion.
your discussion of seperated refrences is faulty, as sexual immoralities is listed with other immorality's, and they are all considered abominations (Lev 18:26) including profaning God's name. Please don't use Romans to pull an isolated argument. First off Roman's is a letter from Paul, not God's words made manifest through another. Wether Paul is writing by divine inspiration, is something of a debate, and not really worth getting into here. And you are referencing a statement (Romans 1:24-27) of course just a little farther down, he mentions that greed, envy, Boastfulness, Rebellion against your parents and a whole slew of other things are all practices that deserve death. Romans 1 is more of a setup for later passages anyhow, in 2 Paul starts out by saying, that if you are judging others of their sins, and performing sin too, you will be judged in accordance. To me Romans seems to speak more of acknoledging that you are a sinnier, and that only through Gods redemption will the sin be absolved. I could go on if you like, but frankly we have progessed so far off topic, as to really need a different thread if we wanted to continue discussing this aspect.
2>Your really going to need to produce facts to support that little argument. you can say that ;something is medically harmful without having supporting evidence. Everything I have seen regarding anal sex has stated that the biggest issue you would see in a normal homosexual male that practices safe sex could be hemerroids, and many hetrosexual people get those. Attributing chemical abuse, and violence to homosexuality is silly. It may be found in higher in homosexual cultures, but it is also found higher in inner city youth. Should we deny inner city you rights because of those statistics? Maybe 18-21 year old black men shouldn't be allowed to marry?
3> Yeast infection? I know many hetrosexual people that have had oral yeast infections, and/or herpes. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Impacted bowels? again hetero's get this too. In fact your more likely to get this from constipation, which can be caused by unhealthy eating habits. I can't actually find any study indicating a higher occurence of impacted bowels among the gay male populace, but maybe I'm missing it? you cite Barebacking, but frankly any unprotected sex outside of monogamy is inherently dangerous. Many heterosexual males bareback, in fact they possibly perform anal sex "bareback", should they be denied rights for their unsafe practices?
there aren't many many homosexual practices, there are some sexual practices that when performed by homosexuals or heterosexuals are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and personal harm.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 12, 2005, 12:58:31 PM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Salukifan,
I'm afraid that we must continue to disagree. Primarily I believe that I must ask you to consider whether or not you are applying a double-standard in research analysis towards those who advocate your positions and those whom you disagree with.
Hi Bemidjiblade,I'm afraid that we must continue to disagree. Primarily I believe that I must ask you to consider whether or not you are applying a double-standard in research analysis towards those who advocate your positions and those whom you disagree with.
Yes, I think we will continue to disagree but thats fine. I think dialogue is important and Ive learned quite a bit about the objections that people have to homosexuality.
I appreciate your concern that I might be applying a double-standard in research analysis but I assure you that I dislike shoddy science from any perspective. To give an example, I roll my eyes whenever I see someone from the gay advocacy side claim Kinsey found 10% of the population was gay. That is good example of the same kind of misrepresentation of statistics on the pro-gay side.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
If Dr. Byrd could have phrased some things more satisfactorally for you, well and good. However one of the first principles of analyzing a document is determining the source and target audience of the document. In thi8s case Dr. Byrd is addressing legal and sociological concerns regarding homosexual adoption. The passage I quoted above is a relative footnote comprising a minority of the paper's time and attention. As such, I'm wiling to give Dr. Byrd a little more leeway in this.
The main focus of the article is homosexual adoption but I think calling this part of his article a footnote is misleading. It is not a footnote, it is located in the middle of a section of the paper called Mental Health, Physical Health, Stability of Homosexual Men and Women and Longevity of Homosexual Relationships. It is part of his overall argument that homosexuals, lesbians in this case, are unfit for parenting. Plus, I did not know that misrepresenting statistics in any part of a research article was okay.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Quote from: Salukifan
That would be like me saying that according to a study by the Havard School of Public Health, half of all Americans have binged on alcohol in the past two weeks. Believe me when I say that this is either gross incompetence or academic dishonesty.
Perhaps, but then I must hold your assertions to your own standards&.Also, I would say your analogy is taken a bit too far. It seems to me that it would be more like saying that half of all Americans who consumed alcohol engaged in binge drinking in the past two weeks. Working as a graveyard waiter around bar rushes, and living in a college town, I'd have to say that I find that statistic rather more believable. As far as the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV for short), I agree completely about its significance in the growing plague of cervical cancer among American women. However, I'm still not convinced that it is underreported. The first I was aware of it was a 1993 CDC report that indicated approximately 50% of sexually active women (in the study) were HPV positive by the end of their freshmen years of college. At first I found it absurd, and wondered if it were not hyperbole, until one day at work when 4 out of 10 of my female coworkers were DISCUSSING their own surgeries for HPV. If those are the rates for STD's among collegiate women, and statistically homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, is it logical to assume a worse or better scenario for STD's among the homosexual population?
Quote from: A Dean Byrd, PH.D., MBA, MPH
"In another CDC report. 30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive.
30 percent of ALL gay black men? Im sure that the all was a typo right? Maybe he was just sleepy or distracted when he wrote that passage, (which might explain the mistaken punctuation and the poor sentence construction) but that is a serious, serious error. Okay, lets look at some general population statistics for binge drinking and general drinking:
Quote from: Reuters
Sixty percent of U.S. adults drink alcohol and up to 20 percent are binge drinkers, according to a new comprehensive report of American habits and vices released Wednesday.
ReferenceQuote from: US Department of Health and Human Services website
Approximately 35 percent of adult Americans do not drink alcohol, with one in four being a lifelong abstainer (NIAAA, 1997).[url=http://www.health.gov/DietaryGuidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D8_Ethanol.htm/]Reference
One of the reasons that I picked the binge drinking statistic is because it sounds so believable. The statistic is taken from a real report but misinterpreted by being generalized from a high-risk population to a general population. Make sense?It took me only about 30 minutes of research to uncover serious methodological issues and misinterpretation of statistics in just one small snippet of Byrds research. This is not the kind of research that I would base decisions and policies on&
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Have you ever had to type up the physical report on a woman with a venerial disease in her armpit? I have.
Wow, that restaurant you work at sounds pretty wild! J/K but please tell me that your other job is medical in nature? (http://www.health.gov/DietaryGuidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D8_Ethanol.htm/)
Post by: Preacherman on July 12, 2005, 04:00:22 PM
Quote
Preacherman- does your in/out anatomy argument apply farther? I mean the mouth is only meant for food, and communication. Breasts are only meant for nursing young. As soon as you qualify that anatomy can only be used for it's intended purpose, you may lose some supporters.
Ego_archive, I don't think your analogy holds. There are many parts of the body that are use-specific: some of them may be safely used for other purposes, while others pose significant health risks if used for anything else. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that the eyes are intended for anything other than seeing, or the ears for anything other than viewing: but to kiss the eyes or ears of a loved one, as a gesture of love and affection, is commonplace. The latter is not using the eyes or ears for anything inappropriate to their purpose: they simply happen to be sensitive and important parts of the body that are accessible for actions of affection, and those actions don't pose any sort of health risk in the process If, while kissing the eyes or ears, you insisted on inserting objects or fluids into them, you would obviously be posing a health risk to the owner of those eyes and/or ears, and I hope he/she would have the sense to stop you! The same principle would apply to touching the breasts, or using the mouth to kiss, stimulate, etc. - nothing untoward is likely to occur as a result, unless you want to stimulate these parts of the body in an unhealthy way (sandpaper, anyone?), or perform oral sex on an unhealthy or diseased part of the body.The rectum and anus, on the other hand, are just as purpose-built as the eyes and ears, but misusing them for sexual activity most certainly does pose a very significant health risk. You can look up for yourself the skin thickness inside these organs, and the rather horrible frequency with which tears, rips, etc. occur when these organs are misused sexually. You can also look up the ease with which infections, diseases, etc. can take hold in these portions of anatomy, precisely because they are not built for the use/abuse they're taking in anal sex. Quite apart from these medically demonstrable factors, the basic fact of infectious material remains - would you really want to coat part of your own anatomy with the waste products from a sewage plant? On grounds of hygiene alone, the prospect is nauseating... To use "normal" sex as an example, would any woman in possession of her faculties allow her partner to perform anal sex with her, and then immediately, without washing himself, proceed to vaginal sex? Would she perform oral sex on him immediately (i.e. without washing him) after he's performed anal sex with her? I daresay any woman who's not insane would find the prospect sickening - with good reason.
Also, bear in mind that many cultures would find different things, or different body parts, to be sexually significant. I was born and raised in Africa, and for many African tribes, female breasts are not sexually stimulating at all - this is why you'll find women in many tribes walking around topless, breast-feeding their babies in public, etc. It's simply not a factor in their sexual culture. The same would apply to buttocks - African women in traditional society will wear an apron over their genitals, but frequently leave their buttocks exposed, because nobody cares. In Victorian England, the sight of a woman's ankle was considered sexually stimulating, because of the extremes to which bodies were covered in the fashions of the day. In Japanese society until the 19th century, toilet functions were considered natural and normal, and were performed by both sexes in public when walking along, without anybody turning a hair. In that same society, even today, communal bathing, with both sexes completely nude, is nothing out of the ordinary.
(Let me take the Japanese example a bit further. In that society, the body is considered as a natural, normal thing, without sexual connotation except under the right circumstances. In my younger days, long before I became a pastor, I trained for many years in Japanese massage, including a year spent studying under two Buddhist monks in South Africa. The first training session with these monks was fun - there were eight or nine of us in the class, of both sexes, and the monks insisted that right from the beginning, we disrobe completely, and massage one another in the nude! You can imagine the culture shock... but the monks informed us that this was because of the "disease" of Western culture, where the body had become a sex symbol. They told us that we had to learn to view the body as just that, a body, and to completely separate the body from its sexual connotations. It took us several sessions to become comfortable with this, but they were quite right: we could not learn to massage properly until we'd learned to view the body as a complete system in its own right, needing the relaxation and relief of massage, but without any sexual overtones. After a few more sessions, they went further, and blindfolded us, because they said we needed to learn to "see" with our fingers and hands, and not be distracted by the exterior of the body, since any problems with muscles and nerves would lie beneath what we could see. Again, they were quite right, and we learned to be much more capable masseurs through their training. I don't massage much anymore, due to my changed calling in life, but when family or close friends ask me to massage them, I still close my eyes and "see" through my hands. I find it deeply sad that in Western society, the term "massage" is so frequently assumed to have sexual overtones - we've cut ourselves off from a very healthy and natural method of relaxation as a result.)
Quote
there aren't many homosexual practices, there are some sexual practices that when performed by homosexuals or heterosexuals are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and personal harm.
I think you're right here. Anal sex, whether performed homosexually or heterosexually, carries the same risks for those involved. Some homosexual practices, such as the well-documented much-increased level of promiscuity among (male) homosexuals in general, are very risky from the point of view of disease and its transmission, but if these practices were repeated by heterosexuals, the same risks would apply.Also, Bemidjiblade is quite correct when he distinguishes between cultural and moral norms in the Bible - the distinctions between various types of "law" are well-known, and one can't have a "blanket" condemnation of anything without understanding what's going on. There is the eternal and unchanging "moral law"; there is the "Covenant law" applicable to members of the First Covenant; there is "customary law" applicable to the Jewish society of the time; and there is also the issue of laws and customs developed in later centuries which were "back-filled" into the written record of Scripture when this was compiled (remembering that it was oral tradition for many centuries before being written down). A good example of the latter would be the Temple rituals described in the Old Testament as being ordained and scripted by God down to the last button and thread - it's beyond reasonable doubt that when these portions of Scripture were written, the author(s) described current Temple customs as being ordained by God several centuries before, so as to lend a Divine legitimacy to them. All serious scholars of Scripture, Jewish as well as Christian, would agree with this, I think.
Post by: Guest on July 12, 2005, 07:36:02 PM
I agree that many cultures would differ in alot of our views on sexuality. The obvious allusions there would be the Japanese, Greek and Roman historical views on Homosexuality. Of course in those setting Homosexuality wasn't even considered per se, there simply was a cultural covenent that accepted that in circumstances men would have sex with other men (or boys) as was the practice.
As for gay male promiscuity, I would question wether that is a cause or an effect. Has denying gay men the same social structures, created the "fringe" behavior you see in homosexual males? I don't really have an answer in regards to homosexual culture, but I suspect that the answer is far more complex then, gay men perform dangerous sexual practices, because that is the nature of homosexuality.
As far as religion and homosexuality goes, really I don't disagree that Christian/Judaism/Islam have obvious issues in regards to homosexuality. But my original point was that this should not dictate our "State" laws. If Islam was to become the major religion in the United States, would you support a law making eating Illegal during the daylight hours during Ramadan? Obviously this example is extreme, but I put it there to illustrate what state sanctioning of a religious edict/union is for those that do not adhere to that religion.
I had some other points to make, but it's too late here.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 09:36:05 PM
I knew that the homosexuality/pedophilia comparison would be misunderstood, which is why I took especial pains to point out that I was only claiming one point of similarity. That is, most people dont understand the motivation behind these behaviors, whereas adultery is a temptation most married people have experienced, and even single people understand. But I already said this clearly enough in my last post.
Having reread your first post, I will say I didnt fully understand your point at first. Apparently, you bemoan the fact that homosexuality is regarded with especial horror by many people, more than that of other unusual sexual behaviors. This is why I brought up pedophilia. I will make a similar comparison, and you will not like this one either. If a man were to announce to a group of men at a bar that he and his own mother frequently had sex, one could well imagine him being beaten and kicked out. Dont you think?
In any case, "homophobe" is an unfair bit of rhetoric, because it accuses ones opponent of a pathology, when his position may be one of logic, of concern for public health or of religious conviction. You may not agree with his reasoning, his faith, or his views on public health or government involvement, but it is simply cheap mud-slinging to chalk his views up to psychological flaws. This is called ad hominem. Why not refute the substance of the argument? Beyond that it implies fear, when there is no reason to think that opponents of homosexuality are frightened of it. Then of course, theres the title of this thread. Homophobia literally means a fear of the same. What sense does that make?
Some in this thread have justified "homophobe" by comparing it to "racist" or "sexist." But these last two terms only describe an ideology, not a pathology.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 09:38:18 PM
Quote
Your using Christian, Hebrew, Islamic doctrine as a basis for your argument? Do you follow all of the scriptures in the Old Testament or the Torah? as an atheist why should I be forced to conform to the laws of a religion. Would you like it to be illegal to eat pigs meat, because it is unclean?
Take a breath. My argument was simply that adultery and homosexuality were in many ways similar. While that may have been off-topic, it was in no a way a call for the prohibition of homosexuality. I only pointed out that adultery and homosexuality were viewed in a similar way by some religions. Like any true Christian, I certainly try to follow all of the scriptures in the Old Testament, which would include the Torah. Your instruction in Christian doctrine seems of the liberal type, as you have claimed that the Divine inspiration of the Pauline Letters is debatable. Conservatives like myself, however, feel that all of the Bible still applies. Since we do not live in the ancient Israelite theocracy, however, we do not stone sinners, just as Christ did not stone the adulterous woman. Hey, theres that adultery thing again. But then you bring up Romans 2, which tells us not to judge others for doing the same thing that we ourselves do. I am not sure why you mention this, unless you accuse Bemidjiblade of being a practicing homosexual, which would be silly. As regards Romans 1, Bemidjis point is that the New Testament does not group homosexuality with matters that Christians consider purely ceremonial and therefore acceptable.Quote
Sexual immorality (homosexuality included) is condemned in Christian texts that specifically exclude dietary restrictions
Bemidji and I have already made our positions clear on this point. I refer you to post 116 on page 5, in which I said: &such laws were intended for a Jewish theocracy (the ancient nation of Israel) that disappeared thousands of years ago. The New Testament, though, specifically condemned homosexuality, adultery, and other sins, but without prescribing legal penalties.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 09:41:18 PM
Quote
I don't see why being married should give people tax or any other state benefit, even if I take advantage of it.
I just got married two months ago. I am no expert on the tax code or other red tape, so I want someone to explain these benefits I am supposed to be getting. As long as we have been discussing homosexual marriage in this forum, we might as well talk about the legal goodies in question. The two we have discussed so far are arrangements made by hospitals to allow spouses into their intensive care units as close relatives, and the preferences spouses apparently receive in the matter of inheritance. Both of these are the response of an organization to a common social custom that puts spouses in a unique category. While not blood relatives, they are one of their spouses closest family members. This is because of the tendency of marriages to produce children. Homosexual pairings, however, are no different with regards to family life than asexual cohabitations, close friendships or business dealings. If hospitals arent letting the right people into the ICU, lets change that policy. But dont change marriage. If inheritance laws are screwy, work to have them changed. But dont change marriage into something that is simply different from what is has always been.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 09:42:44 PM
Ego said:
Quote
I cannot agree that absolutes in morality exist; for all comparisons context will determine morality of actions
I said: Quote
So you do not disapprove of Fred Phelps for his actions? And do you also reject the notion of equal rights, as these are moral constructs which may be tailor-made to each individual?
Ego said: Quote
For my moral code, I cannot accept Phelp's method's. But that is why I say moral absolutes is not something I believe exist; because what he does may be perfectly acceptable to others.
My point being that you cannot condemn Phelps actions, though you appear to. That would be an arbitrary application of your own morality to Phelps. My further point being that we cannot have a government that exists to protect the rights of the people when those rights are simply arbitrary notions that you claim are always shifting.Quote
I don't find a mother a father doing whatever is in their power to save their child's life as inherently immoral.
Inherently immoral? Of course it is. What if they can save their childs life by directly killing another child? Perhaps through the use of embryonic stem cells. The point here is that the façade of relativism, if taken seriously, leaves us with absolutely no principles from which to argue. Absolutely none.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 09:44:19 PM
Quote
I mean the mouth is only meant for food, and communication. Breasts are only meant for nursing young.
According to whom? God certainly intended the breasts and mouth for sexual use. He didnt intend the anus for this purpose. See? Im consistent. As you are an atheist, I assume that you do not think that body parts have meanings. Quote
you have the choking hazards if you are inserting an object into that orifice [the mouth].
And what are you inserting? I dont know about Preacherman, but I also oppose oral/phallic contact. Quote
We need to keep in mind that our primary sex organs also serve a dual purpose of being "sewage plants".
The penis and vagina physically shut down these functions to allow for sex. Does the anus have a similar mechanism?Quote
&if your standing around the water cooler (or wherever) and one of the guys mentions how hot the new employee is, you would just have to stand there and keep quiet.
Use "discussing our wives favorite meal to cook", if you prefer. or whatever you would like. The point is you cannot discuss your life, in many aspects.
Until you explain how comments like these relate to the topic at hand, I will interpret them as whining.
Use "discussing our wives favorite meal to cook", if you prefer. or whatever you would like. The point is you cannot discuss your life, in many aspects.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2005, 10:03:58 PM
Quote
A good example of the latter would be the Temple rituals described in the Old Testament as being ordained and scripted by God down to the last button and thread - it's beyond reasonable doubt that when these portions of Scripture were written, the author(s) described current Temple customs as being ordained by God several centuries before, so as to lend a Divine legitimacy to them. All serious scholars of Scripture, Jewish as well as Christian, would agree with this, I think.
I think not. Are you saying that the Torah was not written, or at least edited, by Moses? I could name some serious scholars, and you tell me if they have ever stated such a view or seem likely to accept it. Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, the patristics, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, TD Jakes (just kidding), Augustine, Aquinas, Ignatius Loyola, John Wesley, Hank Hanegraff. I'm not saying you're wrong about your point of view. I just don't think "all serious scholars" will agree with you.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 13, 2005, 05:15:59 AM
I've worked for three years as a medical transcriptionist. I've worked a summer as a lab assistant in a urinology lab. I wasn't always a waiter. I've also worked with gang and at risk youth in suburbs of cleveland, run a Bible Camp, raised and trained horses, waited tables, worked in customer service, run my own business, oh yeah, I almost got arrested as a terrorist once in Amsterdam, but I was 13 so that doesn't count eh?
I'm not sure that we agree on the research. But then again, this debate is hardly new. It hasn't been since the re-classification of homosexuality by the APA in what... 1973?
Thank you again though, for the time and energy that you've put into this debate so far. I disagree with you, but I've had another chance to re-think my positions, and that's always valuable.
Oh yeah, I spent a year or so working medical records for a team of surgeons.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 13, 2005, 05:42:54 AM
Even looking for comments by institutions that do not associate it with the homosexual ethics debate one way or the other, it took me a total of 45 seconds with Google.
Quote from: Iafrica.com
Always a contentious issue, there are certain facts that must be presented when discussing anal sex. Anal sex carries with it health risks for both men and women. These may be serious and should not be overlooked. The anus was definitely not made for sexual intercourse. This means that there is no form of natural lubrication nor the flexibility offered by the vagina. This makes anal sex particularly painful and tearing of the delicate tissues may occur in the anus and rectum. The anal sphincter may be stretched or weakened and long-term damage to this area may result in incontinence and loss of sphincter control. Rectal bleeding often occurs and encourages the transmission of STDs. Anal sex is therefore definitely not a safe sex practice as far as the spread of the HIV virus is concerned.
The anus is an area in which high levels of bacteria are found. Transferring these bacteria to the vagina or urethra can result in unwanted infection, which needs to be treated. Damage can be done to the urogenital tract as well as other areas. The golden rule if practising anal sex is to always use a condom and to use plenty of water-based lubrication. Any lubrication that is oil based may destroy the condom and render it useless. The use of a condom prevents the spread of bacteria and is very important. Vaginal sex should never follow anal intercourse unless the condom has been renewed and the genitals and hands washed.
http://iafrica.com/loveandsex/sexadvice/sexuallyspeaking/769782.htmThe anus is an area in which high levels of bacteria are found. Transferring these bacteria to the vagina or urethra can result in unwanted infection, which needs to be treated. Damage can be done to the urogenital tract as well as other areas. The golden rule if practising anal sex is to always use a condom and to use plenty of water-based lubrication. Any lubrication that is oil based may destroy the condom and render it useless. The use of a condom prevents the spread of bacteria and is very important. Vaginal sex should never follow anal intercourse unless the condom has been renewed and the genitals and hands washed.
And you're absolutely correct. I believe that this is an unhealthy hehavior for anyone, "hetero" or not. For the same reasons, I also disapprove of oral sex.
As for your other assertions, well, you've made so many that I don't know where to begin. I'll try and keep things brief since you've complained about how "long winded" I am.
Quote from: EGO
nice that you discount my argument out of hand, by trying to paint me as uniformed.
I'm sorry. When you equivocate moral and cleanliness standards in a manner so completely contrary to every in-depth method of textual analysis and hermaneutics that I have heard, I simply assumed that you were ignorant. If you are, in fact, already aware of the distinction, and tried to use your argument anyway, then I must abandon my impression of you as uninformed, and form a new one. I'm sorry that this is the case, since deliberately misrepresenting facts paints you as either deceitful or manipulative instead of just misinformed and overzealous.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 13, 2005, 05:53:38 AM
You're absolutely correct. Our God's Son and Heir did indeed say that Scripture (which in the context of his culture would be interpreted as both Torah and Writings by his audience) would not pass away. He did in fact then go on to state that the Law had been fulfilled in Himself.
This is pertinant because we are discussing whether or not homosexual activities can be disagreed with on something other than an irrational basis.
When I see that the Christian scriptures first teach that the law has been fulfilled by Jesus as a substitute for all mankind, and then homosexual ACTIVITY, murder, sorceries, and other things are still proscribed as immoral, this lends greater weight to the proscription instead of undermining it in my eyes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 13, 2005, 08:10:51 AM
Blackburn I am very excited to learn of new proof for Christ's divinity. Of course, his well-attested ressurection is very good evidence, also. Any proof you may have that Christ did actually utter the gospel passages on the fullfilment of the Law would be welcome as well. This would also lend support to the relevant statements in the letter to the Hebrews.
Post by: TarpleyG on July 13, 2005, 09:20:31 AM
Greg
Post by: Guest on July 13, 2005, 09:59:48 AM
By the way, thank you. It's been quite some time since I have been called young, it's refreshing.
As far as the homosexuality/pedophilia discussion goes your right both are regarded in similar fashions in our modern western culture. but common misconception does not make something true. Again we are discussing the difference of two consenting adults making an informed choice, and an adult coercing a child into something. these are far different situations. Regardless of wether you like a particular action that two people engage in, it isn't really any of our places to dictate what is acceptable for them, as long as they are not harming another.
Technically, while I don't personally care for the incestuist (sp?) relationship, as long as they are both consenting adults, I really don't have a say in what turns them on. Of course, there is strong evidence that close pairings of that nature can create unhealthy children, so that is a consideration, where it is not in homosexual relations.
As I said in my first post, Homophobe should only be used in the case of pathological individuals, such as Phelps. The rest of the people who feel uncomfortable around homosexuals can simply be called heterosexist's.
I mentioned reading all of Romans, because Bemidjiblade appeared to be implying that I was pulling pieces of books out of context to support my argument. Where pulling a couple lines from the whole of Romans, is much the same thing. Romans uses the wickedness discription to illustrate people saying one thing is their belief, and doing another is a sure path to God's Wrath.
As for your supporting argument on page 5, I find it inherently flawed. you essentially suppose that the only valid marriages (by state sanction) should be those the offer stability to society. you state that the state only supports heterosexual marriages because of the understanding that procreation will happen. That then presumes that sterile people should not have the right to marriage, as they cannot possibly offer any value to society in that fashion. Also, poligamous should be legally justified then as they are very likely to create offspring. Personally I would say, allow them all and let society sort itself out. It's not like denying marriage to homosexual couples is going to make them consider marrying a woman to have a child; it just means that they have no legal institution to create a stable relationship in their life. They are required to do what most of them currently do, which is unofficial commitment ceremonies.
You get many many state benefit's from being married, really this isn't even a debatable topic:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.pdf
that is a pretty good little writeup that highlights some of the point. The nice thing is that it doesn't seem to be heavily slanted either way, it just goes into the marriage benefits and liabilities.
It's interesting that you mention "don't change the marriage laws", when in fact that was what DOMA did. Very specifically to deny marriage rights, where some states were choosing to allow them. I don't particuarly have a problem with the first part of DOMA, as that seems to be within the function of the federal government (regulating issues across states) but where is it the federal goverments role to define state marriages?
Earlier in the thread you used the "homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else" argument. But that can easily be adjusted. What if marriage was defined as a union between a male and female of the same race. then everyone still has the same rights? Of course this was the case until 1967.
People who supported the antimiscegenation laws (in 1964 60% of white people supported antimiscegenation laws) had valid reasons, at least in their view. They cited that God had placed the various races on different continents so they would not co-mingle. the similarities between the antimiscegenation laws and the current debate are fairly stunning.
As for the debate regarding morality, I don't think we are going to come to a common ground, and I'm not sure that a discussion is really furthering anything, as it appears we are playing to the extremes of each others stance. I simply believe that that absolute morality is a fallacy, to a (fanatic) Fundamentalist Islamic, killing heathens is the only moral recourse, as you are removing them before they spread their diseased views. hopefully you and I would agree that this does not seem to be a morally correct belief, but who defines the absolute morality? If you lay it on the edicts of God, what about those that do not believe as your do? Is your belief somehow inherently better then theirs? That is my issue with moral absolutism, it has to function within gravity of one overarching belief system, which then inherently invalidates other belief systems.
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that breast were intended for sex. I don't remember any passage (excluding possibly songs?) that would indicate breast were intended for sex. They do have pleasure inducing nerve endings, but that could be to coerce nursing, as a reward response system.
While you (and Preacherman?) may not approve of oral/phallic contact, i suspect you are likely to find yourself in a fairly substantial minority there (funny enough I tried to find a poll indicating what people thought, but all of the sources I found were somewhat suspect
).I'm not sure where you are getting your facts about anatomy, but the only time the bladder is hindered is during the actual act of ejaculation. You could still conceviably have sex, and urinate, though i'm not sure you would be invited back for another session.
As for the comment about whining, that is somewhat typical of your (and Bemidji's) general tone in this discussion. anyone who does not agree with your viewpoint, is marginalized, talked down to, and generally termed less knowledgable. You have had a tendency to reside over this thread in a "Lord of the manor" fashion, stating it is "your thread, and that we can discuss thing as your deem. Once you created this discussion it was opened to public forum, and no longer "your thread". you pick the easy cliche's for your arguments just like the others, but you ignore yours and try to call others.
If you look at Preachermans posts he is always gracious and at least attempts to bridge the gap of understanding. You do a service to your view point Preacherman. I find your in/out anatomy analogy very interesting, and while we disagree on some things, we tend to gravitate closer to agreement on others (I personally think that marriage should be a function of religious institutions, not the state). Thank you!
And as a point of reference I'm a diest, I used the atheist term, as a mobility device for the sake of playing devil's advocate(heh). I think this is a good time to step out of this debate, as this like many of the forum threads that I have seen on this topic has really stopped to serve any function of persuading anyone. I enjoyed the mental excersice, and hopefully our next discussion will have a brighter mood.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 13, 2005, 10:41:07 AM
Sorry it took a little while to get back to your points on this. Ive been swamped with work lately&
Quote from: fistful
RE: Posts by SalukiFan and Me (Posts # 118 and #119)Saluki, I at first thought you posted the questionnaire just to demonstrate how absurd the traditional view on homosexuality must seem from your perspective. But you are correct that it can be a little bit eye-opening. I hope my answers have been, and will be, both glib and thoughtful.
Thats understandable. I dont necessarily agree with the confrontational nature of the questions on the heterosexuality questionnaire but I think its an eye-opener for people whove never had anyone pointedly quiz them about their sexuality.Quote from: fistful
over- or under-population I still find it hard to believe you were asked such a question - just because it's so dumb!
Yup, its a dumb question but for some people, it represents their best shot at rhetoric&Quote
how the world would survive and propagate if everyone were gay.
The next time you hear this one, tell them they are still too smart to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts. Theyll think its a compliment.Quote from: fistful
Childless animals? Not sure what that has to do with homosexuals.
Homosexuals with children? Not sure what that means to our discussion.
As far as the childless animals example goes, I was trying to point out that since humans are animals, perhaps it would be interesting to investigate whether gays and lesbians (or celibate people) are beneficial to society precisely because we do not usually have children. [/b] Individuals and couples who do not have obligations to children of their own making are often the ones who adopt and foster children or take care of aging parents. A man and a women with children of their own already have (and understandably so) a focus on caring for their own children and may be less likely to take on the challenge of caring for other children or elderly family members. Homosexuals with children? Not sure what that means to our discussion.
BTW, at the gay 4th of July picnic, there was a gay male couple who had 8 foster children (!) of all ages that they were caring for. One of the men was an RN and the other stayed at home with the foster children.
As far as your question about what gays with children has to do with our discussion, I just wanted to make clear that if you were worried about under-population because of homosexuality (among other reasons you listed), that there was no need to fear because:
1. Gays and lesbians are a pretty low percentage of the population so whether or not we propagate is unlikely to have a huge impact.
2. Plenty of same-sex couples are having and raising children.
Quote from: fistful
unstable relationshipsI see what you are saying, now. Guess I didnt understand at first, because the instability of homosexual relationships really has little impact on our society. Broken marriages, however, often mean broken families, which leads to all manner of social ills. Another example of why homosexuality can never approximate an actual marriage.
sexually transmitted diseases
Well, we differ on this point. I dont see homosexuality as intrinsically illegitimate. I think people try to claim homosexuality is inherently linked with promiscuity and STDs to make their point, but I disagree. Also, I think that if people are truly worried about promiscuity among gay men (because that's really who people are worried about here), perhaps allowing gay marriage will encourage them to settle down.sexually transmitted diseases
Quote
I hate it when people confuse immoral and irresponsible behavior with responsible sexuality.
And I hate it when people confuse homosexual sex with legitimate sexuality. I said that amarital sex spread STDs and homosexuality is by definition amarital. Im just trying to explain my position, not begging the question.Quote from: fistful
heteros v. homos in pedophilia cases: Judging by the conversations between you and Bemidjiblade, you may be more qualified to discuss this point than I am. However, I did read the article you cited, (from a pro-homosexual website) and have some questions about it.
The statistic you cite was a study of 352 medical charts of molested children. Only two charts identified the molester as a gay or lesbian adult. Did the other charts list the sexual preference or history of the molester, or is heterosexuality just assumed? Could there have been 100 more molesters that carefully hid their orientation? Why would medical charts even list such an item?
The original article was in the journal Pediatrics. Here is a reference to the abstract, which gives a description of the methodology:The statistic you cite was a study of 352 medical charts of molested children. Only two charts identified the molester as a gay or lesbian adult. Did the other charts list the sexual preference or history of the molester, or is heterosexuality just assumed? Could there have been 100 more molesters that carefully hid their orientation? Why would medical charts even list such an item?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41
Heres a quote:
Quote from: Pediatrics
In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
Basically, heterosexuality in the majority of cases was determined by the fact that the abuser was confirmed to be in an opposite sex sexual relationship with a relative of the victim. But maybe, theyre actually gay men but they are just acting straight and dating women to throw you off the track right? Sneaky&;)Quote from: fistful
But there is a larger, and glaring, flaw in the article. It takes great pains to convince us that a man who molests a boy is not necessarily a homosexual or a pedophile, and that in fact, a man who usually prefers women is not a homosexual. This axiom, which apparently descends from the gods on high, is used to butcher a study that apparently was effective in concluding a link between homosexual behavior and pedophilia. I must insist that anyone who engages in homosexual behavior, unless he forswears this activity, must be considered a homosexual.
Well, we have been talking in black and white terms but sexuality is pretty complicated. There are bisexuals, people who take part in situational homosexuality like prisoners, asexual people etc. who are a bit harder to cram into heterosexual or homosexual labels. Likewise, society is not really sure what to do with people who sexually molest children. Maybe they dont deserve to be called gay or straight maybe they should just be locked up!
Quote from: fistful
Another of the studies purports to show that homo men are no more aroused by children than are hetero men, but,
I don't know if homosexuals are more likely to molest kids, but I do know that such flawed and slanted reasoning looks suspiciously like a snowjob.
Well, I didnt quote this study from the UC Davis site, but if you want to talk about it, I guess we can&.Quote
all of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners.
I dont know if this invalidates the study, but it sure seems likely to weed out any of the potential child molesters in the group. How many heteros and how many homos were turned away because they did NOT prefer adults? That comparison might tell us something.I don't know if homosexuals are more likely to molest kids, but I do know that such flawed and slanted reasoning looks suspiciously like a snowjob.
I tried to find the original article from the Journal of Sex Research but was only able to find the abstract. The abstract basically said that the study chose to focus on adult men with a preference for adult partners. Im not positive what their motivation was for doing the study but Im assuming they were interested in proving or disproving the idea that your average gay man who dates other adult men was no more likely than your average heterosexual man that dates other adult women to find children arousing. I see that you are interested in a separate question (did they have to turn away a bunch more gay men than straight men). Beats me. Thats not the research question of this study. I think that question is better answered by our previous study in Pediatrics.
Quote from: fistful
homosexuality in the military: Theres really no irony here. The government was addressing one type of wrong behavior when another type of wrong behavior also grabbed headlines. Heterosexual harassment, by the way, would probably decline if the military was less integrated on gender lines; that is, if the military didnt attempt to post men and women in places where one of the sexes doesnt belong. You seem to view this controversy as one of heteros fearing harassment by homos. While this may be part of the problem (both the harassment and the fear) gay-bashing is probably a bigger reason for the militarys proscription of open homosexuality. In other words, it in no way helps the military to have soldiers assault or simply persecute other soldiers, and excluding homosexuals has been the easiest way to deal with this. Besides this, AIDS was still new to most people, and the possibility of battlefield wounds passing on the disease was a major concern. The militarys major complaint about homosexuals, however was unit cohesion. Many soldiers just wont work well with them.
Okay, point taken but those were the same arguments that they used against racially integrating the military. People protested on the grounds that white soldiers would feel uncomfortable and the resulting tension and incidents would negatively impact unit cohesion. Im not arguing that there is a perfect analogy between blacks and gays but the same argument is used. Saying Group A doesnt like Group B, so lets ban Group B is pretty weak reasoning. If I were to say, I dont like Red Wings fans and I wouldnt work well in a group with them, I would think that others would be justified in protesting me trying to ban them from my occupation.
Additionally, I am confident that the vast majority of our military personnel have enough self-restraint to avoid gay-bashing their fellow soldiers. Those who dont can be disciplined for assault.
As far as the AIDS argument goes, there is always a risk of blood-borne pathogens in a battlefield situation. I wasnt able to find much about battlefield transmission but interestingly, according to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, there has never been a single case of HIV being transmitted during first aid.
Reference on Page 3
There are lots of homosexuals and bisexuals in the military already. It's just a matter of whether or not the military is going to spend their valuable time and money ferreting them out. With the war, Im surprised that they are still so hell-bent on kicking people out under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. I happen to have been friends with a military Arabic interrogator a few years ago I sure hope they didnt kick her out like they did with these other Arabic linguists in the news...
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 13, 2005, 02:01:49 PM
Quote
I don't remember any passage (excluding possibly songs?) that would indicate breast were intended for sex.
Still sub-standard scholarship. (And w/ 5 years in undergraduate theology from 2 universities, I feel secure enough in pointing this out as it's the domain of most of my professional training.) I'm not going to post it here for the sake of getting back to the topic: Proverbs 5:19 wasn't all that hard to find.Quote from: Salukifan
Saying Group A doesnt like Group B, so lets ban Group B is pretty weak reasoning. If I were to say, I dont like Red Wings fans and I wouldnt work well in a group with them, I would think that others would be justified in protesting me trying to ban them from my occupation.
Additionally, I am confident that the vast majority of our military personnel have enough self-restraint to avoid gay-bashing their fellow soldiers. Those who dont can be disciplined for assault.
I wish that I could agree w/ you, Salukifan. Unfortunately, my limited time in military situations (and everything I have heard from full time members of the military in my life,) has led me to believe that TRUE homophobia is a genuine pandemic in the enlisted ranks of the US Military. I would dearly like to see things your way on that one. Racial integration was a big deal, but racism has never been as pandemic as homophobia. Even in the worst of times, there have been a significant and militant portion of society willing to stick up for and defend racial equality in the United STates. This isn't quite the case w/ the issue of homosexuals in the military. And unfortunately, there are a large number of hateful or underinformed individuals with access to alcohol and firearms, and who are effectively trained in beating people to death.Additionally, I am confident that the vast majority of our military personnel have enough self-restraint to avoid gay-bashing their fellow soldiers. Those who dont can be disciplined for assault.
Unless true homophobia (which I am a dedicated foe of) suddenly disappears, I don't think it would be in the best interest of everyone involved.
You're right, that people should be expected to control themselves. IF (and this is not the case) I were to put a minor who was homosexual in the same setting, I'd go to prison for child endangerment. I personally believe that non-criminal sexual lifestyles *Should not be* a bar for military service. But until the social and political situation changes re homophobia, it *must not* change. (Bet ya weren't ready for THAT take from me, hehe.)
You've made some good points, Salukifan, that I need to think about, but I'm exhausted, please forgive me if I take a day or to to reply.
Post by: Guest on July 13, 2005, 06:50:24 PM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Still sub-standard scholarship. (And w/ 5 years in undergraduate theology from 2 universities, I feel secure enough in pointing this out as it's the domain of most of my professional training.) I'm not going to post it here for the sake of getting back to the topic: Proverbs 5:19 wasn't all that hard to find.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, if you read the entirety of the passage, they seem to be discussing nurishment and comfort, specifically loving nurishment, much like they discuss love as a fountain just a few passages earlier. I'm not sure where the scorn you show is coming from, but it definitely doesn't help you in supporting a point.
Just because you got me thinking, I decided to do a little research (admittedly, I have not ever researched sexual references to breast in the bible).
I used this for simplicity : http://bible.cc/
You can search several different versions, for specific words. go ahead and do a search for breast, then search for breasts, and go ahead and follow that up with bosom for good measure, I did.
The only references I found to Breasts in a sexual manner was in Songs, and Job 3. Job marginally referencing breasts in sex (as something that men lay on), and Songs is basically love poetry, so again I'm not sure if you would consider this God's word that breast are a fun time toy.
I'm sorry for the really OT post, but I hate being talked down to.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 14, 2005, 02:53:20 AM
I don't pick and choose which portions of scripture are God's Word.
I'm sorry to everyone else to keep going back to this, but this simply isn't a level of study that I can find compelling. I wouldn't bother at all but a portion of this discussion has become whether or not it's legitimate to find Judeo-Christian scriptures as a normative force proscribing homosexual activity.
Out of respect, Ego, I'll take the time to go into further detail.
The entire chapter of Proverbs 5 is addressing the issue of sexual activity, and encouraging married sexual activity as the superior alternative to adultery. The imagery of fountains is not about nourishment, it's about ejaculation and sexual interraction. The author is being polite (think Art's Grandma) but he is not being so obscure that you can genuinely believe he's talking about food.
Quote from: NIV
15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?
How many people breastfeed from their wives, that this should be discussing nourishment? They're discussing adultery in this passage, which is specifically a sexual activity, and contrasting the "adulteress" and adultery (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) with sexual satisfication within marriage.running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?
The Song is indeed love poetry, but instead of finding this a disqualification of its authority, I find it more persuasive that, in the Judeo/Christian mindset, God cares so much about sexuality and romantic love that he dedicated an entire book of the Bible to it. This makes its imagery more worth noting than less.
I'm sorry if you feel scorned. I don't know or feel much at all regarding you, the person. But if you go back up to Salukifan's comment about shoddy statistics, I perfectly understand what she's talking about. She refers to getting upset when people site Kinsey's skewed statistics that have been proven inaccurate by subsequent scholarship. Why? Salukifan is herself a researcher and, if I understand it correctly, a researcher in the field of humanities. So it offends her professional sensibilities.
Well, I've been studying for the ministry for more than 15 years now on my own and in undergraduate levels of academia. When you play fast and loose with my field of interest, you're going to offend my sensibilities. Now, if you want to stick w/ non-scriptural arguments about homosexuality, that's fine. And it's nothing personal against you. Indeed, I found myself complimenting you on another thread here. However, if you're going to persist in using Judeo Christian passages as justifications for your argument, I'm going to be offended if you don't either spend more time and more effort into your research efforts so that you come across as being responsible, or you stop.
I would NEVER ask Salukifan to stop holding me to a higher standard when it comes to research. I may disagree w/ her on some points, but I highly respect her. At the same time, you're simply not going to play fast and loose with the topic of my life's ambition and have me give you a pass.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 14, 2005, 03:36:24 AM
Quote
I'm just going to gape at how gol-danged polite this is. Somewhere, a snowball is hurtling through hell.
Blackburn, post 128, page six.And here?
Quote
Man, this started to turn ugly, huh???
TarpleyG, post 164, page seven.I really dont see any change.
Post by: SalukiFan on July 14, 2005, 06:54:07 AM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Quote from: Salukifan
Additionally, I am confident that the vast majority of our military personnel have enough self-restraint to avoid gay-bashing their fellow soldiers. Those who dont can be disciplined for assault.
I wish that I could agree w/ you, Salukifan. Unfortunately, my limited time in military situations (and everything I have heard from full time members of the military in my life,) has led me to believe that TRUE homophobia is a genuine pandemic in the enlisted ranks of the US Military. I would dearly like to see things your way on that one. Racial integration was a big deal, but racism has never been as pandemic as homophobia. Even in the worst of times, there have been a significant and militant portion of society willing to stick up for and defend racial equality in the United STates. This isn't quite the case w/ the issue of homosexuals in the military. And unfortunately, there are a large number of hateful or underinformed individuals with access to alcohol and firearms, and who are effectively trained in beating people to death.Unless true homophobia (which I am a dedicated foe of) suddenly disappears, I don't think it would be in the best interest of everyone involved.
I would propose that the best way to deal with this homophobia is to remove the military ban. It seems to me that a large part of this problem is related to the fact that people are often long on ideas about what gays or lesbians are like (e.g. they are going to hit on me , gay men are weaklings , lesbians hate men ) but short on actual personal experience with openly gay or lesbian individuals. Working side by side with competent people of a different race, religion or sexuality is an excellent way to dispel the stereotypes that often lead to virulent forms of discrimination.
I would also argue that the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy can even provoke homophobic outbursts. Everyone knows that there are gay, lesbian and bisexual service members but no one is supposed to know who they are. Since being gay or bisexual can get you kicked out, people that might not otherwise say or do anything against gays sometimes go out of their way to clarify how much they dislike gays, just to assure others of their heterosexuality. If suddenly, the military quit caring about this, I think a lot of heterosexuals would be relieved and would tone down their anti-gay bravado as well.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
I personally believe that non-criminal sexual lifestyles *Should not be* a bar for military service. But until the social and political situation changes re homophobia, it *must not* change. (Bet ya weren't ready for THAT take from me, hehe.)
Awww, you DO care! But seriously, nothing is going to change until the policy barring gays, lesbians and bisexuals from the military is lifted. I know that you are hopeful that the current policy is protecting gays but it has not protected anyone. Right now, servicemen and women who are being harassed and threatened for being gay (whether they are or not) are too worried about getting thrown out themselves to report incidents of harassment and violence.
In practice, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy results in a kind of open season on people suspected as being gay. How can people be expected to report harassment to their chain of command if they know that its more likely to result in an intrusive investigation of their private life rather than discipline of their harassers?
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
You've made some good points, Salukifan, that I need to think about, but I'm exhausted, please forgive me if I take a day or to to reply.
Thanks, Bemidjiblade, I try to make a cogent argument. Its been a pleasure debating with you. I don't mind at all if you need a day or two.Also, you are right in thinking Im a researcher. I am a sociologist by training and I work as an evaluator. For my work I do lots of survey construction, analysis of survey data, qualitative and quantitative research, and I design outcomes measurement tools for many non-profit programs. Most of my friends and family dont understand exactly what it is I do, but its very interesting and satisfying work.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Salukifan,
I've worked for three years as a medical transcriptionist. I've worked a summer as a lab assistant in a urinology lab. I wasn't always a waiter. I've also worked with gang and at risk youth in suburbs of cleveland, run a Bible Camp, raised and trained horses, waited tables, worked in customer service, run my own business, oh yeah, I almost got arrested as a terrorist once in Amsterdam, but I was 13 so that doesn't count eh?
&
Oh yeah, I spent a year or so working medical records for a team of surgeons.
It sounds like youve had an interesting and varied career path too. Im sure that you learned a lot about society that they didnt teach me in graduate school! LOLI've worked for three years as a medical transcriptionist. I've worked a summer as a lab assistant in a urinology lab. I wasn't always a waiter. I've also worked with gang and at risk youth in suburbs of cleveland, run a Bible Camp, raised and trained horses, waited tables, worked in customer service, run my own business, oh yeah, I almost got arrested as a terrorist once in Amsterdam, but I was 13 so that doesn't count eh?
&
Oh yeah, I spent a year or so working medical records for a team of surgeons.
Also, I wanted to say that Ego_archive made several interesting points before stepping onto the religious debate minefield. As a Deist, he recoils from the notion that a governments laws should be based mainly on the religious beliefs of the majority. Preacherman previously made a similar point that as a Christian in a diverse society, he would be uncomfortable with such mingling of religion and the state. I heartily agree with these views.
It is interesting to debate where that leaves us:
How should laws be determined?
Should we advocate for a more libertarian approach where government is much less involved with peoples lives?
Instead of advocating for an extension of marriage or civil unions to same-sex couples should I be advocating the dissolution of government marriage benefits to anyone?
What is the purpose of the government certifying marriage and handing out benefits to lawfully wedded couples? Is it to promote population growth? Social stability? Consumption? (I think this is an interesting angle. The average cost for a wedding is now over $26,000 dollars. Reference) Is it just a relic of earlier times?
Id love to hear your thoughts folks&
Edit: It occurred to me after I posted that perhaps I was getting away from the original question that Fistful presented. It seems like the many of the topics are interrelated and speak to the original idea of "Is opposition to homosexuality based in reason? If so why the 'homophobic' label?" but I don't want to hijack the thread if these points are too far off the topic to debate here. I would defer to your judgment Fistful if you preferred these broader arguments spun off into a new thread.
Post by: cordex on July 14, 2005, 09:15:06 AM
Quote
Also, you are right in thinking Im a researcher. I am a sociologist by training and I work as an evaluator. For my work I do lots of survey construction, analysis of survey data, qualitative and quantitative research, and I design outcomes measurement tools for many non-profit programs. Most of my friends and family dont understand exactly what it is I do, but its very interesting and satisfying work.
I'm sorry to drag this even further off topic, but based on your location and job I have to ask ... do you happen to work with a Jim H., Jim C. and Bob M. (among others)?
Post by: SalukiFan on July 14, 2005, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: cordex
I'm sorry to drag this even further off topic, but based on your location and job I have to ask ... do you happen to work with a Jim H., Jim C. and Bob M. (among others)?
Hi cordex,Sorry, but the names aren't familiar. I have my own evaluation consulting business but I sometimes work with other organizations and policy centers. I am going to a professional evaluator's meeting tomorrow however - who knows? Maybe I'll run into your acquaintances there...
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 14, 2005, 01:12:02 PM
Yeah, well, some people dream of having adventure in their life. I spent 10 years living one after the other. Lemme tell you, adventure is exhausting. People up here are amazed that someone like me settles for working as a waiter in a dinky little town like Bemidji, speaking a couple languages, being an amateur classicist and historian, trying to get published as an author etc etc. But the truth of it is that I've had my share of "adventure", and I hit the point where the adventures that I want are the 'real' ones, falling in love and getting married, having a career, growing old with people you care about etc. That seems like adventure enough for me.
As for your other point, yeah. I've done a ton of field work in the humanities in one way or another, 8 summers of outdoor ministries, including running a B camp in Florida, etc etc. The nice thing is that I've learned a ton, and I'm still learning. Up here in B town I've spent the past couple years working w/ jail inmates (mostly alcohol and drug abuse) and sex offenders (not professionally) which has led to some really fascinating learning in the areas of cognitive distortions, learned and unlearned behaviors, patterns of addiction, assault cycles, etc.
The only down side is that a lot of people discount 1st hand experience as opposed to academic instruction, and most people didn't spent 10 yrs wandering the face of the planet like I have, so I suppose it's hard to find it credible when I come up w/ anecdotal evidence 'bout darn near everything. *Shrug*. But if someone tells you that pigs don't fly, and you've seen 'em do it...
Wow... your civics questions were fascinating. I personally disagree with Preacherman on the topic actually. As I've said before, if religious belief is a valid normative influence (such that many 'religious' (hate that label) people believe that homosexual activity is contraindicated by the wellfare of the individual and of society as a whole) and if we live in a representative republic where the individual is expected if not required to vote his/her conscience, then I don't think a value system should be set aside simply for the sake of diversity. There's a difference in my mind between morality and many other cultural differences. So, if for whatever *genuinely held* reason, a behavior is seen as harmful, someone should have the right to representation just as much as the next person. I find it dangerous and marginalizing to exclude religious beliefs as a normative force worthy of representation.
Quote from: Salukifan
Awww, you DO care!
Actually, I care very much. Since in another thread (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=981) I've been accused rather harshly of some horrible things, I've spent some time thinking about it and decided to address some issues that I've considered personal. But I'd rather discuss them than continually have to rebut the unenlightened (j/k guys).Why I care about the unpopular topics I care about:
I've known that both my aunt and one of my uncles were sex offenders ever since I was about 11. My family took great pains to be safe and responsible around them. My uncle can't die soon enough for my tastes. My aunt has received help, and is one of the most wonderful people I've ever met. If she ever commits another crime, I won't blink twice to see her incarcerated for a long long time, but I'd happily write and care about her until the day she dies.
As for me being an apologist, well, there was a 3rd SO in my family, and I turned him in to the authorities myself the same day I found out. So anyone who believes that I'm "soft" on this issue or on crime is nuts. But I'm as involved in this issue as you can get w/o being a health care professional, because it's been a part of my life for as long as I can remember.
This ties into the debate on homosexuality because opponents of the gay movement (not necessarily homophobes!) most noteably those who have stopped practicing that lifestyle, will cite anecdotally that perhaps 60-80 percent of practicing homosexuals have a history of child abuse in their past. The more conservative numbers on that run around 30% which is high but not so grossly overwhelming. Out of the practicing homosexuals I've had extended close friendships with... 4 out of the 5 of my guy friends were molested in their early teens. But it would be irresponsible of me to say that's enough info to make blanket statements like that. Inductive reasoning makes me nervous.
These two issues continue to be big activism areas for me, since I was 11 the first time I was molested by another male. The rest of my history as a victim is none of yours, but I'm establishing why I talk about and study the things I do, so... I've got a felony conviction, so licensure is pretty much out of the question, but I do plan on spending the rest of my life doing what I can in the area of abuse prevention. I hope some day to hit the lecture circuit and help children and parents learn everything possible to stay safe.
Quote from: Fistful
But then you bring up Romans 2, which tells us not to judge others for doing the same thing that we ourselves do. I am not sure why you mention this, unless you accuse Bemidjiblade of being a practicing homosexual, which would be silly.
For the record, that would indeed be silly. I haven't been a practicing homosexual for years now! I went to THR to try and find the old "significant other" picture thread, but I guess that you can't access those any more, it's too old or it's gone because it was a roundtable issue. (And yeah, I guess that makes the above statistic 5 out of the 6 homosexual men that I know who've been victimized.) Anyway I had a picture of the two guys who've shown me that a homosexual guy can have and maintain emotionally intimate friendships with others without sexualizing it. I've been celibate for... 10 out of the past 11 years (nobody's perfect), and I don't regret it one bit.That's because I mean every word that I've said here so far. Phantom Warrior asked me once to write out my views 'cause he was in a debate in college about that, and he knew that I was celibate, and why. I'm still trying to find the short essay I wrote for him "Why a gay man is against gay marraige" in case I find it relevant to post it here, but I think mostly I've already made most of those points.
On top of all of that, one of my aunts was a practicing lesbian for the last 20 years of her life, and I cared about her. I have 3 practicing homosexuals in my extended family (1st cousins and closer) and 1 who is a former homosexual who's now happily married and has 3 beautiful children.
I continue to have friends who disagree with me and live lifestyles I believe will bring them harm over the long term. I continue to turn down advances from both genders, since I'm waiting for marriage (the Genesis 2 version) or forever, whichever comes 1st. I continue to research these two fields in my spare time. And I'll continue to defend my positions w/ all I've got.
Thanks for your time!
Bemidjiblade
PS. I can't believe I'm admitting all this, but I guess I'm still angry and hurt by RevDisk's blast a few days ago.
Post by: atek3 on July 14, 2005, 02:33:32 PM
atek3
Post by: Guest on July 14, 2005, 04:21:03 PM
Post by: thorn on July 16, 2005, 12:37:21 AM
touche!<<<
Atek, you are not getting out enough!! touche nothing! hehehe. i get more upset by the loss of all these hot girls!!!
hmmm . what d oyou call me? i am religously against homosexuality, but as an American, could care less what others do with themselves. HOWVER- i am SO SICK of being picked up on by gays (girls think guys are rude at clubs, try gays wasted at a club, way worse)
so i am often highly annoyed by gays, men for hitting on me, women for Not hitting on me...........
i am gay agitated?
Post by: thorn on July 16, 2005, 12:42:15 AM
when churches stop remarrying divorcees- (total Biblical ADULTERY), then will they have the right to dictate anything= in some other country with religous rule.
until then , this is America.
total hypocrisy on the part of the church. who legalised divorce and remarriage? a KING. not a priest, a KING who wanted to remarry without having to be head his last wife.
some people need to take a closer look at their Bible i think
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 22, 2005, 08:40:30 PM
Ego_Archive,
I want you to know I never thought you would react this way to my comments, but maybe I'm just thick-skinned. I don't think it is fair for you to lump me with Bemidjiblade. We are not a tag team. I did poke a bit of fun at you, but your first sentence on this thread was a little bit dismissive. First off let's please not pull the strawmen out for this discussion. You ended the post by referring to those on my side of the issue as "The rest of the people that feel that it is appropriate for someone to have less rights, because they don't conform to their morality.
I feel "talked down to" after reading those comments. Feels no different from just being called a racist. Not long after that, you accuse me of being a theocrat, which I find insulting, and then imply that I must be either a hypocrite or a fool.
Quote
"Your using Christian, Hebrew, Islamic doctrine as a basis for your argument? Do you follow all of the scriptures in the Old Testament or the Torah? as an atheist why should I be forced to conform to the laws of a religion. Would you like it to be illegal to eat pigs meat, because it is unclean?"
You are implying that I willfully ignore the Scripture I claim to follow or that I am ignorantly following an inconsistent religion. This not only insults me, it insults the majority of Christians for the past two thousand years, who have held that the Mosaic code has been fulfilled (making dietary laws and legal punishments a thing of the past). It imposes your interpretation of scripture on others, and then asks why they don't live up to it. The last two sentences slanderously assume that I am proposing theocracy, an idea that I abhor. Mostly, you exasperate me by so often missing my point and thereby misrepresenting my position.
Ego, if you had at least skimmed my posts for the past six pages, you would see that I am perfectly capable of having a respectful discussion with SalukiFan; a lesbian that supports homosexual marriage, but doesn't immediately throw the charge of theocracy at others when we are arguing on secular grounds. You would also see, I admit, that I was quite harsh on MercedesRules, who did all he could to earn such treatment.
As your comments were posted to the thread, I will post this letter, as well as further comment.
fistful
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 22, 2005, 08:47:29 PM
I am accused of shotgun debating. This is curious, considering that I went to the trouble to group my responses by subject, and with bold headlines. It is more curious still, when I have responded voluminously to many other posts for seven pages now, laying out my position on homosexual marriage and civil unions, on Christian scripture, on the teleology of anatomy, etc. I have responded to Salukis questionnaire, and to her response to my response. If you come in on the sixth page of a debate, Ego, you cant expect me to repeat all of my arguments and points of view as if you are covering virgin ground. Nor can you expect a line-by-line transcription of your post, with my rebuttal. We are at loggerheads, you say? Yes, we have been for the whole thread, and the rest of us are taking it with grace, humor and patience.
Ego, you have consistently taken my comments on a particular issue, and applied them to others to put words in my mouth. In so doing, you have created your own strawmen. I never said that a behavior must be wrong because people think it is wrong. Although you said, While you (and Preacherman?) may not approve of oral/phallic contact, i suspect you are likely to find yourself in a fairly substantial minority there What does this mean, unless you are guilty of what you have accused me? In response to your observations that homosexual behavior is not accepted by most people, I compared religious teachings about, and public perception of, various sexual behaviors to illustrate that homosexuality is not alone in being highly repugnant to most people. You still have not dealt with the other behaviors I mentioned, such as bigamy and prostitution, which are also consensual. In retrospect, this added little to the debate, and I should have ignored the whole issue. But you assumed that I was basing my politics on these musings. You next tell me it is not my place to dictate what others may do, while the whole time you are telling me what I should and should not do.
Quote
Homophobe should only be used in the case of pathological individuals, such as Phelps. The rest of the people who feel uncomfortable around homosexuals can simply be called heterosexist's.
Feel uncomfortable ? Im glad we agree that homophobe should only be used in a limited fashion, and that heterosexist is more acceptable for people like myself. I will proudly claim that style. However, you still chalk up my position to psychology. I feel uncomfortable around a lot of things, I suppose, but that doesnt lead me to think they are immoral. Otherwise, Id protest outside dentists offices.To be continued...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 23, 2005, 07:12:02 AM
Ego said:
Quote
Personally, my opinion is that marriage should not be a state sanctioned contract. It is a religous institution, and as part of religion should be seperate from the state. I don't see why being married should give people tax or any other state benefit, even if I take advantage of it.
I do not entirely disagree with what youve said here; I am somewhat libertarian, and might be persuaded to believe that government should not have a say in marriage. However, if there are reasons for government to recognize marriage between different sexes, these reasons dont exist in a homosexual union. The short version of my argument is this: Long-term, heterosexual cohabitation (which usually takes the form of marriage) usually produces children. In this way, it is unique from other relationships. Therefore, marriage should not be legally equated with a homosexual relationship.We know that the break-up of mothers and fathers can have an enormous impact on children, and therefore on the rest of us. Therefore, there may be some room for arguing that our laws should encourage procreators to stay together. Not all married couples have children, as you have rightly pointed out. But this only because our current system is not intrusive. It simply recognizes a close relationship that may result in a family, and leaves their particular sexual behavior or procreation to their discretion. Are the couple sterile, infertile, or simply too old to reproduce? This could not be determined without intrusive, and expensive, medical testing, so it is hardly reasonable to make such distinctions. Even if the couple does not desire children, should they be quizzed on such personal business before a marriage license is issued? In any case, they may well change their minds.
This leads to the other major premise of my argument the one that you seem to have missed. Homosexual marriage does no more than recognize a sexual relationship. There is no secular reason why the state should do this. It brings sex into government scrutiny in a way that true marriage does not. Certainly there are homosexuals with children, or who would like to receive some benefits of marriage. But there must be many unmarried, non-homosexual pairs or groups of people in this situation. If marriage is appropriate for long-standing homosexual relationships, it must certainly be appropriate for long-standing relationships that dont involve sex or romantic involvement.
This is why I said:
Quote
Saluki and others have expressed a desire to have the legal arrangements attendant on marriage for their homosexual partners. However, if marriages or homosexual civil unions deserve such consideration, then other pairings or groups of people should not be excluded. If they are, sex (or a romantic relationship) is made the basis of public policy in a way it was not previously. Certainly homosexuals would not wish to discriminate against those who choose not to have a sexual or romantic relationship. I suggest, then, that if civil unions are introduced, it must not be done in behalf of homosexuals only, and in fact should not be linked at all with sex or romantic love.
Does this argument invalidate polygamy? No, but that gets us no closer to government endorsement of homosexual marriage. Could this argument be used against mixed-race marriages? Of course not. Yet by your reasoning I am no better than a racial separatist. The laws you speak of were laws that repressed a certain behavior, yet I am arguing for less governmental regulation. That is, I do not wish for homosexual relationships to be the subject of law. Miscegenation laws denied equality to marriages that would have been recognized in other times and places in the history of the world, but homosexual marriage has no real history. That doesnt automatically make it wrong, it just makes it different than biracial marriage. So far as I know, biracial marriage bears no resemblance to homosexual marriage, other than possible societal disapproval. What are these fairly stunning similarities you speak of? More fundamentally, you make the common mistake of equating race and sexual orientation. This stems from two misunderstandings - the first being that, because race discrimination is wrong, then another type of discrimination must be wrong. You cant just take any human characteristic and treat it like race. While race is obviously a perfectly ordinary, inherited trait (or collection of traits), there is no compelling evidence that homosexuality is inherited and it is certainly uncommon. The second misunderstanding is the myth that race and sex are similar factors. While racial differences are largely superficial, science continues to reveal new differences between the sexes. Therefore, there must be some cases in which sexually-based discrimination is reasonable or even necessary. For example, it makes sense to segregate male and female prisoners who are violent felons. Additionally, we each owe our existence to someone of another sex, but the same cannot be said about race. While the sexes are interdependent, races are not.
Where did I use the equal rights argument, anyway? I think that was Rabbi. But he is correct.
To be continued...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 25, 2005, 08:23:03 AM
Quote
who defines the absolute morality? If you lay it on the edicts of God, what about those that do not believe as your do? Is your belief somehow inherently better then theirs? That is my issue with moral absolutism, it has to function within gravity of one overarching belief system, which then inherently invalidates other belief systems.
If I derive my morality from the edicts of God (and there is no other source Ive looked) then its obvious my beliefs about morality are better than other beliefs. One cannot argue with God. Even if one pretends to have another source, however, even if one denies any absolute set of morals, everyone believes that his morality is superior. How could it be otherwise? And, yes, if one thing is held to be true, then all opposing views must be false. This is likewise inevitable. What I dont understand is how you can put forward such a view of morality, and then be upset at some comments people make in a discussion thread. Perhaps my morality is simply different than yours, and I think it is OK to say anything that comes to mind. Why do you judge me? Is it because I am not fair to you? What is fairness but a moral construct that may be useful for you, but may not suit me? We are told that government should not legislate morality, yet we want government to protect and respect our rights. What are human rights but a set of morals? Not all morals should be codified, but we must not pretend to have no moral bias in, or basis for, our politics.
To be continued...
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 25, 2005, 04:16:06 PM
Post by: grampster on July 25, 2005, 05:09:09 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 26, 2005, 04:24:11 PM
Bemidji, I am very heartened to see that you have come around to my point of view, finally.
I only keed because I love.
Preachermans teleological argument about anatomy has been misrepresented. For his argument to work, it is not required that each sexual organ be used exclusively for sex, and that sex involve no more than these dedicated organs. It is only necessary that the anus be shown to be underbuilt for the purpose of phallic penetration, such that sodomy is far more harmful than other sexual activity. Talk of breasts, mouths, elbows, etc., not being intended for sex is beside the point, unless there is harm involved that is as severe or as predictable as that of sodomy.
Regarding breasts, Ego, you have only to turn to the books of Solomon. Proverbs 5.19 and 20 are a good start, but the Song of Songs is much stronger evidence. As for urination, (this is all getting very icky) you have agreed with my point, and at the same time demeaned my intelligence, but not answered my question.
To be continued...
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 27, 2005, 07:49:33 PM
Quote
As for the comment about whining, that is somewhat typical of your (and Bemidji's) general tone in this discussion. anyone who does not agree with your viewpoint, is marginalized, talked down to, and generally termed less knowledgable.
If I have pointed out your whining, as I am doing once again, it is only so that such comments are not taken for substantive refutations of my position. Marginalized? Where? Talked down to? Perhaps a bit, but no more than you have done. Generally termed less knowledgeable? I have not. But you are. You cannot even read my posts with an acceptable level of reading comprehension. Quote
You have had a tendency to reside over this thread in a "Lord of the manor" fashion, stating it is "your thread, and that we can discuss thing as your deem. Once you created this discussion it was opened to public forum, and no longer "your thread".
Presided like the lord of the manor, have I? And how have I abused the power that I dont have? To tell you I dont mind if we discuss things that are off-topic? How beastly of me. 95% of this thread is off-topic and I am enjoying it. I started this thread, and in so doing I defined what it is about and what it is for. So I think I am fit to advise you on this. However, you must whine, mustnt you? Quote
you pick the easy cliche's for your arguments just like the others, but you ignore yours and try to call others.
When you tell me precisely what you mean by this cheap dig, I will respond. Until then, I will interpret it as you guessed it; whining.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 28, 2005, 05:48:34 PM
Now it is my turn to take forever on a response. Sorry. I want to let you know that I hope you are able to arrange your legal and personal affairs as you wish, even if some laws might need to change. I simply dont believe that marriage should be redefined to do this.
I dont think the value of childlessness can prove anything about homosexuality, as we can have all of those benefits without it. I will guess that the vast majority of childless adults are not in the least homosexual. Similarly, it is good for me to have money, but there are right and wrong ways of attaining that condition. But is childlessness a benefit to society? As far as under-population goes, I dont recall mentioning it, or blaming it on homosexuals, but it is a problem.
Quote
if you were worried about under-population because of homosexuality&no need to fear because:
1. Gays and lesbians are a pretty low percentage of the population so whether or not we propagate is unlikely to have a huge impact.
2. Plenty of same-sex couples are having and raising children.
To be fair, population decline should be blamed on a lot of other factors, before we consider homosexuality. Nonetheless, your reassurance doesnt go very far, considering how quickly populations grow by multiplication. Supposing that 3% of the worlds population were practicing homosexuals, and 1% of them had no children, that would be 50 or 60 million not replacing themselves, right? In the next few generations, it seems to me that number would become a significant loss. The fact that homosexuals are raising children may show their compassion and caring (in the case of adoption), or show that they have abandoned the other parent, but it doesnt help much with population growth. 1. Gays and lesbians are a pretty low percentage of the population so whether or not we propagate is unlikely to have a huge impact.
2. Plenty of same-sex couples are having and raising children.
Where I really must disagree is with your comment that humans are animals. I guess you thought I would accept this notion, but I must protest it. In a way, our bodies, and our behavior, have similarities to animals, but the differences are also very great. And were back to religion again, because I am a Biblical creationist.
Quote
I dont see homosexuality as intrinsically illegitimate. I think people try to claim homosexuality is inherently linked with promiscuity and STDs to make their point, but I disagree. Also, I think that if people are truly worried about promiscuity among gay men (because that's really who people are worried about here), perhaps allowing gay marriage will encourage them to settle down.
I knew you wouldnt agree with me about illegitimate sex, but like I said, I was only explaining my position. But what is so magical about a few legal benefits, or even societal acceptance, that would cause people to stay together? Marriage is almost a joke in todays western world, precisely because the social forces that made homosexuality unacceptable are the same forces that made divorce something rare and shameful. If society had not degraded to the point that marriages are so easily un-made, the majority of homosexuals would not want the irreversible commitment that marriage ought to be.Stay tuned for the balance of my response.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 29, 2005, 08:16:17 PM
Quote
Quote
Pediatrics wrote:
In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
Basically, heterosexuality in the majority of cases was determined by the fact that the abuser was confirmed to be in an opposite sex sexual relationship with a relative of the victim. But maybe, theyre actually gay men but they are just acting straight and dating women to throw you off the track right? Sneaky&In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
You, and the researchers you are citing, seem to agree that one or more same-sex relationships or sexual encounters are not enough to label one a homosexual. Therefore, unless a clear pattern of homosexuality (with adults) is present and the abuser has had more hetero than homo relationships, he is more or less treated as a heterosexual. This comes, apparently, from a view that homosexuality is an "orientation" or a "life-style." If a child molester has "experimented" with homosexuality, but still has predominately heterosexual relationships, he isn't added to the number of homosexual abusers. I, however, like most humans, view homosexuality as something not only morally wrong, but a contradiction of every normal impulse of the human heart and mind. In other words, we react to it the same way you might react to someone who has sex with his mother. Some immorality is an excess of desires that are common to all, but even to desire something like this is highly unusual and, to us, deviant in itself. When you tell most people, or most Americans, that 99+ percent of child molesters are not homosexual, we take this to mean that 99+ percent of molesters had no homosexual inclinations and only molested opposite sex children. You said: Likewise, society is not really sure [how to label] people who sexually molest children (brackets mine). To most of us, this is simple. Anyone who is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is a homosexual, whether or not they are also attracted to the opposite sex. Therefore any molestation by a member of the same sex is homosexuality, and the same between opposite sexes is heterosexuality. Notice I did not say that homosexuals are by nature pedophiles, but only that certain pedophiles are homosexuals more of them than these studies will recognize. Another big question here, for many people, is whether some homosexuals are molesting or seducing children of the same sex, thereby causing them to become homosexuals. But when a study like this, or the abstract thereof, fails to give the ratio of cases which were same-sex, the evidence of such activity is hidden, especially when the offender is in the closet. So, from my point of view, the study can only conclude that a certain set of homosexuals are not likely to molest children. Additionally, if the majority of pedophiles were bisexual, these studies would not show it.
Suppose there were a study to determine whether those who have sex with their mothers are more likely to molest children. But for the purposes of the study, those who only occasionally have sex with their mothers are lumped in with the general population. Surely this would be a flawed study. Suppose we wished to investigate an alleged link between alcohol consumption and poor job performance. If we put the 15% who drink three times a week together with the 80% who have never had alcohol, we put most of the poor job performance in the t-totalers column (assuming there is a link). Then the 5% who are alcoholics dont look so bad anymore.
Whether your or my definition of homosexual is the right one, the studies in question simply dont tell us as much as they ought to, because they effectively ignore a certain share of homosexual activity, and are biased towards a certain result.
Quote
fistful wrote:
Another of the studies purports to show that homo men are no more aroused by children than are hetero men, but, all of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners.
How many heteros and how many homos were turned away because they did NOT prefer adults? That comparison might tell us something.
My point is that most of the pedophiles were identified and then expressly removed from the sample. I am not at all asking a different question when I ask; how many of these rejected pedophiles were homosexual? This seems to me an obviously helpful datum. But this is only the beginning of what is wrong with this study. It assumes that being attracted to children is not normal for homosexuals. By selecting a pedophile-free sample of homosexuals, and a similar sample of heterosexuals, and calling both populations normal, it assumes what the study is supposed to question. Then, the researchers measured changes in the subjects' penis volume. I am no physiological expert. I am ready to admit that I am wrong. But this seems an awfully crude method. Can we really measure attraction with penis volume? Do we know that homosexual men have the same physical response as heterosexual men; that they are not less hm uh vigorous? Do we know this?Another of the studies purports to show that homo men are no more aroused by children than are hetero men, but, all of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners.
How many heteros and how many homos were turned away because they did NOT prefer adults? That comparison might tell us something.
More to come, from His Long-windedness.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2005, 02:17:43 PM
Quote
People protested on the grounds that white soldiers would feel uncomfortable and the resulting tension and incidents would negatively impact unit cohesion. Im not arguing that there is a perfect analogy between blacks and gays but the same argument is used. Saying Group A doesnt like Group B, so lets ban Group B is pretty weak reasoning.
Not necessarily. I think the weak reasoning is that which admits an imperfect correlation, and then insists that the argument which wasnt valid in one case must not be valid in the other. As I said earlier: Quote
&you make the common mistake of equating race and sexual orientation. This stems from two misunderstandings - the first being that, because race discrimination is wrong, then another type of discrimination must be wrong. You cant just take any human characteristic and treat it like race. While race is obviously a perfectly ordinary, inherited trait (or collection of traits), there is no compelling evidence that homosexuality is inherited and it is certainly uncommon. The second misunderstanding is the myth that race and sex are similar factors. While racial differences are largely superficial, science continues to reveal new differences between the sexes. Therefore, there must be some cases in which sexually-based discrimination is reasonable or even necessary. For example, it makes sense to segregate male and female prisoners who are violent felons.
Members of hate groups, legally speaking, are not allowed in the military, and it is exactly because of the unit cohesion argument you have derided. Do you agree with this policy? Isnt unit cohesion the obvious reason for the militarys ban on adultery? It should be enough for you that the military has put their mission ahead of their soldiers. This is the way the military has always worked. When heterosexism is no longer prevalent amongst soldiers, lets repeal the prohibition.In the segregated army, we had entire units of black soldiers. This obviously was an unnecessary complication to those trying to put the properly qualified soldiers in the appropriate slots. Additionally, it was an obvious path to poor morale, when the upper echelons didnt care for black elements as much as for whites.
Quote
There are lots of homosexuals and bisexuals in the military already. It's just a matter of whether or not the military is going to spend their valuable time and money ferreting them out. With the war, Im surprised that they are still so h**l-bent on kicking people out under Dont Ask, Dont Tell. I happen to have been friends with a military Arabic interrogator a few years ago I sure hope they didnt kick her out like they did with these other Arabic linguists in the news...
Probably you have more insight into the DADT policy than I do, but I thought the whole point of it was to avoid the type of witch-hunt you are implying. That is, to discharge homosexuals only if their homosexuality becomes known. I know enough about the military to guess that these procedures would probably only begin when the persons homosexuality actually becomes a problem, or when the person happens to make an enemy for other reasons. I do agree, however, that our need for linguists is probably more of a problem than unit cohesion. Again, the mission is paramount.
Post by: SalukiFan on August 10, 2005, 12:29:49 PM
Im back from vacation and ready to discuss points that youve brought up about my previous post. For anyone considering a vacation this time of year I would highly recommend the Pacific Northwest BTW. Washington and Canada were lovely but it was rather frustrating that my concealed handgun license wasnt recognized there.
Interestingly, Canada wont even let you bring in pepper spray or folders that you can open with one hand. The customs agent asked me and my partner twice(!) if we had pepper spray or mace, which just makes me wonder have there been a series of bank robberies with pepper spray that I havent heard about or something? Anyway, back to the debate:
Quote from: fistful
I want to let you know that I hope you are able to arrange your legal and personal affairs as you wish, even if some laws might need to change. I simply dont believe that marriage should be redefined to do this.
I do appreciate your willingness to concede that some laws might need to change considering permissible legal arrangements between same-sex partners. I think most policy makers understand that marriage is a charged word with a lot of traditions and expectations attached to it and people will strenuously object to changes in the definition. This might lead to a parallel institution of civil unions like they have in Vermont so that some of the legal benefits can be conferred without changing the definition of marriage. This is not my favorite option but Ill take it in the meantime (my partner and I do actually have a Vermont civil union).
Quote from: fistful
I dont think the value of childlessness can prove anything about homosexuality, as we can have all of those benefits without it. I will guess that the vast majority of childless adults are not in the least homosexual. Similarly, it is good for me to have money, but there are right and wrong ways of attaining that condition. But is childlessness a benefit to society?
Of course you dont need gays to have childlessness I see your point here. Sure people can be childless without being gay but I would argue those heterosexuals who could have children but dont (excepting fertility issues) likely choose to be childless because they recognize that they are either incapable or unwilling of caring for another human. I have a few heterosexual friends that fall into this category. Nice enough people, but they are unlikely to extend themselves by caring for foster children, adoptable children, sick friends or relatives. Quote from: fistful
To be fair, population decline should be blamed on a lot of other factors, before we consider homosexuality. Nonetheless, your reassurance doesnt go very far, considering how quickly populations grow by multiplication. Supposing that 3% of the worlds population were practicing homosexuals, and 1% of them had no children, that would be 50 or 60 million not replacing themselves, right? In the next few generations, it seems to me that number would become a significant loss.
You make a good point here - because of the exponential nature of population growth, the total population probably would be significantly affected by 50 or 60 million people not replacing themselves. Unfortunately, we get to see the effects of millions of people not replacing themselves more frequently than anyone would like due to war, disease and famine. I guess this does come down to whether or not underpopulation or overpopulation is a bigger threat to world stability however. Quote from: fistful
Where I really must disagree is with your comment that humans are animals. I guess you thought I would accept this notion, but I must protest it. In a way, our bodies, and our behavior, have similarities to animals, but the differences are also very great. And were back to religion again, because I am a Biblical creationist.
I usually dont make humans as animals arguments, mostly because I am a sociologist and I think you learn about humans by studying humans but Ive found that a lot of people respond very favorably to biological arguments. If that doesnt work for you, I can understand and Ill stick with sociological, philosophical and anthropological arguments.Quote from: fistful
But what is so magical about a few legal benefits, or even societal acceptance, that would cause people to stay together?
Well, of course couples stay together for a number of internal reasons (how well they get along, shared beliefs, etc.) but external factors such as legal benefits and especially social acceptance do have a significant impact on couples abilities/willingness to stay together. To give an example on the legal benefits side, a legally married person cannot be called to testify against their spouse in court. Although most of us are law-abiding citizens, our society is a litigious one and there is always the chance that youll run afoul of someone or some law. Do you think that your spouse being called to testify against you in court might cause some relationship problems? I think it might.
Societal acceptance does have a significant impact on the ability of couples to stay together. One common situation that causes strife in same-sex couples is that one or both of the families of origin may object to the relationship. If you had relatives telling you that you either have to come home for the holidays without your spouse or not come home at all, it would likely cause some stress that would affect the quality of your relationship.
Even if everyone in your both of your extended families were supportive, youd still have to deal with a larger society which is often unfriendly to GLBT couples. This ranges from the big issues like landlords refusing to rent to openly GLBT couples or worrying about anti-gay violence, to the everyday annoyances like being unable to get family memberships to the gym and never seeing any couples that look like you on Oprah or Dr. Phil (I should probably be thankful for this one). Societal support is a big deal. Marriage is tough for anyone. Holding together a marriage in the face of active social opposition is even harder.
Quote from: fistful
Marriage is almost a joke in todays western world, precisely because the social forces that made homosexuality unacceptable are the same forces that made divorce something rare and shameful. If society had not degraded to the point that marriages are so easily un-made, the majority of homosexuals would not want the irreversible commitment that marriage ought to be.
Could I ask for further clarification on your last sentence here? Do you mean that marriage having no meaning is an incentive for same-sex couples to get married and stay married but a disincentive for opposite-sex couples? I dont want to leap to conclusions on what you are saying here.Thats the end of installment one theres more to come!
Post by: Bemidjiblade on August 10, 2005, 03:21:34 PM
There is, indeed, a gut-level reaction among many people to this particular branch of the political scene. The tendancy that I perceive in the lib media is to equate opposition to the socio-political agenda with the sort of genuine dehumanizing visceral hatred that leads to hate crimes such as beatings and violence.
I think it's legitimate to say that there is a gut-level emotional reaction, fear, even, of what the homosexual lobby seeks to force upon American society.
In order for it to be a genuine phobia, which I believe is defined as an "irrational fear or hatred of" something, it would have to be irrational. I do not believe that the emotionally charged opposition that we see to the homosexual agenda is actually irrational. This is because people who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle do not have far to look to see the fruits of that agenda written large across the north american landscape.
Quote from: NARTH article
Homosexuality Trumps
Free Speech And Religion In Canada
A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to support homosexuality.
August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.
The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of the law journal. The article is currently only available through fee-based database services.
Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ... achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections for speech and religious freedoms."
Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.
After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands, Denmark, and others.
However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used "hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.
In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.
Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own publications."
According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.
In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.
Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of gays.
Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."
The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."
Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.
He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."
NARTH is seeking to get reprint rights to this article for posting on this web site.
I believe that the political situation in Canada is actually harming those who seek 'gay rights' in America, because it is either creating or justifying emotionally charged opposition. At the risk of oversimplifying things, opposition to the 'gay rights' lobby seems to become that much more urgent in America, because the 'gay rights' movement in North America has proven that, given the chance, it will suppress any and all other liberties for the purpose of promoting its own security.
Free Speech And Religion In Canada
A Vanderbilt University Law Journal surveys the growing trend in Canada of judges suppressing free speech and religion in order to support homosexuality.
August 9, 2005 - Hans C. Clausen, Editor-in-Chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, has written a lengthy article on the suppression of free speech and religious belief in Canada over conflicts with homosexual activists in that nation.
The 66-page article, "The 'privilege of speech' in a 'pleasantly authoritarian country': how Canada's judiciary allowed laws proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech and religious liberty," was published in the March, 2005 edition of the law journal. The article is currently only available through fee-based database services.
Clausen's main premise is this: "The goal of these laws [proscribing criticism of homosexuality] is much grander than preventing discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles ... achieving the social equality of homosexuals-conceived in sweeping terms-has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections for speech and religious freedoms."
Clausen introduces the case of Dr. Chris Kempling, a Christian high school counselor who has been persecuted for publishing his views on homosexuality in local newspapers. Kempling, a NARTH member, has chronicled his legal problems in "Against the Current: The Cost Of Speaking Out For Orientation Change In Canada" on NARTH's web site.
After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions several other countries that have criminalized critical remarks against homosexuality: New Zealand, South Africa, Netherlands, Denmark, and others.
However, according to Clausen, Canada has taken the strongest stand against public comments against homosexuality. Activists have used "hate speech" laws to ban negative comments about homosexual behavior from the television and radio as well as from mail delivery.
In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law.
Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own publications."
According to Clausen, moral criticisms of homosexuality will not be protected under C-250, which means that pastors can be prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality or quoting from the Bible.
In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays.
Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it favors the speech rights of one group over another group. The court also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of gays.
Clausen counters: "... the argument that homosexuals are entitled to such a sweeping claim of 'dignity' is questionable. That argument relies on the notion that sexual orientation is 'an innate or unchangeable characteristic,' and inherent to one's identity. This claim has never been conclusively demonstrated, and studies that have attempted to prove the connection have consistently failed."
The author cites two researchers from Harvard and Stanford who have commented that "recent studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality suggest that ... we may be in for a new molecular phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into behavior. ... [T]he data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."
Clausen notes that not only is there growing evidence against a genetic basis for homosexuality, but there is also increased acceptance of the success of reparative or conversion therapy.
He ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."
NARTH is seeking to get reprint rights to this article for posting on this web site.
Post by: SalukiFan on August 11, 2005, 11:47:30 AM
Quote from: fistful
You, and the researchers you are citing, seem to agree that one or more same-sex relationships or sexual encounters are not enough to label one a homosexual.
Thats true - most sexuality researchers who are interested in sexual identity either use a scale (like the Kinsey scale) to rate sexuality on a continuum (with 1 being exclusively heterosexual in sexual acts and 6 being exclusively homosexual in sexual acts) or ask respondents for their own self-identification. Quote from: fistful
You said: Likewise, society is not really sure [how to label] people who sexually molest children (brackets mine). To most of us, this is simple. Anyone who is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is a homosexual, whether or not they are also attracted to the opposite sex.
Interesting. It reminds me of the one drop race rule that Louisiana used to have. African blood was considered so contaminating that individuals with even one drop of African blood were considered black. Mind you, Im not trying to say you are racist or anything, I just think that your rigid views of sexuality are anachronistic. Quote from: fistful
When you tell most people, or most Americans, that 99+ percent of child molesters are not homosexual, we take this to mean that 99+ percent of molesters had no homosexual inclinations and only molested opposite sex children.
Quote from: fistful
Therefore any molestation by a member of the same sex is homosexuality, and the same between opposite sexes is heterosexuality. Notice I did not say that homosexuals are by nature pedophiles, but only that certain pedophiles are homosexuals more of them than these studies will recognize.
Let me put it this way if a man were into having sex with animals, would you look at whether the animals that he was participating in sex acts with to determine his sexuality? Would you call a man who only has sex with mares a heterosexual? Hardly. The vast majority of us (gay or straight) do not find children of either sex desirable. Quote from: fistful
Another big question here, for many people, is whether some homosexuals are molesting or seducing children of the same sex, thereby causing them to become homosexuals.
Bemidjiblade brought up this idea before by saying that it seemed to him that a lot of the gay men that he knew were molested. While I found his anecdotal numbers to be much higher than Ive heard from my gay male friends, I decided to research a bit more about it in the spirit of inquiry.This is a complex issue so I decided to purchase and read a book called Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children by a leading researcher in the area of sexual predators Anna C. Salter, PhD. Salter received her PhD from Harvard and has been studying sexual offenders for 20 years so it was very enlightening to read her book about the subject. When interviewing child molesters, Salter found that they repeatedly said that they targeted marginalized children who were ostracized by peers, dismissed by parents, etc. because they were easy targets.
Unfortunately, due to rampant heterosexism and gay-bashing, schools, society and families often marginalize GLBT or questioning youth. If these children are then disproportionately victims of child molestation, suggesting that molestation turned them gay is a misleading at best and destructive and insulting at worst. This is not to totally dismiss that childhood sexual abuse cannot and does not disrupt normal sexual development but I think it is misleading to assume that all victims of abuse who turn out to be GLBT would have otherwise been heterosexual.
Quote from: fistful
But when a study like this, or the abstract thereof, fails to give the ratio of cases which were same-sex, the evidence of such activity is hidden, especially when the offender is in the closet. So, from my point of view, the study can only conclude that a certain set of homosexuals are not likely to molest children. Additionally, if the majority of pedophiles were bisexual, these studies would not show it.
I think I see what you are saying here that you think that it is misleading to call child molesters who are in heterosexual relationships heterosexual because you think that they might be in the closet or bisexual and they are definitely gay, despite their heterosexual adult relationships, if they are molesting same-sex children. I stand by my earlier comments that it is difficult to define the sexual orientation/identity of a child molester but that based on in depth research with sexual predators, most researchers identify most child molesters as heterosexual in identity. Are there some men or women who do have adult relationships with same-sex individuals and abuse children of either sex? Sure, but they are much less common than molesters who have adult relationships with people of the opposite sex or molesters who dont have relationships with adults of either sex. Regarding the impact of the sex of the victim on determining a profile of the sexual orientation/identity of the average molester, please see my earlier comments about bestiality and the sex of the abused animals. Being attracted to children of the opposite sex doesnt make you heterosexual, likewise being attracted to children of the same sex doesnt make you homosexual both just make you a pedophile!
Quote from: fistful
Suppose we wished to investigate an alleged link between alcohol consumption and poor job performance. If we put the 15% who drink three times a week together with the 80% who have never had alcohol, we put most of the poor job performance in the t-totalers column (assuming there is a link). Then the 5% who are alcoholics dont look so bad anymore.
I dont quite follow you here. You could have a legitimate study here. You would either code alcohol consumption as a dummy variable (Do they drink alcohol? Yes or No) and then do a test of significance test to compare job performance across groups (a Chi-Squared test for example) or you would have alcohol consumption coded as a continuous variable (number of drinks consumed in a week) and then you could see if the independent variable (alcohol consumption) was predictive of the dependent variable (job performance). Quote from: fistful
My point is that most of the pedophiles were identified and then expressly removed from the sample. I am not at all asking a different question when I ask; how many of these rejected pedophiles were homosexual? This seems to me an obviously helpful datum.
I know that you are really interested in this study but I really cant help you with the information about it. Most likely, they didnt have to turn away anyone, they just included a question about preference for adult partners so that they could say that they controlled for it in their study. I never quoted this study in any of my posts so I dont feel like I really have to defend this study for my arguments to be valid. Although I tried to find an answer to your question, I havent been able to find the original article and I dont know the background and whether they turned away 500 gays and 0 straights, 500 straight and 0 gay subjects or none of either group. If you are interested you might be able to contact the authors but I cant really help you here.Quote from: fistful
But this is only the beginning of what is wrong with this study. It assumes that being attracted to children is not normal for homosexuals. By selecting a pedophile-free sample of homosexuals, and a similar sample of heterosexuals, and calling both populations normal, it assumes what the study is supposed to question.
I guess you would say that the study is also assuming that the average heterosexual wasnt attracted to children since they screened them out too. The same assumption was applied to both groups equally.Quote from: fistful
Then, the researchers measured changes in the subjects' penis volume. I am no physiological expert. I am ready to admit that I am wrong. But this seems an awfully crude method. Can we really measure attraction with penis volume?
I know it sounds pretty wild to me too but it has been common practice among sexual researchers for a while now. Heres a link to the Kinsey Institute that describes the use of one of these instruments about 2/3s of the way down the page. There is even a link to a picture of the device. http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v20n2/p21.html It is usually used in addition to self-reporting of arousal but in cases where the sex in question is considered deviant, it can be hard to get honest answers so tools like this can be helpful.
Quote from: fistful
Do we know that homosexual men have the same physical response as heterosexual men; that they are not less hm uh vigorous? Do we know this?
Ha ha ha youre kidding right? You could always rent a gay porn for research.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on August 11, 2005, 04:51:47 PM
It's not enough to say that most sex offenses against minors are committed by heterosexuals. That is to be expected if only 1.5 to 3 percent of the population is homosexual. In order to substantiate a claim that homosexuals are no more likely to commit sexual crimes against children, you'd have to show that less than 1 in 33 or 1 in 60 sex crimes against minors are committed by heterosexuals.
Also, I can't help but think of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's assertion in a speech I heard that out of his more than 1500 cases of men who struggle with homosexuality, more than a third of them reported sexual abuse by other men. If only 3% of the population is homosexual, and say, for the sake or argument, less than fifty percent of those are themselves victims of sexual abuse (i'd put it at around 60-80 of men I've met and gotten to know), then I'd expect a much, much lower incidence than what my own life experience has shown, and others report.
Post by: SalukiFan on August 11, 2005, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Salukifan,
It's not enough to say that most sex offenses against minors are committed by heterosexuals. That is to be expected if only 1.5 to 3 percent of the population is homosexual. In order to substantiate a claim that homosexuals are no more likely to commit sexual crimes against children, you'd have to show that less than 1 in 33 or 1 in 60 sex crimes against minors are committed by heterosexuals.
You're right about the math. If you are looking for a peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows that gays are unlikely to molest children, I have already presented that study. As I stated previously, the Pediatrics article showed the statistics that you are looking for:It's not enough to say that most sex offenses against minors are committed by heterosexuals. That is to be expected if only 1.5 to 3 percent of the population is homosexual. In order to substantiate a claim that homosexuals are no more likely to commit sexual crimes against children, you'd have to show that less than 1 in 33 or 1 in 60 sex crimes against minors are committed by heterosexuals.
Quote from: Pediatrics
Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41The American Psychological Association also confirms that there is no evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. What can I say except that I seriously doubt that 132,000 psychologists are wrong about this.
Do you know of any reputable, peer-reviewed studies that show that homosexuals are more likely to molest children? If so, I'd be interested in learning about them. Another thing that would be interesting to know is what percentage of homosexuals are molesters? Are we talking 1%? Fifty percent? How does that compare the the proportion of heterosexuals who are molesters?
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Also, I can't help but think of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's assertion in a speech I heard that out of his more than 1500 cases of men who struggle with homosexuality, more than a third of them reported sexual abuse by other men. If only 3% of the population is homosexual, and say, for the sake or argument, less than fifty percent of those are themselves victims of sexual abuse (i'd put it at around 60-80 of men I've met and gotten to know), then I'd expect a much, much lower incidence than what my own life experience has shown, and others report.
I'm not sure, but it might be that you are mistaken about the "more than 1500 men" figure that Nicolosi draws his 1/3 statistic from. On the NARTH website, Nicolosi draws his 1/3 conclusion from 400 clients. If you are looking for statistics on molestation that are generalizable to the total homosexual population, drawing your statistics only from gay men that are conflicted enough about their sexual desires to seek therapy to change them is not a good idea. For those of you reading this who might not be familiar with him, Nicolosi specializes in "repartive therapy", which purports to change people from gay to straight. Both the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association have explicitly rejected reparitive therapy for several reasons. The American Psychological Association points out that not only has reparative therapy not been scientifically proven to work but it actually may cause side effects such as depression. I would have to agree with the them on this one.
Post by: brimic on August 11, 2005, 11:03:55 PM
Quote from: fistful
It is only necessary that the anus be shown to be underbuilt for the purpose of phallic penetration, such that sodomy is far more harmful than other sexual activity.
LOL! That brings back memories. When I was in highschool in the 80's, I had a Biology teacher who, while lecturing on STDs and specificly AIDS, would pound his huge fists on his podium and growl "THE RECTUM IS NOT MADE FOR THE PENIS, THE RECTUM IS NOT MADE FOR THE PENIS, THE RECTUM IS NOT MADE FOR THE PENIS!!!"That dude rocked, they don't make teachers like him any more.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2005, 03:32:17 AM
brimic, that is very frightening.
Blackburn, you never fail to enlighten and enrich us.
Post by: brimic on August 12, 2005, 05:53:18 AM
Quote from: fistful
brimic, that is very frightening.
You have no idea. The guy played as an offensive lineman for the Chicago Bears in the 1950s, he was huge and intimidating, even to people like me who played on HIS highschool football team. He would even sometimes figure out how to work his Penis/Rectum rant into his algebra class as well. The irony of it all was that his oldest son (adopted) grew up to be a hairdresser, and his daughter, who was my age, loved to have anal sex.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on August 12, 2005, 07:24:28 PM
Quote from: Saluki
I'm not sure, but it might be that you are mistaken about the "more than 1500 men" figure that Nicolosi draws his 1/3 statistic from. On the NARTH website, Nicolosi draws his 1/3 conclusion from 400 clients. If you are looking for statistics on molestation that are generalizable to the total homosexual population, drawing your statistics only from gay men that are conflicted enough about their sexual desires to seek therapy to change them is not a good idea. For those of you reading this who might not be familiar with him, Nicolosi specializes in "repartive therapy", which purports to change people from gay to straight. Both the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association have explicitly rejected reparitive therapy for several reasons. The American Psychological Association points out that not only has reparative therapy not been scientifically proven to work but it actually may cause side effects such as depression. I would have to agree with the them on this one.
My oh my where to begin.Well, when I was in the same room with Dr. Nicolosi last year, I seem to recall him speaking about having worked with over 1500 clients. Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, I guess I'll take his word for it.
As for who to listen to and who not to listen to, well now... It sounds like you have a perfect standard not to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with your mindset. After all, the ONLY balanced people in your opinion seem to be those who embrace homosexuality. So we're back to the idea that there is NO other alternative other than your own, and no other reaction to homosexual desires than to embrace them. And since no one who chooses not to embrace such desires is worthy of consideration, you may rest secure that you won't have to actually consider anything position other than your own. But, and you'll forgive me for saying so, I am relieved to have confirmation that you are unwilling and unable to seriously consider any conflicting viewpoints, but only search for reasons to discredit them.
Here's a bit of anecdotal interest for you: Did you know that despite the APA's reclassification of homosexuality as non-pathological, the testing battery for newly convicted sex offenders STILL tests for homosexuality right along with bestiality, necrophilia, and all the other cute little perversions that you wanted to differentiate from it? It seems to me that a computerized test revised every year MIGHT have dropped such a test for homosexual orientation if every other aspect of the test is geared towards things you consider perversions?
As far as the Pediatrics review, well... call it grounded theory, or pragmatism, or call it simple reasoning. But the VAST majority of homosexual men and women whom I know, most of them self-confessing and actively practicing homosexuals, have related adult-child sexual contact. I'll admit that most of them have NOT related this as abuse, primarily because many of them experienced a physical reaction to their molestation and were convinced by their abusers that this made them gay. My first two homosexual partners were victims of molestation, each, actually at the age of 13. I was a victim of molestation beginning at the age of 11. So, if all but two or three out or thirty or so homosexuals I've been close to have been victims of sexual abuse, I don't consider it irrelevant to my judgements about homosexuality and molestation.
So if the APA tells me that there is no correlation between homoesexuality and sexual abuse, then I must be an irrational person to disregard their edict in favor of the plain evidence of my own experience. Then again, if a Dr. of psychology's explanation of Grounded Theory to me got through my thick skull, it involves the principle that you have to re-work your thesis if you find contradictions in your evidence.
So, if the APA tells me that sexual orientation is unchanging, or cannot be changed, and I know people who have changed their lifestyles and are satisfied with it, happily married with children (Like my cousin David), then I'd have to say that the APA needs to reconsider their position.
Then again, in your most recent post you've given me more than ample evidence that their own standards rule out any contraindicating evidence or testimony.
So no, I don't particularly care about the so-called scientific principles of those who refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
If I can sit and listen to a Dr. of Psychology and university professor tell me that grounded theory require you go back and re-work your understanding of something when you run into new data, and then turn around and be lectured by someone why new or contradictory data is not worthy of consideration, then that source of information (The APA in this case) no longer has any credibility for me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2005, 07:32:08 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2005, 07:34:47 PM
Quote
This might lead to a parallel institution of civil unions
Just as I have argued for, so long as they are not based on, or associated with, sex.Quote
I would argue those heterosexuals who could have children but dont (excepting fertility issues) likely choose to be childless because they recognize that they are either incapable or unwilling of caring for another human. I have a few heterosexual friends that fall into this category. Nice enough people, but they are unlikely to extend themselves by caring for foster children, adoptable children, sick friends or relatives.
So, homosexuals are just nicer people?Quote
Societal support is a big deal. Marriage is tough for anyone. Holding together a marriage in the face of active social opposition is even harder.
I know. I would call it the mid-riff or the cleavage of active social opposition, because the way women dress these days is certainly not helping me remain faithful to my wife. You seem to be telling me that we should have homosexual marriage so that homosexuals will stay together. But you should know by now that I dont want homosexuals to stay together; I want them to be delivered from homosexuality.Quote
If society had not degraded to the point that marriages are so easily un-made, the majority of homosexuals would not want the irreversible commitment that marriage ought to be.
You wanted an explanation. Currently, we marry far too lightly, and divorce all too readily. This is natural, when marriage is glorified cohabitation. My assertion that homosexuals do not want the serious, life-long commitment of true marriage, however, may be a bit of question-begging, as it rests on the assumption that homosexuality is inherently anti-monogamous. Of course, that is under debate here. I withdraw the remark.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2005, 11:25:07 AM
Quote
I just think that your rigid views of sexuality are anachronistic.
True, but not nearly as anachronistic as my views on the right to keep and bear arms. After all, second amendment revisionism is older than the push for acceptance of homosexuality. I hope you can see your own weak reasoning here, if you believe that humankind is somehow progressing from darkness unto light, and that one must keep up with current fads. But am I rigid and if so is this wrong? That reminds me of an illustration that I think is very helpful in understanding the necessity of boundaries around sexuality. Consider a river. So long as it stays within those rigid banks, it is beautiful, and is good for fishing, for drinking-water, for irrigation and for navigation. It is when rivers flood or change courses that destruction is unleashed, and a beautiful river becomes a dangerous, muddy swamp. Your mention of the one-drop rule is very striking. For this is how many people, myself included, view homosexuality. As I have tried to explain, this is because homosexuality is seen as being completely outside the range of normal human inclinations. That is why I made the analogy of men having sex with their mothers. It is so unthinkable a phenomenon that one cant say, I slept with my mom once, and I really enjoyed it, but generally I am very sexually normal. Or; I think about having sex with my mother sometimes, but Im a normal guy.
I am not telling you that you must accept my definition of homosexuality. I am saying that the studies start from your own assumptions, and this biases them toward the result you want. At the same time, they mislead someone like me, until I look into the details. When I do see how the study was conducted, I draw a much different conclusion, perhaps even a contradictory one. Furthermore, as a heterosexual, I have no problem with saying that opposite-sex pedophilia is heterosexual. Even if no homosexual ever touched a child, I do not fear for the good name of my kind. I am confident that my heterosexuality is healthy and good, no matter how many heteros turn their attention towards children. If you have the same confidence in your own sexuality, then do not shy away from accepting that same-sex molesters are on your side of the fence. As for men and horses, it is not the sex of the horse on which I make my determination; it is Who takes the shaft? Yes, that means a man could be a homosexual, and never do it with another man.
Quote
Another big question here, for many people, is whether some homosexuals are molesting or seducing children of the same sex, thereby causing them to become homosexuals.
I do not speak for myself here, as the text indicates. I am not asking this question. I am referring to a question that others have asked, and pointing out how flawed methodology affects it.Quote
Being attracted to children of the opposite sex doesnt make you heterosexual, likewise being attracted to children of the same sex doesnt make you homosexual both just make you a pedophile!
As this seems to be an irreducible point of disagreement, I suppose your screaming is understandable. However, it does not make your case. I disagree entirely. What makes one heterosexual is the natural course of things, whether nature, God, evolution, whatever. I say this because I view heterosexuality as the normal. More to the point, I became solidified in my heterosexuality as a young boy (5 years), when I was attracted to girls of my own age, and older girls too, of course. So in a way, I could say that being attracted to children of the opposite sex made me a heterosexual.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2005, 11:29:32 AM
Quote
Quote
fistful wrote:
Suppose we wished to investigate an alleged link between alcohol consumption and poor job performance. If we put the 15% who drink three times a week together with the 80% who have never had alcohol, we put most of the poor job performance in the t-totallers column (assuming there is a link). Then the 5% who are alcoholics dont look so bad anymore.
I dont quite follow you here.Suppose we wished to investigate an alleged link between alcohol consumption and poor job performance. If we put the 15% who drink three times a week together with the 80% who have never had alcohol, we put most of the poor job performance in the t-totallers column (assuming there is a link). Then the 5% who are alcoholics dont look so bad anymore.
Your methodology puts the 8% in with the 90, and then says, Two percent of our sample were drinkers, and most of the poor job performance was by non-drinkers. Therefore alcohol consumption does not contribute to poor performance in the work-place. Or; Two percent of our sample were homosexuals, and most of the pedophiles were not homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals do not tend to molest children. In both cases, it would be more meaningful to say that most of the undesirable behavior was from the 8%, therefore drinking is an indicator of poor job performance, or homosexual/bisexual behavior is an indicator of pedophilia.
Quote
Most likely, they didnt have to turn away anyone, they just included a question about preference for adult partners so that they could say that they controlled for it in their study.
That makes more sense than what I had pictured, and in retrospect, maybe some of my objections to this study were ill-founded. But I must point out something in this statement: Quote
I guess you would say that the study is also assuming that the average heterosexual wasnt attracted to children since they screened them out too. The same assumption was applied to both groups equally.
As 90-some percent of the world population is heterosexual and does not try to hide it, we know quite a bit more about heterosexuals than about homosexuals. Id say it is quite evident, and therefore not an assumption, that the average hetero is not attracted to children, especially those who prefer adult partners. We cannot assume the same about homosexuals, due to lack of such knowledge, especially as the study is supposed to investigate this very issue. Regarding volume measurements, it just seems to introduce the variable of different levels of potency for different men.
Post by: SalukiFan on August 15, 2005, 07:34:47 AM
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Quote from: Saluki
I'm not sure, but it might be that you are mistaken about the "more than 1500 men" figure that Nicolosi draws his 1/3 statistic from. On the NARTH website, Nicolosi draws his 1/3 conclusion from 400 clients.
Well, when I was in the same room with Dr. Nicolosi last year, I seem to recall him speaking about having worked with over 1500 clients. Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, I guess I'll take his word for it.Quote from: Bemidjiblade
As for who to listen to and who not to listen to, well now... It sounds like you have a perfect standard not to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with your mindset. After all, the ONLY balanced people in your opinion seem to be those who embrace homosexuality. So we're back to the idea that there is NO other alternative other than your own, and no other reaction to homosexual desires than to embrace them. And since no one who chooses not to embrace such desires is worthy of consideration, you may rest secure that you won't have to actually consider anything position other than your own. But, and you'll forgive me for saying so, I am relieved to have confirmation that you are unwilling and unable to seriously consider any conflicting viewpoints, but only search for reasons to discredit them.
I see you are upset that I have not totally switched sides on this issue. I feel that I have presented my side of the issues we are discussing and I have given supporting scientific data when necessary. I have also critiqued studies presented by others and responded as best as I could to others critiques of shortcomings of the data that I have presented.I feel that I have always conducted myself within the boundaries of civilized debate and I have come to some understanding of why others hold the opinions that they do on homosexuality, heterosexism, etc. Based on the cogent arguments of others on this thread, I have changed my position and accepted that the term homophobic is rather misleading and pejorative and the use of the word threatens open discourse on the subject of gay rights. As such, I think it is ridiculous to assert that am completely resistant to listening to a well-made argument and changing my positions. Admittedly, I am not going to leave my wife based on any arguments that you throw my way on an internet forum but please dont take it personally.
You can throw around accusations of close-mindedness but last time I checked, it was acceptable to defend your viewpoint, use critical thinking and disagree if you find the opposing argument logically unsound.
That said, I think that my questions about generalizability and the self-selection of Nicolosi's clients were perfectly valid.
Although we differ on some opinions, both of us are pro-RKBA. Say you were debating with someone from the gun-control side of the issue and they cited a study that they said supported their side. Say they wanted to make the claim that gun-owners were largely ignorant of firearms safety and as a result, gun-ownership was a danger to the community. If you found out that the only gun owners that they interviewed about gun safety were those who showed up to turn in firearms at a gun buyback program rather than a survey of the larger gun-owning population, you would dispute the generalizability of their conclusions right? You might point out that the self-selected group of people that might show up to turn in guns would like differ in their knowledge and attitudes than most gun-owners. That sure seems reasonable to me.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Here's a bit of anecdotal interest for you: Did you know that despite the APA's reclassification of homosexuality as non-pathological, the testing battery for newly convicted sex offenders STILL tests for homosexuality right along with bestiality, necrophilia, and all the other cute little perversions that you wanted to differentiate from it? It seems to me that a computerized test revised every year MIGHT have dropped such a test for homosexual orientation if every other aspect of the test is geared towards things you consider perversions?
No, I hadnt heard that. What is the name of the testing battery? Id like to read more about it. If you dont have a name, do you have a link to information about this test? Id like to comment but I would need to find out more about it first.Quote from: Bemidjiblade
As far as the Pediatrics review, well... call it grounded theory, or pragmatism, or call it simple reasoning. But the VAST majority of homosexual men and women whom I know, most of them self-confessing and actively practicing homosexuals, have related adult-child sexual contact. I'll admit that most of them have NOT related this as abuse, primarily because many of them experienced a physical reaction to their molestation and were convinced by their abusers that this made them gay. My first two homosexual partners were victims of molestation, each, actually at the age of 13. I was a victim of molestation beginning at the age of 11. So, if all but two or three out or thirty or so homosexuals I've been close to have been victims of sexual abuse, I don't consider it irrelevant to my judgements about homosexuality and molestation.
So if the APA tells me that there is no correlation between homoesexuality and sexual abuse, then I must be an irrational person to disregard their edict in favor of the plain evidence of my own experience. Then again, if a Dr. of psychology's explanation of Grounded Theory to me got through my thick skull, it involves the principle that you have to re-work your thesis if you find contradictions in your evidence.
Im not trying to be harsh, or say that you, your partners or friends didnt experience abuse, its just that as a social scientist, I am very cautious about making generalizations based on personal experience. As far as I know, none of the lesbians that Ive dated or gay men or lesbians whom I been close to have ever experienced sexual abuse. This may be true based on my experiences, but I would never try to claim that sexual abuse is non-existent in the gay community based on this information and I would never expect you to accept such an argument in a debate. If I hold the same standard to the claims of others, it is not because Im trying to discount their personal testimony, its just that I know the limits of one persons experiences in predicting the overall prevalence of some social phenomenon. So if the APA tells me that there is no correlation between homoesexuality and sexual abuse, then I must be an irrational person to disregard their edict in favor of the plain evidence of my own experience. Then again, if a Dr. of psychology's explanation of Grounded Theory to me got through my thick skull, it involves the principle that you have to re-work your thesis if you find contradictions in your evidence.
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
So, if the APA tells me that sexual orientation is unchanging, or cannot be changed, and I know people who have changed their lifestyles and are satisfied with it, happily married with children (Like my cousin David), then I'd have to say that the APA needs to reconsider their position.
Im sure a few people have changed their sexual behaviors but that doesnt prove that reparative therapy is necessary or successful. Likewise, I could point out many ex-ex-gays who have gone through reparative therapy and can confirm that it did nothing to change their sexual orientation. There are many gays and lesbians who have been leaders and active participants the ex-gay movement who have later come forward and testified to the ineffectiveness of the therapy and the dishonesty surrounding it. Some reparative therapy even includes aversion therapy where the patient is shown sexual images of people of the same-sex and then is either subjected to electro-shock or given drugs that induce vomiting. Call me crazy, but I have a serious problem with that.
Lets take a look at the list of professional organizations whose policy makers have reviewed the research and have determined that homosexuality is a legitimate and mentally healthy form of sexual orientation:
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Counseling Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The National Association of School Psychologists
The National Association of Social Workers
[Altogether these organizations represent] more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a cure. APA.org http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#2
Quote from: Bemidjiblade
Then again, in your most recent post you've given me more than ample evidence that their own standards rule out any contraindicating evidence or testimony.
So no, I don't particularly care about the so-called scientific principles of those who refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
If I can sit and listen to a Dr. of Psychology and university professor tell me that grounded theory require you go back and re-work your understanding of something when you run into new data, and then turn around and be lectured by someone why new or contradictory data is not worthy of consideration, then that source of information (The APA in this case) no longer has any credibility for me.
So are you also discrediting the research and scientific principles of all of the other organizations with a similar position on reparative therapy? Im not saying that you have to take the word of 477,000 health and mental health professionals over the word of the 1,500 members of NARTH but I think it might be a good idea. So no, I don't particularly care about the so-called scientific principles of those who refuse to consider any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
If I can sit and listen to a Dr. of Psychology and university professor tell me that grounded theory require you go back and re-work your understanding of something when you run into new data, and then turn around and be lectured by someone why new or contradictory data is not worthy of consideration, then that source of information (The APA in this case) no longer has any credibility for me.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on August 15, 2005, 10:05:52 AM
Thank you for the thoughtfulness of your reply.
Quote from: Salukifan
So are you also discrediting the research and scientific principles of all of the other organizations with a similar position on reparative therapy? Im not saying that you have to take the word of 477,000 health and mental health professionals over the word of the 1,500 members of NARTH but I think it might be a good idea.
Yes. I am discrediting the research and so-called scientific principles of the other organizations. I realize that the majority of professionals may or may not agree with me, but I have to form my own opinion based upon my limited education and experience. A student of history, I am familiar with many times when the vast majority of the scientific community were dead wrong. At one time, the accepted scientific majority believed in false theories. Abiogenesis, the function of heat as a liquid (until the mid 1800's in some communities), "bad blood", geocentric cosmic order, phlogiston, and many other things. In general, for each of these items, the reaction of the scientific community as a whole is not to deal with contradictory evidence in regards to things that "everyone KNOWS to be true." It's currently visible in terms of debates on global warming and evolutionary theory. Anyone who disagrees has to be a kook, so it's not really worth the effort of supporting studies. I've read many skeptical and negative reviews of reparative therapy based upon anecdotal evidence. But I haven't seen anyone undertake a study itself to try and prove the affectiveness of reparative therapy by anyone other than NARTH and associates. So naturally there isn't going to be peer-reviewed affirmative information.This is not meant to be disrespectful, but you see, as I understand it the scientific method sees challenging and testing issues regardless of their popular acceptance as necessary. That is something that the scientific community in modern times seems less and less willing to do.
If you have evidence contradictory to your theory, then you need a new theory. Period.
Quote
Some reparative therapy even includes aversion therapy where the patient is shown sexual images of people of the same-sex and then is either subjected to electro-shock or given drugs that induce vomiting. Call me crazy, but I have a serious problem with that.
I'm sorry, but this is a straw man arguement. In more than 7 years working with the ex-gay movement, I have never encountered a single recommendation of such so-called therapy that amounts to torture. Oh, mind you, it's often one of the first things thrown at me by practicing mental health professionals. There may even be some extremist whacko who practises such barbarity. But even our hypothetical freak "therapist" is no more typical of the reparative therapy movement than the so-called "Rev" Phelps is typical of the average Bible-believing Christian.Ignoring the fact that I have never heard a single living therapist on either side of the ex-gay isle advocating "aversion" therapy (Though I'll admit it was done in the 30's, and to more than just ex-gay types), that is a reason for denouncing aversion therapy, and not reparative therapy. This is simply an ad-hominum argument, appealing to an emotional reaction instead of cogent argument, and I'll admit I'm sort of disappointed to hear it coming from someone whose integrity I respect as much as I respect yours.
Reparative therapy as currently advocated by NARTH sees homosxuality as an eroticization of unmet love and bonding needs, and seeks to meet those unmet emotional needs for intimacy and acceptance. Surely you can have no objection to such a goal. If members of the ex-gay movement hope to see homosexual activity (not always "orientation") eliminated as a result of meeting non-sexual emotional needs, then that is something that can be agreed with or not.
I have more to say, but I'm out time at the moment.
Salukifan, your discourse continues to do you credit and it is a pleasure to dialogue with you.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on August 16, 2005, 09:10:03 AM
I'm not sure whether this is a retraction or not.
The test is Pearson Assessment's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (2) with the Criminal Justice and Correctional Report.
So, from what I'm given to understand from my source (confidentiality issues there), he was sat down after taking the MMPI-2, and told that it still tested for homosexuality even though it was declassified in the 70's. And then he was told that he was gay and was he ready to just accept it. Apparently showed him a graph from the report, and pointed to one spike on the graph.
Anyway, whether or not I think that was beneficial, the actual aspect of the MMPI-2 that they're referring to would probably be the Gender Role- Feminine or Gender Role Masculine categories of the testing battery.
THANK YOU, by the way for prompting me to do some digging and gaining a better understanding of the testing battery in question.
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_2.htm
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_correct.htm
There you go.
After a more careful review of the testing battery, I have to retract my ealier statement about the testing process. Instead, perhaps I should phase it this way:
Aspects of the MMPI-2 are being used to convince people that they are or are not homosexual, and that the only healthy response in simply to begin practicing an active homosexual lifestyle.
Needless to say, I have issues with that.
In further investigation, though, I did learn that the offender in question was told that it still tested for homosexuality based upon the pre-reclassification criterion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2005, 09:58:25 PM