Homophobes are afraid of the same?

[Perd Hapley]

An open letter

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.  
 

"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

[Perd Hapley]

Just because I take all of this far too seriously


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.  

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...

[Perd Hapley]

As for your critique of my Secular Argument, Ego, I find that you did not understand it.  Maybe that means I did not present it well.  I did not say that procreation was the reason for state sanction of marriage.  I said that, in a libertarian view, it would be the only interest that would justify such state involvement.  I also never said, Dont change the marriage laws.  I said, Dont change marriage.  If DOMA preserves marriage and our Constitution at the same time, then Id probably support it.  But I havent read the bill.  Just so you know, I wasnt denying the existence of marriage benefits; I was asking what they were.  Thanks for the link.

Ego said:

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:

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...

[Perd Hapley]

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...

[Bemidjiblade]

Fistful,  I'm just sitting here reading and nodding, reading and nodding some more.

[grampster]

Ditto.

[Perd Hapley]

Glad we agree on something, grampster.

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...

[Perd Hapley]

And now for some polite constructive criticism.

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.  

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?  

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.

[Perd Hapley]

SalukiFan,

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.  

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.  

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 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.

[Perd Hapley]

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&

I want to make clear first of all that I have never forwarded this aspect of the natural law argument (that homosexuality is clearly wrong because homosexuals are often child molesters).  It would only work if homosexuals are clearly more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals, and I dont know if this is true.  I can see, however, that these studies seem flawed.  The abstract only confirms what I have already stated  that the research seems to have gone no further than the charts, which wouldnt be expected to detail the sexual history of the alleged abuser.  But I think there is a larger difference between your point of view and mine, and it makes these studies, or at least the conclusions drawn from them, very suspect.  

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.

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?

More to come, from His Long-windedness.

[Perd Hapley]

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:  

&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.
 

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.

[SalukiFan]

Hi fistful (and other faithful thread readers),
  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:

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).  

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.  

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.  

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.

 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.

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!

[Bemidjiblade]

I've had some time to think about WHY the label of homophobia is slapped on anyone who disagrees with the socio-political agenda of homosexual activists.

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.

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.

[SalukiFan]

More of my response to 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.  

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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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!

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).  

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.

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.

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.  

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.

[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.

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.

[SalukiFan]

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:

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/94/1/41

The 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?  

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.

[brimic]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

The light work.

brimic, that is very frightening.

Blackburn, you never fail to enlighten and enrich us.

[brimic]

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.

[Bemidjiblade]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

brimic, it just keeps gettin' spookier, buddy.

[Perd Hapley]

Saluki,

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.  

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.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

No, you dont.  Its like this.  Assume for a moment that those who never touch liquor have a much lower incidence of poor job performance than those who drink.  This is like saying that thorough-going heterosexuals have a much lower incidence of child molestation than those who are not entirely straight.  Just so our statistics match better, lets say these are 90% of the sample.  Then the alcoholics (2% of the sample) also have good job performance.  This is like saying that confirmed homosexuals seldom molest children (because they are more occupied with an adult crowd).  The 8% of occasional drinkers have very poor job performance.  As you may have guessed, this is like saying that the experimenters have a high rate of child molestation.  

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.

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:

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.

[SalukiFan]

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.

I apologize.  I wasn't at the talk and I tried to find more information about that claim on the NARTH website but it looks like they haven't updated their information.  I'll take your word for it here.

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.

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.

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 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

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.