DanKroh

"Yah, DanKroh, I reckon yeh do need to review what da real meaning of "Straw Man" is, eh?" Not really. I reckon I'm good with it. Eh? "But yeh do do an interesting job of demonstrating how da personal biases of folks in your field affect the nature of da research which is engaged in and likely publishable." Well, Paul Cameron's biases are quite well known and documented. "I do remember an epidemiology report on da early spread of AIDS which detailed the level of multi-party promiscuity of da gay male community which allowed a virus of that type to spread as rapidly as it di

"Straw Man! You want to call that a straw man? You seem to throw out that word a lot." Well, stop basing your arguments on logical fallacies, and I'll stop calling 'em what they are. "Dan, go talk to any doctor who specializes in those parts of the anatomy and with gays" Yep, have, and do. Kinda a job requirement for me. "Just because a person is willing to accept the consequences (pain?) of their behavior doesnt mean its not real. It is certainly real." What is real? See, now you are moving away from your original argument, that "all sex for gays is deviant and bizarr

"I always laugh when I see the animal examples." Not nearly as hard as I laugh when people claim that homosexuality is "not natural", not to mention "self-serving" (??). As Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think that word means what you think it means" Then there is how amusing I find the straw man argument that bodies of the same-gender were "not designed" to have sex with each other. Well, designed or not, obviously it works, to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. DW used to say that childbirth was not natural, because there was nothing natural about pushing something the

Yes, as Beavah said, you can find a similar agenda for an special-interest group, including many of the big churches. And you can bet your last dollar that the anti-gay right groups have extensive agendas and media manipulation plans. I'm speaking of the "agenda" of the average gay person, who is just trying to go about living their lives without getting beaten up or killed, losing their job, home, or children, or having their relationship with their partner discounted at every turn. They don't CARE what the agenda of some activist group might be, they just want to be treated with respect

After the Ball is about as influential to gay rights groups as a Fred Phelps tract is to the average Christian Church. Sherm, Psst. I'll let you in on a secret. There is a gay agenda, and I know what it is: 1. Spend time with family 2. Buy milk 3. Be treated equally

NC, Yes, a Freudian would have a field day. Glad I'm largely a Jungian.

vol_scouter, I don't think many researchers make the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia, because the distinction is largely an artificial one. The pathology is the same. If you feel these studies have not satisfied your question about ephebophilia, I doubt you will find any that do. Although there is a lot more legitimate research out there than I cited if you want to satisfy your curiosity, I agree that further research on this topic will probably not be extensive. Not because of political pressure, but because the consensus among the scientific community is that the qu

"Yah, would that be a sloped pile of talus rocks that is afraid of looking the same?" Yep, and just as likely to start a rockslide of misinformation at the slightest disturbance, and cause as much damage to those who get caught in it. Or perhaps it was just a screed. (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Y'know, I looked through this entire thread and NOWHERE saw anyone call anyone else a homophobe. The term was first brought up here by Mr. Boyce himself. I called Mr. Donohue's opinion piece a "homophobic scree", and I stand by that. I have no idea if Mr. Donohue is a homophobe, I don't know him personally. He has certainly said and published some very homophobic things, by the accepted definition of the word (which has very little to do with "fear", unless you are a Freudian). So where is this red herring coming from? (And frankly, I don't think you get to compare an entire gro

"My reading of the situation is that homosexuality is a kind of psychological pathology (as they say "who would CHOOSE to be gay")" Well, then I'm sorry to tell you that your reading of the situation is in contradiction to every scrap of current legitimate psychological research concerning homosexuality. So much for "looking for answers".(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"No. This doesn't fit the history of this issue. These groups arose in reaction to homosexual activism." I agree, those groups rose and started spreading lies because homosexuals started asking to be treated better (and never said or implied otherwise). Silly gays, wanting equal rights. Doesn't make the anti-gay propaganda any less obvious, just more desperate. "With respect to ignoring facts, I rather think it a logical problem to discount things a person says just because he either misstated, misunderstood, or misused something. My sense is that at least some of the sources cited i

vol_scouter writes: "The last time we discussed this via this forum, I looked up some of the references and the studies were performed by groups or researchers who were members of pro-homosexual groups or whose websites had a pro-homosexual theme which brought the validity of the studies into question. I have not read the studies that cited so I cannot comment upon them but I suspect that they have similar author bias (not entirely fair)." So, you say that people who do real scientific research into homosexuality have "pro-homosexual" tendencies (whatever that means)? Whoda thunk it? Perh

"So while I follow up on your suggestions, I should just discount this? "More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters."" Absolutely. Since Mr. Donohue has already presented at least one falsehood in his op-ed, and cites no ACTUAL studies supporting his positions in those journals, we have absolutely no way of checking the veracity of this statement. Notice that the references I cited

What they said. My younger son just recently moved from a pack whose only fundraiser was selling popcorn (and we sold a lot of it, over 10K retail in recent years) to a troop who doesn't sell popcorn at all, but sells wreaths during the holiday season. And having recently taken over the treasurer responsibility, I am now also going to be in charge of organizing our fund raising. In the new troop, all the boys have to sell a certain number of wreaths where the troop takes all the profit (that number is currently 12), to support the cost of running the troop. Any wreath sales above th

Mr. Boyce, You seem to have posted your request while I was answering vol_scouter with that very thing. Enjoy the reading.

vol_scouter, A couple of problems with your off-the-cuff analysis I just want to point out. Assuming for a moment that these numbers are accurate: 1) The CDC has reported many times that the prevalence of long term homosexuals in America is less than 2% (what is the margin of error on that estimate, btw?) 2) If, as someone suggested, the rate of homosexual ephebophilia is 5% (ahh, the ever scientific "someone suggested") your conclusion that "then the incidence of homosexual abuse is 2.5 times greater than expected" suffers from an egregious logical fallacy. You assu

"The facts would be those in the studies the man cites." What citations? He names a bunch of journals, but no specific studies. The one study he does cite, Kinsey, et.al. (1948), he states a total falsehood. Nowhere in that study does it say that "37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old." NOWHERE. And I HAVE ready the entire Kinsey study, which I suspect Mr. Donohue has not. "It is an insult to hear your angry assertions about my intentions. You do not know me, and you are making false assertions. This does not help any judicious stu

"Let's study the document." What document? Donohue's op-ed? My study of it reveals that he presents no conclusions based facts that can be verified, but gives several examples of information that is proven to be incorrect. What more is there to study? "Let's examine our own prejudices---perhaps it IS the case that proportionately more pedophiles are homosexual---EVEN IF we wish it were not the case." Yes, let's examine those, please. On what exactly do you base your supposition that proportionately more pedophiles are homosexual, other than wishing and prejudice, and the say-so

"More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters." This is not "facts". If these articles are so extensive, then why doesn't he cite them explicitly, or even better, quote direct information from them? Since he has shown that referencing a specific study (Kinsey et.al, 1948, for example) does not preclude attributing information that appears NOWHERE in that study. The American Psychologi

Yes, it's an "interesting" opinion piece pretty much devoid of anything remotely resembling facts, and at least one egregious lie about what Kinsey's report actually said.

I don't know about *all* living things, but I do know several states, including Massachusetts, do have laws (at least for archery) about shooting at targets that are look like *humans*. Which is why in the SCA, we do a lot of shooting at targets that resemble empty suits of armor, or humanoid figures with green skin and yellow eyes, because then it's an orc.

Barry, that may be the way *you* interpret the DADT of the BSA, but others certainly interpret it differently. And the military version of DADT doesn't say that at all.

One more thing on the comment that he "believes that as long as you don't get caught it's okay." Where could he have gotten that attitude from, do you think? Perhaps from the fact that for the last 17 years, we have told the members of our military that very thing. As long as you don't tell, it's ok. As long as know one finds out, it's ok. As long as you don't get caught, it's ok. But if anyone sniffs it out, if anyone even has a hint, if you tell, you are fired. And haven't many said that the BSA policy is also really a DADT policy? You can stay in as long as no one finds out. As lo

"Also if he gos to church maybe he can talk to a religious leader and be guided back to the right path? He has a choice." Oh boy. Nick, first of all, there are now many churches who don't consider homosexuality to be "the wrong path". In fact, depending on the church he attends, that religious leader that he talks to may him/herself be gay. He has a choice? About being homosexual? No, he does not. He does have a choice about whether he wants to live a lie and deny his orientation, and try to live his life as a heterosexual, thereby increasing his likelihood of severe depression

BDPT00, Dr Richard Swaab in the Netherlands has done some research looking at the brains of transexuals (postmortem), and found regions of the brain of MTF transexuals to be more similar female than male (and vice versa for FTMs), and that these regions are "set" during prenatal development, and not affected by hormonal influences after birth. Dr. Eric Vilain at UCLA has discovered 54 genes linked to gender, indicating that it is a spectrum, not a binary, which would also indicate that it is determined at birth, rather than influenced by environment. Further is the failure of gender