Interesting article on homosexuality

[DanKroh 11]

"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 with the opposite conclusion came from many of the same journals.

 

" . . and I should discount this?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf"

 

Nope, looks like a decent piece of writing to me. Of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of child molestation, but hey, as packsaddle says, it has some good advice for anyone planning on having man-on-man sex. Definitely use a condom.

 

"I also wonder if there's just a big propaganda machine that's been developed here, to pressure the public, to whitewash reality."

 

Yes, there is. And its names are legion, including NARTH, Family Research Council, Paul Cameron, and now, evidently, Bill Donohue. And they will outright lie, twist other people's work, and just make stuff up to whitewash reality and try to convince everyone that "The Gays" are evil, scary boogeymen who want to destroy your marriages and corrupt your children. Pretty sad, actually.

[DanKroh 11]

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? Perhaps the reason they have "pro-homosexual" feelings is BECAUSE they do real scientific research about homosexuality and realize that there is no rational basis for homophobia or discrimination? Could it be?

 

Otherwise, if you dismiss every reference from a legitimate, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that I present because it MIGHT have author bias (without reading the article yourself), then I guess we don't really have any common ground with which to continue discussing this. Again, notice that these journals are many of the same ones that Mr. Donohue references, so he seems to think they are A-Okay. Which is actually a nice change from citations from documented hate groups and discredited researchers, that usually accompany opinions like Mr. Donohue's.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

 

"I also wonder if there's just a big propaganda machine that's been developed here, to pressure the public, to whitewash reality."

 

Yes, there is. And its names are legion, including NARTH, Family Research Council, Paul Cameron, and now, evidently, Bill Donohue. And they will outright lie, twist other people's work, and just make stuff up to whitewash reality and try to convince everyone that "The Gays" are evil, scary boogeymen who want to destroy your marriages and corrupt your children. Pretty sad, actually."

 

No. This doesn't fit the history of this issue. These groups arose in reaction to homosexual activism.

 

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 in the article are legitimate journals.

 

 

With respect to your view on the issue, it seems you have a willingness to accept, at face value, whatever is told by the pro-homosexuals. I'm a political moderate who dislikes propaganda of both the right and left, so I work hard to find the facts behind the assertions.

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

"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 in the article are legitimate journals."

 

Yes, they are legitimate journals. I think perhaps, Mr. Boyce, you don't understand what a "citation" is. Naming a journal doesn't present evidence. Within the journal are articles that present evidence from scientific studies. In order to cite evidence, one must cite an article, not just name a journal. What Donohue does is name a bunch of journals (which are all good journals), but he does not CITE any ARTICLES from those journals. So we have no way of verifying whether those journals DO contain articles that support his assertion. If you can find ARTICLES from those journals that support his assertion, please, post citations for them, so that I may examine them and be proven wrong.

 

Personally, I don't find it a problem of logic at all to say that someone who presents a falsehood once may do it again. I don't care if the reason is ignorance, carelessness, or malice.

 

"With respect to your view on the issue, it seems you have a willingness to accept, at face value, whatever is told by the pro-homosexuals."

 

No, I have a willingness to accept conclusions of scientific research that I have examined for myself and checked for veracity and validity. Some people, on the other hand, have a willingness to discount out-of-hand anything that refutes anti-gay propoganda.

 

"I'm a political moderate who dislikes propaganda of both the right and left,"

 

Well, what do you know, so am I.

 

"so I work hard to find the facts behind the assertions."

 

So do I. I read scientific journals. I have conducted scientific research myself in this area. And I DO investigate the connections and possible motives of other researchers and examine their work very carefully for bias. The facts are there to be found if you look with an objective eye. Just to be clear, my examination of the research has informed my opinion on homosexuality, not vice versa. Can you say the same?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Trevorum 24]

".. whatever is told by the pro-homosexuals."

 

I'm wondering why would someone choose to be a "pro-homosexual"? Is that like being a pro-African American, or a pro-woman, or a pro-Semite?

 

Personally, I belong to none of those categories. I just hate to see people ill treated for merely being who they are.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

I don't "hate" homosexuals at all. I think this is a subtle way many people on one side of the issue tend to demonize the people who disagree with them.

 

Obviously, not everyone who is against gay marriage is a "homophobe." I particularly think this is abusive language---one can have what one perceives as genuine reasons for not wanting gay marriage. . . without fearing homosexuals at all.

 

I don't fear homosexuals at all. My reading of the situation is that homosexuality is a kind of psychological pathology (as they say "who would CHOOSE to be gay"); when one reads of bathhouses, and homosexual tourism, gay parades, etc., one quickly notes that homosexuality is quite different from heterosexuality.

 

I just have not seen a decent account of how homosexuality develops.

 

The name-calling, as I see it, comes many from those pressing for "gay rights." They want to force an enormous change and take an immediate dislike to anyone who tries to stop them. . . or even raise reasonable questions about their premises. I dislike the hysteria.

[sherminator505 10]

"I also wonder if there's just a big propaganda machine that's been developed here, to pressure the public, to whitewash reality."

 

Again, to what end? More specifically, what do you believe this "propaganda machine" is intended to "pressure the public" to do, exactly?

[DanKroh 11]

"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)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, watching this thread progress is like watching a train wreck, eh? It's sad and ugly, but hard to look away.

 

To my mind, da issue is so politically and emotionally charged that I expect real objective research is impossible to conduct or to publish in da U.S., if not the entire world. Those philosophy of science folks tell us that researcher bias begins with what they choose to investigate in da first place. I think yeh see that, for example, in some of da folks going way out of their way in what seems like an awfully stretched effort to ascribe homosexuality to genetics. On da other side, I think yeh see it in stretched efforts to link homosexuality to pedophilia. Having more experience with people and politics than with research, I'd hazard that any of da loaded, hard questions being raised here would ever find funding, or pass human subjects review, or survive da political side of the peer review process. It's all just too charged an atmosphere. As the climate scientists demonstrated, science and politics don't mix well, eh? And this issue is more ambiguous and more emotionally charged than da climate debate.

 

I agree with Mr. Boyce. Da term "homophobe" is just another ugly pejorative meant to discount someone's view. Generally speakin', I think da only way to ever make sense of things is to stop all of the yammering like that so that da issues can be addressed with a level head and a sense of compassion.

 

So I reckon that da truth is a more subtle and complex one, eh? Certainly, there seem to be striking similarities between da multi-partner behaviors and power relationships in some male homosexual communities and da multi-partner behaviors and power relationships of serial homosexual ephebophiles like some of da priests mentioned. Admitting that doesn't diminish that there are also some committed long term monogamous gay male couples, or that there are similarities between heterosexual multi-partner behavior and heterosexual statutory rape.

 

For my part, I believe lived homosexuality is a serious personal sin. But then lots of things are personal sins, eh? I don't necessarily want da government involved in all of 'em. Or even the Boy Scouts . Jesus considered hoarding wealth to be a grave personal sin ("harder for the rich to get into heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"), but that doesn't mean I support government confiscation of wealth, or excluding da well to do from Scouting.

 

We do well to try to dismantle da adversarial politics and legalisms around these issues so that we can see straight. From all sides.

 

Beavah

[Trevorum 24]

I believe lived homosexuality is a serious personal sin..."

 

Yah, I reckon that's the crux of it all. As long people allow religion to tell them what to believe, we'll have this disconnect.

 

[skeptic 992]

Hope you are not holding your breath Beavah. Once again, you are asking for rationality and common sense. Not likely!

[DanKroh 11]

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 group of people to pedophiles, call them "pathologic", and go on and on with negative connotations and comparisions and then get to complain about the words they use to describe your actions. Just sayin'.)

[Beavah 205]

I called Mr. Donohue's opinion piece a "homophobic scree"

 

Yah, would that be a sloped pile of talus rocks that is afraid of looking the same? .

 

Trev, religion doesn't tell people what to think any more than science or a news show. It provides a rich cultural and historical context in which to frame and answer questions, and it's done a fine job with a lot of those questions. Much of your modern, secular way of lookin' at da world is rooted in a Judeo-Christian culture and ethic. Yeh don't make your case by such ad hominem silliness, however pithy it is .

 

Beavah

[DanKroh 11]

"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)

[Beavah 205]

Nah, scree doesn't avalanche like that, eh? It's just right difficult to wade through, or climb on and actually get anywhere. Guess that works, too .

 

Beavah