Mr. Boyce

With respect to the influence of religion on this debate, we should remember that many major Protestant denominations are fine with homosexual behavior. . . and there are contrived (in my opinion) readings of the Bible which try to wash away condemnation (some people want to accept these whirlitzing mazurkas of interpretation, simply because it's a stress having to deal with arguing people coming at you). While there is very likely quantitatively more bizarre heterosexual activity, my guess is that it's more private. My guess is that there is proportionately more bizarre homosexual activity. I was surprised to learn of state gay rodeo clubs, for instance: these kinds of things make me believe that sexuality is a more important thing in the life of a homosexual than that of a heterosexual. I suppose having children does cut into your sex life!

I think what we're seeing in this thread is that one can view these issues with "sexual relativism": what standards are there? who are you (infernal smug idiot!) to say what I can and can not do? I'm not entirely convinced that this is the way to go, nor do I feel that it is only religion (an insinuated "outdated" there!) that makes us have second thoughts about considering heterosexual and homosexual actions equivalent. I'm left wondering considerably if environmental factors explain it all. . . and if perhaps environmental conditions have generated more homosexual activity. (This is perhaps rather akin to the old "Roman luxury did in the Empire" view).

Dan I appreciate what you're saying. I'm just trying to learn more here. The fact that there's an International Mr. Leather competition, and some other such bizarre things, apparently on a broader scale than what some may take to be comparable heterosexual sexual excess, makes me believe homosexuality is a kind of personality disorder of a serious sort. The extreme behavior, risk taking, many multiple partners, narcissism, etc., suggests this, and I think these things make homosexual behavior easy to criticize. I think heterosexuals quickly sense that homosexuals are much more willing to experiment with sex than they are.

Perhaps this goes with any "group" that believes it is oppressed. . . they believe they are oppressed until you give them all and everything they demand. It has the feel of a demanding child. I'm not happy that in American politics, it's such a "my way or the highway" approach. It MAY be the case that the group is not being oppressed. It MAY be the case that not all the demands are reasonable or sensible. I don't like this "only I get to call the tune", and "only I get to say what is really real" aspect.

re: the atheist. No, just responding to a fellow above. re: AFter the Ball Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this "a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style." Illustrated. Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Just to clarify. I don't discount the religious beliefs as a factor, but I do think some religious people follow them more than others. I think the most famous book on homosexual activism and propaganda techniques was written some time back (and sold a good many copies), After the Ball. Read it and see what you think. With atheist activism, just recently wasn't there a campaign last Christmas to do ads on the sides of buses in major American cities trying to water out Jesus from the holiday?

I don't see things so black and white. Most people will identify themselves as religious. . . but not really follow through on the tough stuff when it comes to voting. They pick and choose (remember the term "cafeteria Catholic"?). I have met very few religious people who do not try to think for themselves but merely follow church teachings. . . those teachings are important, as you may know, but they are usually viewed as arguments, not orders, for a viewpoint. When it comes to atheists, I merely am assuming they generally will have a "let me be" libertarianism or "it's all the same" sense of relativism. While there really are aggressive, in-your-face, atheists, most that I have met are just happy with their views and want to be let alone. My view of atheists is personal and anecdotal. . . but I would not be surprised if some study somewhere bore this out.

. . . I wonder about socialist programs like TIF districts, tax incentives, government buyouts, loan supports and subsidies, etc. It sure makes corporate managers feel Big Daddy will pick them up and set them sweetly back on their feet should they fail.

I don't doubt atheists would feel that way. My general approach, though, is that viewing political life as only a structure of individual rights misses out on important things: social duties and obligations, some of which limit "rights." I also think there's some merit to the notion that judges keeping minting new rights. I view the family as being an intergenerational and procreative unit valuable to society, even when a family is unfortunate and the two cannot reproduce. I hate to say this, too, but I find it impossible to put judges on a pedestal and worship their decisions: I don't see the Constitution as the source of our general American morality. (But all this is moving away from the main topic here).

. . . with respect to religion, I would suggest that far fewer people on the street actually do follow the tenets of the faith they allege to follow. Polls show increased falling away from faith and faith obligations. I rather wonder if the pro-homosexual people are beating on a straw man there. It seems to me that much of the reaction against homosexuality is intensely personal, emotional, visceral; repugnance, not religion.

I think the suggestion above may be true, that the current conditions are so charged that good research is virtually impossible to do. My concern is politics; that's my area of expertise. I'm trying to push past the propaganda. I like clean politics and good government, so I don't like seeing a "rush to judgement" in either direction (pro gay marriage, anti gay marriage) or steamrolling/bandwagon politics. I like fact-finding and public deliberation---stuff that our current media situation just may not much allow. I'm not persuaded much by the pedophile/epebephile (whatever!) "distinction." My guess is that homosexuality is along a spectrum, and that there are environmental conditions that can press a susceptible person more in one direction than another. One curious thought to think is that these environmental conditions can be changed: I recall a Psych 101 class in which we learned that overcrowding mice led to more violent mouse behavior. . . and homosexual mouse activity!

. . . the thing that hooked me in, years ago, was the notion of becoming an Eagle Scout, a really superlative thing. I also much liked the outdoors.

Well, then, what's the answer? Are you born that way? or Do you develop that way?

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.

"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.

Good point. It seems reasonable to believe the great majority of scout leaders are heterosexual. Knowing that self-identified heterosexuals commit the bulk of abuse means controls are essential.

I guess the final impetus for my interest in this question is that not only am I involved in scouting, but I also wonder if there's just a big propaganda machine that's been developed here, to pressure the public, to whitewash reality. So I'm searching for more than just guesses. I'm not keen on seeing the democratic system manipulated and abused.

. . . and I should discount this? http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Thanks. 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."

Dan Kroh: Instead of the anger, please just send me a few scientific references. Thank you.

The facts would be those in the studies the man cites. 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 study of these matters. Why the ad hominem? Why shoot the messenger (Mr. Donahue)? Analyze the message. Study the facts. You may find your biases unsupported.

With this, I'm just trying to find answers. There is a lot of partisan stuff developed around these issues---a lot of heat, rather than illumination. And it does little good to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME, without studying a document, how it COULD be procedurally flawed. Let's study the document. 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. I see liberals as being loud and close-minded on this very challenging and difficult issue. Heck, I'm used to seeing conservatives act belligerently like that.

"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." -and- When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004 regarding priestly sexual abuse, Robert S. Bennett, the noted attorney who headed the study said, "There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature." Were they wrong to draw this conclusion? Furthermore, the National Review Board explicitly said that "we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades."

Here's a short piece which contains some interesting stuff. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html

I returned the large and received the mediums, which fit very well. For some odd reason, there's no back pocket to stick your wallet in. (I always thought a wallet was a pretty high-tech thing. At least for me it is.)