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 did. Can't speak to da science." AIDS research is not my specialty, either. Did I every say there was *not* promiscuity in the gay community? Nope. But an *average* of 110 partners? Nah, until I see it in a legitimate scientific study, not gonna bite on that one. What's the *average* number of partners among heterosexuals, btw, just for comparison? Fay, Robert E.; Turner, Charles F.; Klassen, Albert D.; Gagnon, John H. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 243, no. 4889 (January 20, 1989): 338-348. For instance, this study says 4.2 partners for gay men over their lifetimes (which honestly, seems a little low to me). While, Billy, John O.G.; Tanfer, Koray; Grady, William R.; Klepinger, Daniel H. The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 25, no. 2 (March 1993): 52-60. Says 7.3 partners for straight men. Not saying that is the definitive research in the area, but it does demonstrate what else is out there. "On a related note, did anybody see da popular press account from the American Psychological Association meeting this week about how terrible superheroes were for boys, and how da absence of fathers is good for them? If that's what passes for publishable, high-impact research, I reckon you'll forgive da rest of us for laughing." Haven't read it, but I'm sure that your interpretation of what the popular press interpreted from the study MUST be a true reflection of what the study shows (which you've read, right?). Laughter can be quite healthy. However, your rush to make a sweeping mockery of professional psychologists is rather telling.

"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 bizarre because two bodies of the same gender are not designed for sex." There are lots of things the human body was not "designed" to do, which have consequences. Are they all "deviant and bizarre", too? But my original statement stands, people throw "natural" and "unnatural" around like they mean something, when obviously the terms are completely irrelevant when it comes to human sexuality. "Also, you reminded me of something different but related. There was a report of a study around 1995 (give or take a year) that stated the average life expectancy of a homosexual was less than 35 years of age." Citation, please? My bet is that it's actually from Paul Cameron's 1994 publication, since that's the only "original research" I know of that claims those kinds of numbers (all other pubs that claim that cite Cameron), where his "research" was to gather info from the obituaries of men who had died from AIDS. Yeah, I'd believe that in 1995, the average life expectancy of someone with AIDS was less than 35. So? "Then there was a report a friend of my heard at a psychology conference that the average gay male had over 110 partners in their lifetime." Now there's some solid scientific data for ya', right there. Again, citation, please? In all my years of practice, I have yet to meet one of these "average gay males". Now see, this one isn't a straw man, it's a red herring.

"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 size of a watermelon through an opening the size of a grapefruit.

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 and equality, as human beings. I truly do not comprehend why some people consider that "unreasonable" or a bad thing.

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 question has been answered, and that answer confirmed multiple times. Legitimate scientists rarely continue researching something that will not shed further light on the subject. This is further enforced by the policy statements of several professional societies that I mentioned earlier.

"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 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'.)

"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 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)

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.

"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.

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 that minimum, and the boy splits the profits with the troop and gets his part as "scout bucks" to be used for dues, for camp, or even for equipment. So (this is to moosetracker) you need not depend on council to give out camperships to your top sellers, you can provide them yourself if your fundraiser is successful enough. If you feel that supporting your district/council with fundraising is something your unit should do, you can always make a donation, to be set by your committee, either as a percentage of your profit, or a flat amount that they feel the unit can afford to give. But you are under no obligation to do so.

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 assume that all same-sex ephebophilia is being perpetrated by people who are "long-term homosexuals". Aside from the fact that this completely discounts bisexuals, it ignores an important fact about sexual abuse. Sexual abuse/molestation/rape is about power and opportunity, not about sexual attraction or sexual satisfaction. Why do so many people seem to have so much trouble understanding that? Heterosexuals can and do commit sexual predation on victims of the same-sex. The question that needs to be asked is what percentage of the homosexual population may also happen to be pedophiles and ephebophiles. Well, guess what? That question has been asked and studied: (BTW, Mr. Boyce, THIS is what a citation looks like, for future reference). Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181. Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44. Krugman, R. D. (1994). Sexual politics and child protection: They don't mix [Commentary]. Pediatrics, 94, 45-46. (A commentary, but contains many more good references) McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265. For the layperson, here is also an excellent article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link Conclusion by these and many more studies: pedophilia/ephebophilia is no more prevalent among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. "Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear?"

"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 study of these matters." Well, then you assume anger where there is none. I am asserting my opinion based on your history of posts in this forum, in which have been quite clear about your feelings that pedophilia and homosexuality are connected, which you have supported by quoting documented hate groups and practitioners of false science. If you have had a change of heart and are now actually seeking facts, then I am happy to hear that. I think my mood upon writing this could best be described as confused. Confused as to what purpose posting this article serves here other than to continue to perpetuate the smear that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and very confuses as to why you keep trying to treat Donohue's op-ed as a scientific research study. "Why the ad hominem? Why shoot the messenger (Mr. Donahue)? Analyze the message. Study the facts. You may find your biases unsupported." What ad hominem? I am simply pointing out your history of opinions expressed here. As for Mr. Donohue (whose history of opinion I am also VERY familiar with), he may try and wrap up his homophobic scree in the mantle of concern for his church, but it doesn't change what it is. That is my analysis. He presents no facts to study. He presents logical fallacies and outright falsehoods. I have real research and facts, and would be happy to give you some references from which to read them yourself (and have in the past, which you evidently have not availed yourself of). And if all you have is to keep telling me that my "biases" are unsupported, then you obviously don't understand what I do for a living (despite having said it many, many times), and we have nothing more to discuss. But if you continue to present biased opinions and fallacies as facts, I will continue to challenge them.

"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 of Bill Donohue, who presents no evidence to support HIS opinion, and has, shall we say, just a little bias himself? On the other hand, if you do a little research, you can find several original peer-reviewed research papers that support the APA, et.al. position that it is not so. I'm sorry, but given your history of comments on this forum, I find your claim that you are "just trying to find answers" a little disingenuous. Rather, you seem ready to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME that Mr. Donohue has all the answers you need.

"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 Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse. Notice it says no CORRELATION, which Mr. Donohue claims there is. Why would they have these statements if there were such overwhelming evidence in peer-reviewed professional journals to the contrary? "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?" That 80% of reported abuse cases involved boys may well be a fact, one of the few that Donahue cites, if the National Review Board of the Conference of Catholic Bishops (an unbiased group, to be sure) is to be believed. But what is the "conclusion" exactly? Since all priestly abuse in the RCC is performed by males, then yes, by definition, 80% of the reported abuse cases were homosexual in nature. However, that DOES NOT MEAN that the men involved are gay men. Abuse is about power over someone weaker, not sexual attraction or love. A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual. And what about that 20% of reported abuse involving girls? Are "The Gays" responsible for that, too? Mr. Donohue's opinion piece is not really so much about homosexuality (as your thread title proclaims), as it is about trying to absolve the RCC, methinks.

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 long as you don't tell, as long as no one finds out, as long as you don't get caught, it's ok. Mixed messages, much?

"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 and suicide. Oh yeah, that's a great choice. I think this is a good example of why the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument fails. There is no evidence that this boy has actually had a homosexual relationship. He has declared his orientation, we have no idea if he has ever acted on it (unless jblake has more info). And yet, several people are willing to convict him on a simple declaration that he was born with this orientation. Where's the love? On the other hand, jblake now reveals that "The boy has major maturity issues and believes that as long as you don't get caught it's okay. I don't feel comfortable having him set any examples for the other boys, that's all. Has nothing to do with his sexuality, but he's using that issue to go public." Jblake, I have to ask, you say it has nothing to do with his sexuality, but did you consider him immature and a poor role model *before* you found out about his orientation? If so, I have to agree with OGE, what about his behavior before his revelation made him Eagle material?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

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 "reparative therapy", similar to the therapy used to attempt to influence sexual orientation, but I know many people don't consider that "science".