DanKroh

"However, heterosexuals by definition do not have homosexual relationships with youth of the same sex unless it is a crime of violence. So it is either bisexual or homosexual if it is pleasure motivated. For those reasons, the ban makes sense to me." There is a reason people indigenous to the polar regions have so many words for snow. Unfortunately, our vocabulary for describing the variety of sexual relationships is not nearly so rich. Do not confuse same-gender sexual relation between a youth and an adult with what happens between two consenting adults of the same gender that we currently call "homosexuals". And as Gern pointed out, the vast majority of the men who engage in same-gender sexual relations with youth self-identify as heterosexual, and often have wives and children. Semantics make a poor argument.

"Gay bowel syndrome was described as a health issue in homosexual men well before AIDs was first being discovered by observing Kaposi's sarcoma in young homosexual men." "Gay bowel syndrome" is another one of Paul Cameron's legacies. It is not a medical term, and has been abandoned and debunked by gastroenterologists. One journal wrote about it in 1997, "It is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome." "Male homosexuals in the typical American homosexual lifestyle have higher rates of Hep B and Hep C than age matched controls. They have high rates of STDs including Condyloma Acuminatum due to the large number of partners tat most male homosexuals report." Ah, that would probably be the large number of parters reported in a self-selected study, representing a less than 1% response rate, which tends to bias results towards respondents who feel they have something unusual to report (bragging bias). Or perhaps it is from the study that used a research pool from STD clinic patients (sample bias). Hard to tell without a citation. "I have read several studies in JAMA and other journals that indicate many homosexuals still have risky behaviors despite the AIDs risk. AIDs remains primarily a disease of male homosexuals, IV drug addicts, and prostitutes (though researchers believe that most prostitutes get the disease from IV drugs rather than intercourse)." Yes, AIDS is higher in the homosexual population that the heterosexual population (in this country), although watch out, the black population also has a infection rate 7x higher than whites. Of course, in other countries, the vast majority of HIV infection is in the heterosexual population. So what's your point? I could give you statistics about the higher percentage of unhealthy behaviors in homosexuals such as drinking and smoking. However, about all of this "unhealthy lifestyle", I have two fallacies I would like to point out. First, correlation does not equal causality. Anti-gay activists want to say that these behaviors are due to the person being gay. I would propose, however, that it is equally likely that these behaviors result from the societal degradation of homosexuals, which leads to a sense of decreased self-esteem and self-worth. The same can be said for the higher incidence of depression and suicide among homosexuals. The second fallacy would be that this whole thing is really a red herring to try to demonize homosexuals as bad people, because obviously these things only happen when you are immoral. This also discounts the fact that a not insignificant percentage of heterosexual couples also engage in the exact same behaviors, but somehow, that isn't used as proof that heterosexuality is "bad". "My 20+ years of practicing medicine makes it clear that male homosexuals typically have unhealthy lifestyles and that some are genetically predisposed. Whether it should be an accepted lifestyle is determined by religious beliefs and the weight that you give to the health aspects of the lifestyle." And my almost 20 years of practicing psychology with a predominately homosexual and bisexual client pool makes it clear that homosexuals typically have lifestyles that are no more unhealthy than heterosexuals. Funny, don't worry much about gay men and lesbians getting HPV, which will infect 8 in 10 women over the course of their lifetimes. But no one is condemning heterosexuality among women in the same way as they are homosexuality (ok, well, actually, some of them are, but the misogyny of a patriarchal society is another topic entirely). So I agree that one's acceptance of homosexuality is determined almost predominately by religious beliefs, and in some cases, by insecurity about one's own sexuality. However, the lifestyles and mental health of homosexuals *would* improve if societal attitudes would become a little more enlightened.

"You may be a moderate but your sources are decidedly conservative." Yes, that would be the same Tradition Values Coalition listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

" I am a decided political moderate but it IS disturbing to see the tendency among liberals of simply running away from facts. Or pooh-poohing them. Study this issue further, and you'll be surprised at the amount of slant, cant and studied ignorance of facts by our media outlets: they always feel happier selling a "let whatever happen" view." As opposed to the anti-gay faction, who like to distort and misrepresent statistics and perform bad science and pass it off as legitimate. That is, when they run out of ways to ignore actual scientific evidence (vs. "facts" which are no doubt full of "truthiness"). Horizon has already caught the main flaw of the Traditional Values Coalition (didn't I say unbiased?) scree you linked to, Mr. Boyce. They present lots of statistics (which I have no doubt have been distorted) for activities of homosexuals, without contrasting them to the parallel statistics for heterosexuals. And again, if you trace the where they got those statistics, they either misrepresent the sources (self-selecting and casual surveys), the bias of the study population (STD clinic patients, prison populations), or manipulate the statistics (for instance, by grouping together anyone who doesn't fit what they consider "normal"). Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has written an amazing parody that exposes all these tricks used by anti-gay organizations in their publications (which are always either self-published, or in vanity, publish-for-pay journals, rather than scientific, peer-reviewed journals): http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm Sorry, but I'm going to call manure "manure", even if you consider it "pooh-poohing". The APA statement was in my mailbox this morning when I waded through the backlog of email while I was at summer camp. I'm very happy to see it. Not that I think it's really going to make much practical difference. Those who have always agreed with it will say, "See?", and those who have always supported reparative therapy will dismiss it as a "political move".

I think we need something similar to Godwin's Law for scouting: When your reach the point where your only response is to tell the person to quit scouting, then you have lost the debate.

Sorry for the delayed response; just got back from summer camp. Mr. Boyce writes: "If you want to attack it, attack the argument being made, not the author." Well, since all of Jeff Satinover's non-scientifically supported opinion piece is based on the incorrect premise that "In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited," then I will just present this: From twin studies (Bailey and Pillard, 1991): 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual If homosexuality had no genetic component, then the concordance among monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins would be the same. The 30% difference between the two indicate a genetic influence. Other than that, Hal has the right of it: "Where is the data? Where is the science to support his arguments? A well written narrative to be sure but lacking any scientific support it is just one man's opinion. For instance, how do we know that "Psychotherapeutic intervention at this point and earlier can be successful in preventing the development of later homosexuality"? He doesn't present any evidence to support this claim." Hal then asks: "What do we know of the author and his expertise? We know his name and that he has an M.D. degree. What is his specialty?" His M.D. is in psychiatry, and he also has a degree in clinical psychology. Hal, Jeff is a brilliant, highly qualified man, there is no arguing about that. However, unlike his quote about "Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas)" would lead you to believe, he is not free of agendas of his own. And that's all I'm going to say about that. On the other hand, about that reparative therapy that Jeff advocates: "No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its long-term effectiveness and hazards. Sufficient anecdotal evidence has surfaced to convince the large mental health professional societies, like the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. to condemn reparative therapy as ineffective, and warn of potentially dangerous side-effects." (from Religious Tolerance) NARTH (the organization under which Jeff operates and publishes his opinion pieces) has self-published the only study supporting reparative therapy. This study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and never will be because the data appears to be entirely composed of subjective opinions ("success stories" of NARTH's "therapists"). Now, Mr. Boyce, please support this statement "This includes much more risky sexual behaviors, more drug abuse, more crime and violence" with scientific evidence from a non-biased source. Vol-scouter, please similarly support this statement "Male homosexuality is typically a very unhealthy lifestyle even prior to AIDS" with scientific evidence from a non-biased source.

"(1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting." Nope, and never claimed I did. I said it was most likely, since that is the ultimate source of those claims. Pretty much every writer quotes "scientific evidence" to support these claims about homosexuality can ultimately be traced back to Cameron (including the ones you espouse, about violence, shortened lifespan, etc). I don't have Zeiger's book, haven't read it, but since you seem to be such a fan, perhaps you can check the footnotes or backmatter in your copy and let us know. "(2) I'm a skeptic about psychological associations (as well as a number of religious denominational votes). Situations which get highly politicized sometimes result in bad science, wrong judgments and manipulated votes. Many lawyers refuse to join the American Bar Association for this reason. And we all know how worked-over and threatening the situation was for the American Psychological Association was at the time the vote was taken to "normalize" homosexuality. Votes made under compulsion just smell bad. Furthermore, as a field, psychology is sadly prone to abrupt shifts and changes, as well as politicized research. . . all of which lessens the field's scientific integrity." Cameron being kicked out of all those organization has not so much to do about his opinions about homosexuality as about his ethics, the fact that he misrepresents other people's work, has outright lied to the press to get a vote to swing his way, and generally practices bad science (as you would have seen if you had looked at any of the links I provided). But it is much easier to dismiss their concerns as being "politically motivated".

"It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds." WHO: 1983: The American Psychological Association on ethics violations 1984: Nebraska Psychological Association 1985: The American Sociological Association 1996: The Canadian Psychological Association HOW: Here is an excellent summary of the methodology flaws in Cameron's work: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html The Southern Poverty Law Center also has an excellent article on him: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587 There is much, much more to be found in the Internet.

"Hans Ziegler's book on scouting contains reference to research that shows homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. . . but he is not the original researcher." Almost guaranteed, he is using Paul Cameron's discredited work, since it is the only "study" I know of that supports this. Published by the aforementioned Family Research Institute (founded by Cameron). "It would be interesting to see the original study, and determine what aspects of homosexual behavior made homosexuals more amenable to this deviant behavior. We know, for instance, that as a group homosexuals are more risk-taking and have greater interest in sex." Also more of Cameron's "conclusions" that have been repeated over and over. However, still doesn't make them any more valid, especially considering Cameron's reputation for misinformation and misrepresentation of other people's research.

"I don't know what sources these would be, but I'd like to." Sherminator, welcome to the discussion. However, beware of the sources you are likely to be cited to support this position. They are most likely articles written by discredited authors based on dubious information, and self-published without peer review, by organizations such as the Family Research Institute, which appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate-based organizations.

Brent, I believe that what you find unclear is how Cheney thinks that marriage equality should be implemented. And I agree, other than saying that he doesn't believe it should be done at the federal level, I have not seen any comments from him that illuminate how he thinks states should enact that equality. But that doesn't negate that he supports (and has since at least the 2004 election) the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. His words on that are pretty clear, imo.

Well, here are the actual words that came *out* of his mouth (emphasis mine): "I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that." Seems pretty clear to me.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

At our "graduation" ceremony, the boys going into their second year of Webelos get a (patrol) patch for the den emblem they have chosen. We've had some good ones, and luckily, some creative parents out there who made custom patches. The Flying Pigs is still one of my favorites.

Personally, I think it's incredibly poor taste to bring in stuff written in other settings and using it to attack people. Not to mention the whole googling people, borders on stalking. Yes, skeptic, everyone needs a hobby. Maybe you should find one that doesn't involve an unhealthy obsession with Merlyn. Or even better, why don't you give us *your* real name so someone who cares can google you?

I think judging all atheists by the vitriol of a strident few is a lot like judging all Christians by the standard of Fred Phelps. I've known a lot of atheists in my time, and most of them are happy, friendly people who don't give a lick if you believe in a sky god. But if you try to proselytize and tell them they are bad people because *they* don't believe in a sky god, yeah, then they tend to get their back up. And yet, Christians seems surprised when that happens. Because then the atheists are just griping. All righty then. And frankly, I put a lot more credence in the idea that atheists actually do have rights infringed upon than the persecution cry of the vast Christian majority.

Twocubdad, talk about changing times These days "Two men, age 45, married, two kids, business owners, making $300k. One's a lawyer, one's a plumber" could be talking about one family. Not necessarily apropos of the discussion, just an observation.

Hi Calico, I was responding to the implication that somehow wanting to take a non-family member to a gender-specific parent function constituted "special treatment" and that my son must therefore be one of "these people" (whoever they are) wanting special treatment because he took a non-familial female to a Mom & Me dance at school. Frankly, such things happen all the time around here (along with non-familial males to Dad & Me stuff), and no one ever says boo about it or cries "special treatment" (perhaps the cries are lost in the fire & brimstone raining down on Massachusetts, or the dogs and cats living together). Yes, I'm being snarky because it annoys me when people forget that there are many reasons why children may have parent(s) of only one gender. Similarly, in a scouting context, I completely agree with Twocubdad; parent gender-specific campouts are a bad idea for the very reason that you may not have any idea why little Jimmy doesn't have a father/mother in the picture.

"This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father." So my son is asking for special treatment when he wanted to take his favorite "auntie" (she's no actual relation, just a family friend) to the Mom and Me dance at his school? How very.

"It's their fault for bein' Catholic or Orthodox or whatever" Yes, it is. If I was a Quaker and wanted to be a police officer, would I be allowed to be one while being unwilling to touch a firearm? Some professions are just incompatible with some religious/moral/ethical beliefs. It should be the responsibility of those pursuing those professions to make sure they do not have a conflict, not the people who they are supposed to be serving. *Especially* if they are going to go into ">$120,000 in debt" in the process, as in vol_scouter's example. Vol_scouter, what you call "MURDER!!", I call a medical procedure that may be legally done for a number of reasons (including *saving* a life), and it should not up to the physician to decide which reasons are good enough for them to deign to perform it.

So vol_scouter, during those "4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and then 4 years of residency to become an Ob/gyn", it didn't occur to them that a specialty in Ob/Gyn might mean that they were asked to perform abortions? That maybe if such actions were "against their conscience", they might want to consider a different specialty? Why should their poor planning become the problem of their prospective patients?

"AUSCS and gays have attacked Scouting's use of public facilities as "public accommodations" instead of acknowledging them as appropriate taxpayer use." Umm, except, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the BSA is not a taxpaying organization.... Other than that, this statement is still an impressive piece of spin. No one is trying to stop scouting from using public facilities, however, it is illegal for scouting to get *special* access and other freebies that the rest of the *actual* taxpayers aren't privy to, when it is on the *actual* taxpayers' dollars. So does that mean that Reverend Barry Lynn is "anti-religious"?

Personally, I feel slighted that we Unitarians aren't on the list. After all, we do have our own jihad: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL Signed, Brother Broadsword of Mild Reason (get your Unitarian Jihad name at http://www.whump.com/dropbox/other/ujname.html) Edited to add: Oh, wait, I guess we'd appear in the "Left Wing" memo put out by DHS in January: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

To me, the inconsistency is not with the wording of the handful of individual verses that mention homosexuality, it's with the way some churches have chosen to fixate on those verses and elevate homosexuality above other things that really are harmful to our society. But then again, I'm with Trev. Don't really care what the Bible says, since it's not my religious book. "Because the Bible says so" is not a persuasive argument to me.

"Gay people have the same rights as anyone else." I remember reading something from the decision that says something to the effect that a homosexual person having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as distasteful to them as giving a heterosexual person the right to marry someone of the same sex. Imagine if you were told that the only way you could enter into marriage was to do it with someone of the same sex. Don't think you'd see a lot of heterosexual people flocking to sign up. Merlyn, excellent point about the anti-miscegenation laws.

Well, push ups certainly are hard on the wrists, so I guess that qualifies as carpal punishment. Sit ups are mostly hard on the back, so I'd call that lumbar punishment. Unless, of course, you meant corporal punishment?