Religion/Sexuality

[DanKroh]

" 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".

[DanKroh]

"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.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Horizon, "Mr. Boyce: Your .pdf link is interesting, but while skimming it in only 1 or 2 places does it appear to compare the rates of risky or dangerous behaviors of homosexuals to those of heterosexuals. Without showing the rate among equivalent heterosexual populations (and controlling for appropriate factors such as income and education), you can not make a scientifically backed judgment call."

 

Not to disagree. However, I would note that even the correct use of statistical methods to make comparisons does not by itself necessarily comprise 'science'. Worse, flawed comparisons that don't control for other variables are simply not useful or valid, as Horizon and others have noted.

 

Dan later mentions 'bad science'. To me, 'bad science' simply is not science at all but something else pretending to be science...often used as such for political or other agendas. This is a term I hear from time to time and it has many connotations, two of which are notable here.

 

First is an approach which correctly examines the available data to 'make the best' of what is available. If it stops there it is incomplete. Moreover, this approach, if employing statistical methods, might employ exploratory data analysis (EDA) but is not exactly the process described in the previously mentioned statistical comparisons. EDA is useful even if the data do not lend themselves to anything conclusive because the approach CAN explore the data to find testable hypotheses, few of which are mentioned in these studies. EDA is designed to eliminate biases, thus leaving potential numerical relationships. If EDA is followed by experimentation or other forms of tests, the overall process is more complete. But if it stops with the statistical results, even if done carefully, we're still left with little more than intelligent speculation, regardless of the bias of the speculators.

 

The second connotation of 'bad science' is a process that begins with a pre-conceived notion and proceeds with attempts to prove those notions. This is a popular view of science held by the general public and unfortunately it is the opposite of what 'good science' is.

 

The preconceived notion itself is benign if it is constructed in the form of a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally or falsified through other means. But the 'test' is a process in which the 'good scientist' attempts to DISPROVE the preconceived notion.

This healthy self-skepticism seems to be absent from the 'sides' of these arguments and I could be wrong but it seems to be absent from ALL of politics (religion also, I might add).

To me what we are left with as a result is a system of competing biases, few of which are likely to prevail because all of them suffer from the same 'true believer' advocates.

 

Sorry folks, we've drawn sides and until someone produces testable hypotheses with unequivocal test results, this topic is just going to continue as little more than a quibble. Furthermore, I expect such unequivocal experimentation and results to happen shortly after we pay down the national debt.

In the meantime the reality is that the BSA policy allows 'unavowed' gays and atheists to be members. They are there. We just don't know for sure who they are.

And anyone who clings to moral absolutes will just have to tilt against imaginary windmills. It is a situation that is unavoidable and can only change if BSA changes to allow gay or atheist members. Trevorum may well be right in his prediction. In the meantime, tilt away.

 

[vol_scouter]

Dan,

 

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. 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. 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).

 

Once again, it does not matter whether homosexuality is genetic or not. We do not tell multiple Y males that it OK to commit violent crimes because they are genetically predisposed to do so. We do not tell alcoholics who are genetically predisposed that is OK to drink. We do not fail to treat genetic diseases or accept genetically bad behavior. So whether or not homosexuality is genetic makes no difference on whether the behavior is right or wrong.

 

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.

[GernBlansten]

vol_scouter,

In your medical opinion, do overweight men have a higher incidence of heart disease, diabetes and stroke?

 

Is the incidence of these conditions for overweight adult males greater than any incidence of homosexuality in the general male population?

 

Since one could infer that their condition is a choice and the result of their lifestyle, that they do not represent the role model we really want for our scouts?

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

I agree. The BSA is establishing some weight standards with which I agree even though I am not able to meet those standards presently. We do not allow drinking or illicit drug use. Smoking is not allowed in the presence of the boys.

[GernBlansten]

So vol_scouter, in your medical opinion, a ban on those scouters who cannot meet the weight standards of currently placed on high adventure should face the same fate as the homosexuals (ban from BSA membership), because their conditions are based on lifestyle and pose a risk to our youth.

Is that your opinion?

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

Your question was should obese scouters be regarded as good role models. I do not think that they should be role models. I would not favor 'banning' them. Restrictions on activities are appropriate and perhaps many of us will lose their excess weight. I agree with a ban on homosexuals because of my religion and risk of sexual abuse of boys. 'Studies' about homosexuals abusing youth are fraught with politics from both sides. 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.

[evmori]

They ya go again, Gern! Ya gotta read the ENTIRE application! There is not check box but you already knew that because you are a smart guy!

 

Yep sherm has stated he is an Eagle! Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, too.

[GernBlansten]

But vol_scouter, your argument against having gays being role models is based on their lifestyle choices which medically put themselves at risk and thus, put our youth at risk.

I'm just look for consistency. If an obese scouter's lifestyle poses the same risk (or greater by modal population distribution) to their own health and transferable to the health of our youth, they should face the same consequences, right? Or is your religious views clouding your medical analysis? Or perhaps your own admission to being in the aforementioned target population? You are an enigma.

 

Also, you state that heterosexuals do not sexually abuse same sex youth, only homosexuals do. That's contrary to evidence available. In fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual, many married with children. How in your medical opinion do you justify that position, when it contray to observed evidence?

[DanKroh]

"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.

[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.

[vol_scouter]

Dan,

 

I subscribed in the mid 1980's to a hardback series that was published every other month. It would pick a disease to explore with several articles written by expert specialists from all over the country. An issue was devoted to homosexual bowel problems. I did not pay to move those volumes many years ago. It was not made up by Cameron whoever he is. So sorry, it is you who are wrong. I am not demonizing homosexuals, I am saying that the homosexual lifestyle of many (most) homosexuals is not healthy and should not be held as a lifestyle to be emulated. It is not a fallacy that many (most) homosexuals have an unhealthy lifestyle. All studies about such issues as sexual practices are fraught with problems. You wish to believe those that agree with your beliefs and experiences. Whether the bad behaviors stem from societal pressures or other issues is difficult to determine. San Francisco is very accepting of homosexuals and has for years yet the homosexual community has many very unhealthy practices. I have been careful not to demonize homosexuals because I do not see them as evil. As Gern points out, there are many unhealthy lifestyles. My agreement with banning homosexuals is as I said: risks to the youth and my religion.

 

To clarify for someone else, pedophiles have sexual with pre-pubertal children and the relationships are usually heterosexual. This is a different group than who would be abusing most youth in Boy Scouts and Venturing. Pedophiles have very high recidivism rates.

 

Dan, I agree that having less of a sense of rejection would make a difference in the homosexual community. The magnitude of the difference could be significant but could also be small. The experiment can not be done.

 

I have cared for many homosexuals and AIDs patients as well. I have coded AIDs patients nearly by myself because others were afraid early in the AIDs epidemic. Many of my homosexual patients have come to me for help and advice. You are not the only one to provide care for and to care about homosexuals.

[DanKroh]

"It was not made up by Cameron whoever he is. So sorry, it is you who are wrong."

 

I guess my statement was not clear. I didn't say that Cameron made it up. I believe the term was actually coined by Kazal in 1976. However, it is Cameron's legacy because he popularized it in the mainstream in the late 1980's and made it a popular urban myth and rallying cry among the anti-gay activists.

 

(edited to address the "whoever he is"; SPLC has devoted an entire "Intelligence Report" to him: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587)

 

"It is not a fallacy that many (most) homosexuals have an unhealthy lifestyle."

 

No, that is a subjective opinion. Which is not supported by unbiased scientific evidence. Bias comes in many forms, and it is not always intentional or politically based, but is still bias and affects the quality of the study and how it should be interpreted.

 

But you say that your opinion about their health is not the basis for your support of their ban from scouting. Those issues are:

1. Youth protection - has been debunked over and over and over again, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Again with the semantics. Ephebophiles (which are the ones who would be abusing youth in the 11-18 range) are also vastly predominantly self-identified as heterosexuals (with wives and children, yada yada), and are NOT the the same people engaged in consentual same-sex relationships between adults that we commonly call "homosexual".

2. Your religion - well, many religions, including an increasing number of sects within Christianity, have no problem with it. In Massachusetts, gay couples are even married and many of them have families (so you can't use the "non-marital relationship"). Why does your religious belief get to trump those of others?

 

So if blacks have an HIV infection rate 7x higher than whites in this country (not to mention heart disease, hypertension, sickle cell disease, etc), why do you not generalize their lifestyle as unhealthy? Since 8 in 10 women will contract HPV sometime in their lives, why is their lifestyle not unhealthy? Why the double standard?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Hal_Crawford]

"Yep sherm has stated he is an Eagle! Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, too. "

 

Ed:

Wow, there's a zinger. You managed to get Al Gore and Shem in one swipe. (Don't feel bad Sherm, Ed just likened you to to the only man who has won both an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize).

 

Ed, do you have any evidence to suggest that Sherm is not who he says he is or are you just swinging at the fences? Is it that your argument has so faltered that you have nothing left but to accuse those you disagree with of being liars and fakes? I've been posting here for almost a year; do you want to call me a troll too?

 

Do we really know who you are? You claim to be a scouter from Pittsburgh but maybe you are just a troll logging in from a hash bar in Amsterdam.

 

Sometimes the most outspoken attackers of gays are themselves secretly gay. I'm not sure why, perhaps it is to divert suspicion; perhaps they are worried that if gays were allowed to be open in the BSA then they might be outed themselves. Is that your issue? We really don't know that you are who you say you are so why should we believe you?

 

The answer to that is simple. We all profess to be involved in scouting and to live by the oath and law. We promise to be trustworthy and we should extend that expectation to each other. Some who post here are clearly trolls but they are pretty obvious and are usually gone in a flash. Lets all assume the best of each other, even those we disagree with and attack the argument, not the person.

 

Good night.

Hal