Interesting article on homosexuality

[Eagledad]

>>Could it be because....He is the judge? Not you, not I. So tell me...how arrogant is it to say that if you do something for your reasons, it's wrong, but if I do the exact same thing...but for MY reasons, it's nobile?

[Scoutfish]

Wow Beavah, sometimes you just say it best!

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Eagledad says:

 

Its all there in the bible.

 

I'll have to take your word on what your Bible says or means on the subject of homosexuality, though there are people who disagree with you. We have mainstream Protestant churches in our town that have a gay deacon, in one case, and enough of a "welcoming" attitude in another case that the Scout troop they CO for almost had to find another CO after the Dale decision.

 

And then there is my Bible, which you call the Old Testament. There is one passage in there which has been interpreted by some to condemn homosexuality. Orthodox Jews certainly interpret it that way. Reform Jews don't, and some Reform congregations have gay rabbis and cantors, and perform gay union ceremonies. Presumably they don't think it's a "sin".

 

So when you say it's in the bible, maybe it is for you, but not for everybody.

 

And if we're talking about BSA policy (which I am not sure if we really are in this thread, but this being a Scouting forum, I thought I'd throw it in), the Bible (whichever one you prefer) is not the controlling document -- or at least it isn't supposed to be. The BSA claims to be nonsectarian in matters of religion, and most of the time it is. On the issue of gay leaders, however, it doesn't follow its own principles. I just want the BSA to obey its own values, and allow units to decide who their leaders will be.

[Novice_Cubmaster]

Since there's lots of documented proof of homosexual activity among many types of animals (monkeys, dolphins, penguins, etc.) both in the wild and in zoos - it would appear that homosexuality is natural.

 

Normal is a whole different question.

 

From a purely medical standpoint, is homosexuality an aberration, or a variation? I doubt you could get either a consensus or an objective answer from the medical community on this. But, the medical standpoint isn't the important criteria.

 

From a cultural or religious standpoint, you won't get a consensus about homosexuality being normal either. Some cultures & religions are ok with it, some are not. Hence I'd have to agree with NJCubScouter, if the BSA is truly nonsecterian, and there's no universal stand on the issue for all religions, then the BSA is favoring one set of beliefs over others.

[Mr. Boyce]

. . . so much for the relativism.

 

And if you go the other direction, and favor that view, then you oppress that side of the coin, right? The people who oppose gay marriage, for instance, will be suffering should it be made operative.

 

Western culture has been substantially influenced by Judeo-Christian belief; there's no compelling fact to show that it has been displaced.

 

I always laugh when I see the animal examples. I just don't see these as relevant for obvious reasons.

[sherminator505]

"The people who oppose gay marriage, for instance, will be suffering should it be made operative."

 

How?

[OldGreyEagle]

C'mon Sherm, it politics in the 21rst Century, its all about imposing one's will, or view of what's right on others.

 

If I say there is to be no Same Sex Unions, Marriages, Covenants whatever and if there are Same Sex Unions, MArriages, Covenants, then I lose, if I lose I suffer since I didnt get my way which is of course the true measure of winning

 

Compromise? Live and Let Live? Where's the victory in that?

 

I know whats best for you even if I dont know you, I just do, its a gift and a curse...

[DanKroh]

"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.

[NJCubScouter]

Dan:

 

Inconceivable!

[Eagledad]

>>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.

[Novice_Cubmaster]

Only 110 partners? I think Magic Johnson's got that beat. And he's HIV positive.

 

And he's not representative of the heterosexual population either.

 

I think a report from 1995 is seriously out of date today. And possibly irrelevant as well.

 

 

NC

[DanKroh]

"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.

[Beavah]

Yah, DanKroh, I reckon yeh do need to review what da real meaning of "Straw Man" is, 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Beavah

 

[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.

[Beavah]

Not really. I reckon I'm good with it. Eh?

 

Yah, shame, because you clearly got it wrong. But then, I reckon there is great psychological research that shows folks tend to significantly overestimate their own competence.

 

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.

 

Since conference presentations aren't available outside da conference, of course I haven't read the work yet, which you knew.

 

But professional communities at their flagship conference typically highlight research that they believe is timely and seminal to share with da popular press. The fact that da APA viewed this research as being so important as to merit highlighting for da general public does call for considerable mockery. Either they are totally inept at communications in da modern world, or they really don't have much really valuable research goin' on.

 

Beavah