Interesting article on homosexuality

[DanKroh]

"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."

 

Well, whether I got it right or wrong (sorry, not going to argue about that), clearly what kind of fallacy I labeled it was important enough to the debate that you needed to point it out, rather than focusing on the substance of the fallacy itself. As you say, shame that.

 

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

 

Well, I wasn't at the meeting, and just a little looking around in the "popular press" brought me to understand that what the researcher was saying is that superheroes based on "bad boys" like Iron Man (and many other current superheroes) may not be good roll models for boys, unlike old-school superheroes like Superman, who modeled other virtues as well as heroism. Very different conclusion from what you presented. Once you get past the distortions, whether the research is "silly" I'll leave up to people who work in that field.

 

"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."

 

Or, the popular press latched onto this item because it made good, splashy headlines that could be distorted to make the research look silly. Again, I wasn't at the meeting, so I don't know how much "highlighting" it received other than by the press. I think you overestimate how much control there is on what the press reports about at a conference like this.

 

So what exactly was the point of this entire side line, and what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

[Eagledad]

>>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?

[DanKroh]

"Your basing that explination off pain? What?"

 

I didn't say anything about pain. Where exactly does pain come into the equation, since homosexual sex generally causes no more pain than heterosexual sex. I asked what you meant by "It is certainly real". If "it" refers to pain, then my argument still stands. Lots of things we do to our bodies cause "pain" (which is not the same thing as "injury", just to be clear). Pierced ears, smoking, sports, just to name a few. I'm still trying to understand why some activities that "the body isn't designed to do" and "cause pain" are "bizarre and deviant" but others are as wholesome as apple pie.

 

"the intent behind their action is what makes the act deviant or bizarre. Since sex with the same gender is not natural, it is automatically deviant and bizarre."

 

Again, please define how sex with the same gender is "not natural". Because one definition of "not natural" would be "not occurring in nature". Since human beings are part of nature (along with many other animals who also engage in same-gender sex), obviously, this activity is "natural". Saying that two bodies of the same-gender "aren't designed" to have sex also is meaningless, since obviously, the mechanics work without technological intervention. What other criteria do you want to impose to define "natural"?

 

I'm still having real trouble with your premise that if something is "not natural, it is automatically deviant and bizarre".

 

I'm also curious about this statement: "It doesn't matter if a person is heterosexual, homosexual, purple or short, the intent behind their action is what makes the act deviant or bizarre." What exactly is the difference in intent behind the act of sex between a committed, monogamous heterosexual couple and sex between a committed, monogamous homosexual couple, that makes one of them "bizarre and deviant"?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Eagledad]

>>Our instinctive behavior to attract a partner for appropriation is very complicated and has many aspects to it, but one thing it doesnt have is the drive to attract the same gender to appropiate. That desire would mean something isnt quite right.>Every living thing has an instinctive drive to appropriate. Our instinctive behavior to attract a partner for appropriation is very complicated and has many aspects to it, but one thing it doesnt have is the drive to attract the same gender to appropiate.

[NJCubScouter]

So this really just comes down to name-calling: "Deviant", "bizarre", "not natural." I thought that we as adult Scouters are supposed to be setting a better example than that.

[DanKroh]

Where are those first two paragraphs quoted from?

 

"I don't accept that animals of the same sex appearing to have sex makes it OK. Animals react to instinct, so what ever is going on, its not a gay action. For example, sometimes a dog mounts another dog to show pack dominance. Its not a sexual thing, it purely a show ranking."

 

I agree, dominance is a different thing entirely (kinda like the huge difference between a consensual gay relationship and a man raping another man). However, there is evidence of animals in long-term pairings with other animals of the same gender, including sex (not just "appearing to have sex"), as well as raising young together. Still haven't addressed why same-sex pairings among humans isn't "natural", or defined what "natural" means.

 

Or have we come full circle in the "logic" yet? It isn't natural because it's deviant, and it's deviant because it isn't natural?

[OldGreyEagle]

C'mon NJCubScouter, you very well know what deviant, bizarre and Not Natural sex is...

 

Its anything YOU would not do (rhetorical you implied of course)

[ScoutNut]

I have 2 male dogs. One has all of his "equipment", and is completely as nature intended him. The other has been "fixed" (although I never realized he was broken ). Every so often, when his male urges hit him, our "unfixed" dog tries his best to make babies with our other one.

 

So, my question is, is our "unfixed" dog immoral, deviant, and bizarre? Or is he simply doing as nature intended him to do, by trying to make babies with someone he is attracted to?

 

Also, is my "fixed" dog also deviant and bizarre because he is not as nature intended him to be?

 

And one last question, what would you husbands do, and how would you feel, if you were told that you could live with your wife, but you could never, ever, be intimate with her on any level. No hand holding, no touching a cheek, no kissing, no sex. Nothing. Could you stop yourself?

 

Keep in mind that homosexuality is NOT a choice. These folks did not wake up one morning and decide, Hey, I'm bored, I think I will do something REALLY different today. They ARE as NATURE made them.

[GernBlansten]

I always thought preoccupation with other people's sexual practices, especially strangers, was somewhat deviant and bizarre.

[Eagledad]

>>Still haven't addressed why same-sex pairings among humans isn't "natural", or defined what "natural" means>>

 

Too many words the first two times huh.

 

OK, opposite genders have babies, same genders dont. How's that?

 

Our bodies are very complicated and instinctivily use many actions intended just to find the appropriate mate. Its amazing really, but the ways our bodies give off or identify odors, the way we talk, move our eyes, and even walk have purposeful messages when we are trying to attract a mate. The ONLY purpose for all that natural complexity is to produce offspring. From a nature point, it would make no sense to attract a mate of the same gender since that would produce nothing of benefit to nature.

 

There are certainly motivations that would drive a person to seek out a sexual partner of the same gender, but that isn't natural. Instinctively the sex drive is very powerful so as to insure continued population growth. We are safer in numbers and our instinctive nature drives to that end. However, that powerful strong drive can push a weak person toward un natural behavior as well, say children, animals or even cadavers. Humans are given the tools to make choices, sometimes they choose wrong.

 

I think you can circle around this all day if you want, but Im a pretty black and white person. Most behavior is driven instinctily with the natural purpose of survival or adding to the population. Most behavor make sense once you understand that purpose. Ive not seen or heard of anything logical in my lifetime that even suggest that gays are born gay. Gay sex is not natural, and we have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

Barry

 

[Horizon]

Beavah - maybe you should Google up Carol Lamb's research on superheroes. You might find that her work fits into what we strive for in Scouting:

 

"In a symposium entitled Boyhood Making and Resisting Masculinity, speakers made the argument that current superheroes are sarcastic and hyper-aggressive without extolling the virtues of doing good for humanity. Dr. Carol Lamb, PhD, said the comic book superheroes of yesteryear were those readers could admire, while the current crop is simply caustic. Her research lead her to conclude that the media and marketers have funneled boyhood into two categories: Player and Slacker."

 

Gee - how horrible of a researcher to argue that anti-heroes are not good role models.

[packsaddle]

ScoutNut, you deserve an answer. Your 'eunuch' dog is stupid. Sorry, someone had to say it.

Edited to add: Which makes it pretty much equivalent to all of dogdom.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Nah, Horizon, I reckon Trustworthy and Mentally Awake are more important than whether I agree with a sentiment.

 

Did yeh look at her examples? Last time I checked, Iron Man and Batman are the comics of yesteryear, eh?

 

Da actual research surveyed kids about what they read/viewed. Try as I might to understand DanKroh and his psychologists, I don't know how that "research" on what kids read justifies conclusions based on comparison with what former kids who are now adults read. Wouldn't that require surveying adults on what they read as kids, or a prior study?

 

I'm an old enough fellow to have watched over and over how some adults in every generation believe that da things the new generation is "into" are somehow terrible, awful, immoral or whatever compared to what they were into as kids. It's always nonsense. It certainly ain't "research".

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

It's also natural for males to spread their oats to as many females as they can. Create child after child after child with as many woman as they can.

 

It's completely natural for women to seek out the best partner for having sex and creating children with.

 

Both cases do not involve love, loyalty or sanctity of marrage. Just straight up reproduction.

 

So, If I was to sleep with a different woman each night ( the actuality and logistics alone are hilarious!) wouldn't that also be considered deviate in the eys of the church- depending on which church you belong to.

 

Now, I have no desire to sleep with anybody but my wife. And I have no desire to sleep with any males.

 

But I did live with my wife for 6 months before getting married. Granted, we dated for around 4 years and were planning the wedding before we moved in together.

 

But I had an aunt who insisted I was insulting God because we werent married.

 

I told her I disagreed. Marrage, true marrage is a joining of hearts and souls. It means you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody.

 

Most people SIGNIFY that decision by holding a ceremony. The ring doies not make you love somebody. The reading of vows does not make you love somebody. Having a religios person read scripture to you does not have any effect on how you feel or felt about that person( how did you fall in love to start with?)

 

Man has imposed all kinds of rules ( based on their own beliefs ) about what marrage is or means or what is required.

 

Now days,you have to have a marrage license. Why? It has nothing to do with love, religion or anything else except a tax to collect money. But some folks think that without that $10.00 piece of paper, a marrage is nothing!

 

I feel sorry for those folks.

 

Personally, if every gay person got married tommorow, it would not change anything...ANYTHING about my marrage, my love for my wife, my personal beliefs about God, or the way I raise my son.

 

Or ScoutNuts dog!

 

If a gay person getting married causes you to have relationship problems...your marrage was long doomed before that!

 

I am also of the belief that a gay person doies not CHOOSE to be so. I doubt the choose that any more than I choose to be heterosexual.

 

I never ever stopped and put any thought into which sexuality I might have. I just had it.

 

I no more make a conscious choice over my favorite color or food. Why do I like spaghetti? I don't know....I just do! I could analyze it and research it all day long. I could break it down to the hamburger searing in the heat and the suger carmelizing in the tomato sauce. But that still doesn't say why I like it, yet do not like scampi? Or ravioli.

 

 

[Horizon]

Beavah:

 

I agree that every generation looks down on the following one's culture.

 

I also quoted a bad source - The Telegraph says it is Sharon Lamb.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7941690/Superheroes-send-out-wrong-message-to-boys.html

 

Her faculty bio:

http://www.umb.edu/academics/departments/cehd/programs/counseling/faculty/SharonLambpage.html

 

Based on a cursory review - she was not presenting peer-reviewed research, but simply giving a talk. Like our own Dan Kroh, I prefer to cite peer-reviewed research when making an arguement.

 

Carry on!