Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 02-16-2003, 04:13 AM

Quote:

According to the Center for Disease Control in analysis after 1997:
60% of all AIDS cases in the United States are homosexual men.
This is an amazing figure and is brought into focus when we consider the fact that homosexuals are only about 1-2% of the population of the United States. [noapathy.org]

Quote:

According to Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Cambridge University:
85-90% of all lesbians have been victims of sexual abuse. [noapathy.org]

Quote:

The 1948 Kinsey's report, that stated 10% of the U.S. population was
homosexual, has been completely discredited by recent studies which charge
him with biased and non-representative sampling. [noapathy.org]

Quote:

The correct statistics according to a University of Chicago study is that about 1% of
the U.S. population is homosexual. . . .[noapathy.org]

Quote:

The lifespan of a single homosexual man, aside from AIDS, in the United States is 42 years.

Quote:

Statistics show that homosexual men, who represent less than 3 percent of the adult male population, commit a disproportionate number (one-third or more) of the cases of child sexual molestation. . . . [http://www.cwnews.com]

Quote:

. . . Those among the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children. [jesusjournal.com]

Quote:

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review. [worldnetdaily.com]

Quote:

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study. [worldnetdaily.com]

Quote:

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that there is a �substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia.�

One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, �The only standard for moral sex�is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved.�

Quote:

. . . For many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children.� . . . [www.afajournal.org]

Quote:

A[n] accurate assessment . . . would compare ratios of population size to incidences of involvement in pedophilia. In this regard, according to the National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), in proportion to their numbers, homosexual men are more likely to engage in sex with a minor.[www.afajournal.org]

Quote:

. . . There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is . . . "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.[www.narth.com]

mecca777 · 02-16-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

The source of modern-day secular reparative therapy can be traced back many decades to the research of Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer and Sigmond Freud. Their conclusions about homosexuality had long been abandoned by almost all mental health professionals. However, Elizabeth Moberly, a British, conservative, Christian theologian studied those works and developed a new theory of the cause of homosexuality. She believes that it is solely caused by environmental factors -- incompetence on the part of the parent of the same gender. She also developed a technique in the early 1980's which attempts to change the sexual orientation of homosexual adults. She has done no clinical work to support the validity of her theory or the effectiveness of her therapeutic technique. She is a theologian, not a trained mental health professional. Her book "Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic" is still in print and is widely circulated among conservative Christians.

religioustolerance.org

Quote:

Two of the vocal proponents of the "nurture, not nature" side of the argument are associated with organizations which are vehemently anti-gay. Paul Cameron, a senior researcher for the US based Family Research Institute, and Elizabeth Moberly, psychologist with Exodus International, make their living as proponents of the idea that sexual orientation is a learned behavior, which can, therefore, be 'unlearned'.

Starting with the premise that homosexuality is innately evil or destructive, Cameron, Moberly and others employ forty year old psychoanalytic theory to sell their message to receptive audiences of the political and religious far right, despite of the fact that Cameron was expelled form the American Psychological Association for falsifying data and that Moberly appears not to have glanced at a psychology textbook published within the last two and a half decades.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9992/origin.htm

See? Anybody can do it. Additionally, the only references I could find to "Dr Elizabeth Moberly" were either on sites like the two I've quoted, or on Xian apologetic sites urging people to stop being gay.

NARTH, Catholic World News, the American Family Association, Jesus Journal and No Apathy hardly constitute sources for the latest up-to-date information from the worlds of psychology or genetics. Every single page you linked to started with the premise that homosexuality is a learned, deviant behaviour that can be successfully modified through prayer.

Quote:

The lifespan of a single homosexual man, aside from AIDS, in the United States is 42 years.

Which single homosexual man was that? Since it doesn't say "average", and since no reference is given, are we to assume that this statement refers to a specific individual? And let's not get started on the environmental factors which reduce the lifespan of unfortunate homosexuals like Matthew Shepard.

Feather · 02-16-2003, 08:31 AM

OMFG, mecca, one of his sources is worldnetdaily.com--he must be right.

Tenpudo · 02-16-2003, 10:43 AM

Thanks for the tour of religiously-biased "news" webpages-- I hadn't seen noapathy's idiocy yet.
--Oh, I'm sorry. What was your point again?

Unsinkable · 02-16-2003, 11:30 AM

Heh, its funny when I hear some individuals talk about homosexuals/bisexuals as having problems with their mother/father, or that it is a completely sexual orientation, or that homosexuals are promiscuous, etc. Almost all homosexuals/bisexuals that I know are exceptions to these so-called �rules� that are often coined by religious groups. I am one of those exceptions. I am bisexual, but my orientation is primarily romantic, not sexual. When I affirm the statement �I am bisexual� I am saying that I am capable of having love towards someone of either sex. I do not have promiscuous sex, because from personal experience I have found it to be lacking in meaning, as well as confuse romantic emotions. Also, the health issue is definitely important. I also have a good relationship with my parents.
That is one bias- seeing sexuality with distorted glasses- viewing heterosexuality as a romantic affiliation, and viewing homosexuality as a sexual one. But there is another bias.
There seems to be a double standard in analyses of homosexuality/bisexuality. What about heterosexuals? It seems that many young people, regardless of sexuality, are obsessed with sex. If you spend any amount of time with a group of teenage males you�ll hear them talk about how X had sex with Y, and other such matters. Such things are in no way limited to homosexuals/bisexuals.
Instead of analyzing only one sexual position, one must place it into context with others- otherwise one runs a great risk of error. Also, I would suggest, like others in this thread have, that you use more credible sources, no those tainted with religious bias. Maybe some from scientific journals, or poll organizations? Such references are easily found on the internet. If your position is as strong as you seem to believe it is, you should have no problem fiding valid sources to support your argument.

Shake · 02-16-2003, 11:39 AM

It is soooo depressing to look at a thread hoping for some intelligent discussion, or some new POV to be brought up only to find something like this OP. Allow me to reiterate Tenpudo's question, "What was your point again?"

No apparent point, just some quotes from some apparently very biased 'sources'. No questions, "Gee, how do you all feel about this?" Not even any observations. I think some mods have closed threads for this (or threatened at least), saying that these are supposed to be discussion boards. So, what's to discuss here? EH?

Edited to add: Oh yeah, what does this have to do with Science and Skepticism? I mean, I am pretty skeptical that anyone of average intelligence would be won over by these "arguments." Is that why they're here? Do tell?

Phanes · 02-16-2003, 12:21 PM

Well if NARTH says it...

Incidentally, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest homosexuality is at least partly genetic. Consider the probability that a given person is homosexual, based on relation to a homosexual man:

If one monozygotic twin is homosexual, the other twin is 52% likely to be so.
If one dizygotic twin is homosexual, the other twin is 22% likely to be so.
If an adopted brother is homosexual, his brother is 11% likely to be so.

(Based on studies most famously done by Bailey & Pillard, as well as others)

Not that the closer genetic relation you have to a homosexual, the more likely you are to be homosexual yourself. Also notice that while monozygotic and dizygotic twins ostensibly have the same degree of environmental influence, monozygotic twins (with identical genetic material) are much more likely to have the same sexual orientation (e.g. both homosexual).

Here are some interesting quotes from the APA (an actual credible source!), which you can find here.

Quote:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Quote:

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Quote:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

Quote:

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

Quote:

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

Nataraja · 02-16-2003, 02:43 PM

Umm...well, what would you have done about it, Totalitarianist? There are already plenty of married (gay) couples out there, some with children both adopted and natural. One percent is still a very high number, in the millions, and it doesn't even account for closeted homosexuals, of which I am sure there are many. The conversions don't work and many homosexuals would rather remain homosexual.

Your statistics regarding child molestation and paedophilia suggest that you do not have a charitible opinion of homosexuals, probably including myself even though I'm not even a top. To be honest, I really doubt you've met many homosexuals, much less known enough of them sufficiently to be able to make evaluations of their sanity that you can fairly classify homosexuality as a psychological impairment. Regardless of what you think of me personally, my experience with other homosexuals has given me no reaseon to think any such thing.

So what are you tell us, Totalitarianist? What would you have us do? Why is this in the science forum?

tronvillain · 02-16-2003, 04:50 PM

Totalitarianist:

Quote:

According to the Center for Disease Control in analysis after 1997:
60% of all AIDS cases in the United States are homosexual men.
This is an amazing figure and is brought into focus when we consider the fact that homosexuals are only about 1-2% of the population of the United States.

Since that is the population in which one of the significant initial outbreaks occurred, I find nothing especially amazing about the figure, especially considering the risks of anal sex and the lifestyle that was popular at the time.

Quote:

According to Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Cambridge University:
85-90% of all lesbians have been victims of sexual abuse.

What exactly are the figures for heterosexual women then? Giving large numbers without any context or support is not especially impressive. Even if there was a significant difference, so what?

Quote:

The 1948 Kinsey's report, that stated 10% of the U.S. population was homosexual, has been completely discredited by recent studies which charge him with biased and non-representative sampling.

What exactly is your point? I fail to see what difference it makes if the number is one percent "completely" homosexual rather than ten percent. While it is completely unscientific, the MD poll is currently showing six percent

Quote:

The correct statistics according to a University of Chicago study is that about 1% of the U.S. population is homosexual. . .

I suspect that it is an extremely difficult number to determine (especially in the US), and would want to see the details of the study before coming to any conclusions.

Quote:

The lifespan of a single homosexual man, aside from AIDS, in the United States is 42 years.

*chuckle* I suspect that the expected lifespan of a single heterosexual man is also close to forty-two years. The key world here is "single", since excluding men in committed relationships would create a huge bias in the statisics - if you are going to die single, you are probably going to do it young.

Quote:

Statistics show that homosexual men, who represent less than 3 percent of the adult male population, commit a disproportionate number (one-third or more) of the cases of child sexual molestation. . . . [http://www.cwnews.com]

Again, what is your point? So there are a lot of child molesters that target children of the same sex.... what does that have to do with individuals who are simply interested in the same sex who are not children?

Quote:

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review. [worldnetdaily.com]

I cannot say it often enough: what is your point? Heterosexuality is apparently frequently accompanied by disorders, but we do not condemn heterosexuality. Why should "homosexual" child abuse be associated with homosexuality as a whole any more than "heterosexual" child abuse is associated with heterosexuality? This is just insane.

Quote:

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study. [worldnetdaily.com]

I am not convinced that this is the case (it could simply be the case the "homosexual" child molestation is more likely to be reported), but even if it were, so what?

Quote:

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that there is a �substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia.�

One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, �The only standard for moral sex�is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved.�

Yes, and there is probably a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the heterosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia" as well. Weren't you attempting to justify being attracted to extremely young girls just the other day? Now, it is just dishonest to attempt to link that statement by Andriette to pedophilia, as countless heterosexuals make similar statements and most people agree that children cannot freely consent to sex.

Quote:

. . . For many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children.� . . . [www.afajournal.org]

What exactly are the definitions of "adult" and "child" here? Is a "child" a sixteen or seventeen year-old? Is the same true of heterosexuals or not?

Quote:

A[n] accurate assessment . . . would compare ratios of population size to incidences of involvement in pedophilia. In this regard, according to the National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), in proportion to their numbers, homosexual men are more likely to engage in sex with a minor.[www.afajournal.org]

First of all, sex with teenager should not be counted as "pedophilia." Second, how would they ever get an accurate count? Third, this is probably unsuprising since even today male teenagers tend to be "easier" than female teenagers - if heterosexual male teenagers could be having sex with older women the ratios would probably line up pretty quickly.

Quote:

. . . There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is . . . "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.[www.narth.com]

The question of whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined is seperate from whether or not homosexuality is a choice or has a basis in biology.

Now, simply posting quotes is very annoying. Do you have a point or not?

Major Billy · 02-16-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather
OMFG, mecca, one of his sources is worldnetdaily.com--he must be right.

Of course, just look at the authorities promoted by that website:

Quote:

In February's Whistleblower, Farah is joined by Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy and others, to create a compelling playbook for a second � and peaceful � American revolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2003, 08:31 AM	#3
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	OMFG, mecca, one of his sources is worldnetdaily.com--he must be right.

02-16-2003, 10:43 AM	#4
Tenpudo Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Bellingham WA Posts: 219	Thanks for the tour of religiously-biased "news" webpages-- I hadn't seen noapathy's idiocy yet. --Oh, I'm sorry. What was your point again?

02-16-2003, 11:30 AM	#5
Unsinkable Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Rocklin, CA Posts: 12	Heh, its funny when I hear some individuals talk about homosexuals/bisexuals as having problems with their mother/father, or that it is a completely sexual orientation, or that homosexuals are promiscuous, etc. Almost all homosexuals/bisexuals that I know are exceptions to these so-called �rules� that are often coined by religious groups. I am one of those exceptions. I am bisexual, but my orientation is primarily romantic, not sexual. When I affirm the statement �I am bisexual� I am saying that I am capable of having love towards someone of either sex. I do not have promiscuous sex, because from personal experience I have found it to be lacking in meaning, as well as confuse romantic emotions. Also, the health issue is definitely important. I also have a good relationship with my parents. That is one bias- seeing sexuality with distorted glasses- viewing heterosexuality as a romantic affiliation, and viewing homosexuality as a sexual one. But there is another bias. There seems to be a double standard in analyses of homosexuality/bisexuality. What about heterosexuals? It seems that many young people, regardless of sexuality, are obsessed with sex. If you spend any amount of time with a group of teenage males you�ll hear them talk about how X had sex with Y, and other such matters. Such things are in no way limited to homosexuals/bisexuals. Instead of analyzing only one sexual position, one must place it into context with others- otherwise one runs a great risk of error. Also, I would suggest, like others in this thread have, that you use more credible sources, no those tainted with religious bias. Maybe some from scientific journals, or poll organizations? Such references are easily found on the internet. If your position is as strong as you seem to believe it is, you should have no problem fiding valid sources to support your argument.

02-16-2003, 11:39 AM	#6
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	It is soooo depressing to look at a thread hoping for some intelligent discussion, or some new POV to be brought up only to find something like this OP. Allow me to reiterate Tenpudo's question, "What was your point again?" No apparent point, just some quotes from some apparently very biased 'sources'. No questions, "Gee, how do you all feel about this?" Not even any observations. I think some mods have closed threads for this (or threatened at least), saying that these are supposed to be discussion boards. So, what's to discuss here? EH? Edited to add: Oh yeah, what does this have to do with Science and Skepticism? I mean, I am pretty skeptical that anyone of average intelligence would be won over by these "arguments." Is that why they're here? Do tell?

02-16-2003, 02:43 PM	#8
Nataraja Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NC Posts: 433	Umm...well, what would you have done about it, Totalitarianist? There are already plenty of married (gay) couples out there, some with children both adopted and natural. One percent is still a very high number, in the millions, and it doesn't even account for closeted homosexuals, of which I am sure there are many. The conversions don't work and many homosexuals would rather remain homosexual. Your statistics regarding child molestation and paedophilia suggest that you do not have a charitible opinion of homosexuals, probably including myself even though I'm not even a top. To be honest, I really doubt you've met many homosexuals, much less known enough of them sufficiently to be able to make evaluations of their sanity that you can fairly classify homosexuality as a psychological impairment. Regardless of what you think of me personally, my experience with other homosexuals has given me no reaseon to think any such thing. So what are you tell us, Totalitarianist? What would you have us do? Why is this in the science forum?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.