Gay Animals: An Albatross of an Argument
June 4th, 2008 | by Frank Turek
In a lame attempt to justify same-sex marriage, Google News linked to this story from an LA Times blog. According to the story, some female albatrosses may be coupling and caring for offspring together after the dead-beat daddy albatross has left. This animals-do-it argument is seriously put forth by homosexual activists. Yes, some animals engage in homosexual behavior and perhaps even parenting on occasion. But some animals eat their young too. Should we do that as well?
When homosexual activists extol animals as their moral examples, they are looking down rather than up. The argument is an albatross around their necks.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’ve used this argument before, but only against the statement that “homosexuality is unnatural.” That statement is usually accompanied by a statement of misunderstanding about how “if Darwinism was true” then there should be no homosexuals and homosexuality is all a choice.
“But some animals eat their young too. Should we do that as well?” There are many things that some animals do that we also do, and there are many things that some animals do and we don’t do. But we don’t base what we do or don’t do on whether other animals do them. I could just as easily say: “Some animals pair bond. Should we do that as well?” That shouldn’t debase marriage.
And just one more small point. Humans are animals, too.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I had the fortune to be listening to the Frank Pastore Show when I heard this Frank on discussing this rather remedial attempt of the left to once again reveal to the rest of the left-brain think populous that the cheese is in fact sliding off their collective crackers… What do we expect from miry clay mentalities?
Animals have no conscionable thought to lend to behavior, we humans do, calling the birds behavior homosexual is tactical on the behalf of the left. The fact that some nutter would even go their lets others know just how genuinely intellectually dishonest these minds are. The important thing to realize about this argument of state sponsored normalization of a deviant sexual proclivity of choice with an innate ethnic trait is insidious.
This battle can be won without ever having to let them draw us into a “religiosity” argument, to which they’d loose as well; it is all in how we defend the truth. I suggest we use the language of the left against them, we never had the word “orientation” in the strata of social communication until [regrettably] the 60’s by in wide use by the late 70’s -early 80’s which reveals the political correctness agenda right there. If they are born with this “trait” why would they need to orientate themselves? ergo, away from their natural order.
The great thing about the argument this article poses is the length the far left will go the run from conviction and ally themselves blindly with anything that seems to support their reprobate behavior. Justice Ronald George over-stepped his constitutional mandate by allowing the irrational assertion of the left that they are somehow to be equated with the 1948 case on interracial marriage, here’s the difference - regardless of color, we are still people. People have a fundamental right to marry whom they wish, not what they wish… there is the distinction that must be maintained between what is lawful, and what is legal. Lawful is that which is just, right… true and morally correct.
Legality is that which is permissive, notice they never argue what is lawful because they don’t’ want to have to defend a moral argument against defending an illicit act as normal. All they are after is the LEGAL right to behave how they want without legal repercussions. If what they want is so right, why is it so individually [therefore] socially self destructive? That is why they relay on consensus over fact - as long as someone in is place to act on their whim, and their are in a insulated position, we can always expect the worst behavior.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Mike H wrote:
‘I’ve used this argument before, but only against the statement that “homosexuality is unnatural.”’
It doesn’t work against that one, either, although I suppose it depends on what is meant by “homosexuality is unnatural.”
You determine what’s natural for a given species by studying that species, not by studying other species. Eating one’s mate after copulation is perfectly natural if you’re a praying mantis; it’s not particularly attractive if you’re human. Mating by combat is natural for mountain goats, but considered gauche in Times Square. And so on. The presence of homosexuality in other species really says nothing about the human species.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So what in your study of the human species tells you that homosexuality is unnatural? The fact that you don’t like it personally is not a justifiable answer.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Plumb Bob
“It doesn’t work against that one, either, although I suppose it depends on what is meant by ‘homosexuality is unnatural.’”
I assume that it means not occuring in nature. If it does occur in nature, as in being observed in other species besides humans, then it would be natural.
“You determine what’s natural for a given species by studying that species, not by studying other species.”
“The presence of homosexuality in other species really says nothing about the human species.”
OK. But when you study the human species you find homosexual behavior.
p.s. How are you able to write in italics in this program?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:27 am
New research shows that gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains:
www.guardian.co.uk/science/200.....psychology
Of course you could argue that this is of no more signficance than showing that paedophies brain are different from everyone elses. But it takes the legs out of the argument that being gay is a ‘choice’. And at any rate, paedophilia is linked to mental disorders, and childhood trauma. Homosexuality isn’t.
So really it rests on homophobes to show that being gay is some kind of a sin or crime, and not just a case of men being born with a ‘female’ sexuality, ie they fancy other men in the same way that women fancy men.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Andrew,
It would seem your role in life is to challenge basic common sense conventions. I thought you were the atheist patriot, but all I see is nutter colors showing!
“So what in your study of the human species tells you that homosexuality is unnatural?”
This comment of yours is just simple minded… let’s argue that on empirical evidence of natural order:
1) Homosexuality is a bio-illogical behavior
2) Homosexual behavior is elective therefore subjective
3) You and I didn’t get here by those means
“The fact that you don’t like it personally is not a justifiable answer.”
1) The fact that you applaud it doesn’t make it acceptable - just
reveals a vein of your personal depravity even if you don’t engage in
it, the fact that you will tolerate it.
2) The fact the he has the same natural response that anyone in his
created order would when presented behavior outside its natural
design. There is and will never be a rational explanation for or
excuse for engaging in homosexual acts.
Lastly,
You send us a link from the Guardian? They have [if you could imagine] the most insanely leftist bent than The New York Times - you are proving my words about the behavior of those who simply want to live as they want… they will reach for the most preposterous nonsense to justify their bents, and you are not different. On occasion you posted a good point to debate here and there… but since the behavior has been historically socially unacceptable, did you think you were gonna just show up with the argument that just makes better behaving quake in our boots and cow-tow to your idealogical dictates? Not so… He was in fact right, he doesn’t “feel” or idly say its wrong, it is fundamentally wrong.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I meant to say better behaving people… my apologies.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“You send us a link from the Guardian?”
They merely reported on it. They didn’t invent it.
“1) Homosexuality is a bio-illogical behavior”
In your opinion.
“2) Homosexual behavior is elective therefore subjective”
In your opinion.
Why not stick to the evidence, as in the link I provided, and leave personal prejudice at the door?
As for ‘natural order’, how are you defining what is ‘natural’? Anyway, we’ve already shown that it IS natural, but you lot told us that it is irrelevant whether or not it is natural.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am
http://www.newscientist.com/ch.....news_rss20
Same story reported in the New Scientist.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Andrew,
What are you arguing that is plainly bio-logically clear and plain to discovery? It is a fact of nature that homosexuality is bio-illogical, it makes no sense, there is no reason for it exist other than personal desire to engage in the behavior - which then relegates it to the category of choice.
resolved.
“Why not stick to the evidence, as in the link I provided, and leave personal prejudice at the door?”
You provided no evidence, the only thing you continue to provide is scientisms’ blind advocation [lame excuses for support] of a deviant sexual proclivity. Why don’t you follow your own advice and eschew your personal bias toward reason and look at the natural, empirical evidence of your creation. Lastly… Minds that propagate that nonsense are debased at best. We are supposed to discriminate between just and good behavior, over that which is individually [therefore] socially destructive - that is our basic civic duty as citizens. A mature, objective individual would understand that without question… now, where does that leave you? Because your arguments [and those who wage them] are clearly missing the point - and are loosing these arguments in the public squares across America.
People know what basic right and wrong is… and a voice that can only offer obfuscation and interventionism isn’t waging sound arguments they are inserting a projected value with no basis for that valuation. In other words… proponents of such are smelling their own fumes; but no one else is buying the argument. So in the end, if all you say was just and true, and all your interventionist “scientific facts” were so valid - why do people still vote the behavior out of town? Why do they still desire to protect the union of marriage? why do they still respond the way they do when confronted with the behavior if it was all that? Fact is… you and those who want to project an acceptance of the behavior cannot even offer yourselves the benefit of a half ounce of intellectual honesty on the issue. You cannot admit that this is just what you prefer to do… people could deal with that a bit better, but this moral equivocation arguments paring down and trivializing someone’s innate ethnicity or some ludicrous argument that they have a right to marry… is complete and utter nonsense.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
www.newscientist.com/channel/s.....e-sex.html
Here’s the same story in the New Scientist. But you can find it everywhere else too. It’s not just a Guardian story.
“but since the behavior has been historically socially unacceptable”
What like interracial marriage was once socially unacceptable? It used to be socially acceptable to keep slaves and stick 6-year-olds up chimneys. That’s not an argument.
“The behavior of those who simply want to live as they want… they will reach for the most preposterous nonsense to justify their bents”
You could be describing your own justification for your own homophobia.*
*Substitute that word with another if you want to go down the route of “I’m not homophobic as I’m not scared of them”
June 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Lastly Andrew, you aren’t offering valid refutations expected in a debate - you are patent denials - we cant get those anywhere, so step up your game pal.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
pardon - ” you are offering only “
June 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“You cannot admit that this is just what you prefer to do”
Er no, I’m a father actually.
“It is a fact of nature that homosexuality is bio-illogical”
There’s no such word as ‘bio-illogical’. In nature there are many species where large numbers of tribe/swarm/group etc do not reproduce. Bees etc. You could say that being a monk is ‘bio-illogical’ as they don’t have kids either.
“Why do people still vote the behavior out of town?”
I might as well ask why it was decriminalised, if it’s such a criminal activity. Why did people keep voting for slavery for such a long time. At any rate, the tide of public opinion is slowly moving towards allowing gay marriage, just like it slowly moved towards abolishing slavery and to allowing inter-racial marriage. The fact that that many people opposed it is not an argument.
By the way, is masturbation a sin too? That’s a sexual activity that could be called ‘bio-illogical’. I’m picturing you as being quite a sexually up-tight character, with much pent-up frustration and anger at the world. Perhaps you feel a lot of guilt about something, hence your need to demonise another section of society.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Lastly Andrew, you aren’t offering valid refutations expected in a debate”
I wasn’t aware that you’d offered any arguments for me to refute. You’re the one claiming that it’s ‘bio-illogical’, but you’ve provided no definition for this made up word, nor any evidence that being gay fulfills the definition.
Gay couples don’t have kids. People with Down’s Syndrome don’t either, doesn’t mean they are evil.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Andrew,
One of the neat things about the English language is its ability to be adapted to context, note the hyphen? it’s not telling you it’s a word, it is denoting a context - all you are doing is enthralling yourself in petty subterfuge - but validating nothing.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Tell us what it means then.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
This is really old, and I didn’t pay attention, so I’m hoping Mike H is still around.
Mike asked:
“I assume that it [’unnatural’] means not occuring in nature. If it does occur in nature, as in being observed in other species besides humans, then it would be natural.”
This sounds like the slogan that came from the gay community back in the 70s, “The only unnatural act is one that cannot be performed.” Most of us, and social anthropologists in particular, have a little more exacting standard than that.
What’s natural for a species is usually determined more or less by statistics: if you see a lot of a behavior, it’s natural, whereas if you see practically none of it, it’s unnatural. Of course, that’s tempered by considering whether a behavior occurs without intervention: i.e., talking parrots are fairly common, but it’s not natural for parrots to speak English (it IS natural for parrots to mimic sounds).
Mind you, “homosexuality is unnatural” is not an argument I use, because the term “natural” is so vague.
My version is “homosexuality is abnormal,” which is a different kettle of fish, and very much a matter of statistics. Of course, abnormality is not necessarily bad; my IQ is abnormal, but I’m happy about it, and left-handedness is abnormal, but confers little advantage or disadvantage. So, my argument then proceeds through “homosexual behavior is self-destructive, and accompanied by disproportionate incidence of diseases and depressive disorders,” to the conclusion, “Homosexuality in most people is a compulsive sexual disorder.” This is quantifiable, although it’s possible to quibble over what percentage of a population needs to be engaged in self-destructive behavior before one can say categorically, “The norm for this group is self-destructive behavior.”
Mike also asked:
How are you able to write in italics in this program?
I explicitly code the html tags to produce italics. Most comment engines support a minimal set of tags, including the blockquote, italics, strong, and anchor tags (for hot links). I’m now going to see if it also allows the “code” tag, so I can illustrate how I use these:
Italicized.==> Italicized.boldface.==> boldface==>
I’ve linked this to my own blog.==> I’ve linked this to my own blog.June 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Oops. The “code” tag didn’t work. You’ll have to google “html code” and find a brief tutorial on html to make this work right. However, I’ve proved that the “i”, “strong,” “blockquote,” and “a” (for anchor) tags work in this comment engine.
Hope that helps.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 am
“So, my argument then proceeds through “homosexual behavior is self-destructive, and accompanied by disproportionate incidence of diseases and depressive disorders,””
I’d be interested to see the stats on this Plumb Bob. I’m not sure it’s actually true.
However, let’s hyperthetically (or not) say that there are stats to back up what you say. Now we know that gays are disproportionately bullied, attacked and murdered too [*see bottom of post]. They often get disowned by families. So it’s not surprising that they’re more likely to get depressed! Also, Christians are always telling me how married people are less likely to be depressed, less likely to be that. So what we expect to happen if we picked a group and forbid them to marry?
So, in other words, you’ve got a circular argument. Homosexuality should be discouraged and the practice pilloried and gays should be prevented from marrying because they’re more likely to get depressed. When the reality is that they’re depressed BECAUSE they can’t marry, get bullied, attacked, pilloried etc.
* Appendix:
“One in five lesbian and gay people have been victims of homophobic aggression over the past three years, a survey of hate crime will reveal today. Their experiences range from beatings and sexual assault to persistent harassment and insults, often from neighbours and workmates.
The charity Stonewall commissioned YouGov to carry out the first comprehensive national survey of homophobic crime, which analyses the experiences of more than 1,700 lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The poll found that 12.5% had been the victims of a homophobic crime or incident over the past year, and 20% over the past three years.
One in six of the victims had been physically assaulted and one in eight had been subjected to unwanted sexual contact. Almost nine in 10 had experienced homophobic insults and harassment.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 am
By the way Bob, you mentioned left-handedness.
“A series of studies show that left-handed people are more likely to suffer from learning disabilities, stuttering, migraine headaches and, according to the latest findings, autoimmune diseases, like ulcerative colitis, myasthenia gravis and celiac disease, in which the body attacks its own tissues.”
Does this mean that we should deride left-handed people?
Remember what I said about the prejudice leading to some of the problems, and not the other way round? Interestingly, it is thought that the same may apply to some ‘left-handed problems’:
“Although left-handedness had previously been associated with learning disorders and certain other problems, the possible biological significance of the connections had been unappreciated. In fact, the high incidence of the learning disability dyslexia among left-handed people had often been attributed to attempts by parents and teachers to force them to use their right hands.”
So people would force left-handed people to be righties, just like people suggest gays should just ‘try to be straight’. With exactly the same effect.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Andrew Ryan wrote:
I’d be interested to see the stats on this Plumb Bob. I’m not sure it’s actually true.
I actually produced some of this before, back when you accused me of using “Fred Phelps research.” I’ll reproduce it; mind you, what I’m posting here is a sketchy, whirlwind tour of some of the more disturbing disease data, not anything remotely like a thorough analysis. The research supporting the claim that homosexuals suffer vastly disproportionate health problems is vast, and truly irrefutable. The footnotes are at the bottom. I copied this brief discussion, and the footnotes, from an article on my blog site.
Studies have established that homosexual males engaging in anal sex have as much as 4,000% greater likelihood of contracting anal cancer than the population at large(1), that homosexual males are uniquely susceptible to Hepatitis A as a sexually transmitted disease(2), that homosexuals are vastly more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, experience major depression or anxiety disorders, or take illegal drugs than heterosexuals(3), that AIDS strikes homosexual males 430 times more often than heterosexuals in the population at large(4), and that, unsurprisingly when considering the disease statistics, lifespan among gays could be as much as 40% less than for heterosexuals(5).
Andrew continued:
Now we know that gays are disproportionately bullied, attacked and murdered too [*see bottom of post]. They often get disowned by families. So it’s not surprising that they’re more likely to get depressed!
A) We don’t know that gays are disproportionately bullied, etc., at all. I’ll deal with that in a bit.
B) Your reply is the standard one from homosexuals, but there isn’t really any reason to believe that social disapproval is at the root of gay depressive disorders; there is not a single study supporting the claim. Quite the contrary, the rates of depressive disorders are actually the same in states and countries where homosexuality is regarded as normal, like Denmark or Sweden. Furthermore, if the disproportionate disease and depression in the gay community is the result of social disapproval, why don’t we see similar rates of disease among disliked minority groups — like, say, blacks in Alabama circa 1930? And finally, the pattern of depressive disorders among homosexual men is practically identical to the pattern of depressive disorders in adults who suffered childhood sexual trauma — and sure enough, research among male homosexuals reveals that a disproportionate number were traumatized sexually as children. Research also shows that “male childhood gender disturbance… correlated with a high incidence of psychiatric problems in both mothers and fathers,”(6) and also correlated with the absence of male role models. Correlation is not causation, but this does suggest strongly that psychological problems among homosexuals is the result of family disturbance and sexual abuse, not social rejection.
Andrew writes:
you’ve got a circular argument. Homosexuality should be discouraged and the practice pilloried and gays should be prevented from marrying because they’re more likely to get depressed. When the reality is that they’re depressed BECAUSE they can’t marry, get bullied, attacked, pilloried etc.
Whoops, straw man alert.
I’m not sure who you heard arguing “gays should be prevented from marrying because they get depressed,” but I don’t believe you heard ME arguing that. And you most certainly never heard me argue that gays should be “pilloried;” I think homosexuality in most cases is a life-threatening, compulsive sexual disorder, and corresponding to that, I think homosexuals should be counseled in the strongest terms to seek treatment. (By the way, I, myself, am recovering from a compulsive sexual disorder, so I’m not arguing from a judgmental standpoint, but from the standpoint of one familiar with the issues of such conditions.)
If we’re going to argue that gays should be permitted to marry, I’ll argue from a pure sociological position that they ARE permitted to marry. Marriage is cohabitation with the opposite sex for the purpose of companionship and procreation; gays are permitted to do it just like anybody else. What they’re not permitted is to alter the language, and human social practice, to suit their whim; they can’t call two males copulating on a regular basis “marriage,” because it isn’t that. I have other objections, but that’s the main one.
Andrew writes:
Does this mean that we should deride left-handed people?
Straw man alert again. Who said homosexuals should be “derided?”
Andrew writes:
In fact, the high incidence of the learning disability dyslexia among left-handed people had often been attributed to attempts by parents and teachers to force them to use their right hands.”
So people would force left-handed people to be righties, just like people suggest gays should just ‘try to be straight’. With exactly the same effect.
This is a false comparison. You’re presupposing that homosexuality is a genetic trait, like left-handedness. It isn’t, and the evidence for that is surprisingly clear, especially given the absolute misinformation among the public on the topic. When a trait is genetically caused, studies of identical twins will show 100% correlation for the trait between the pairs of twins (e.g., if blue eyes is genetic and one identical twin has blue eyes, the other will have them, too.) Twin studies of homosexuals don’t have 100% correlation; they don’t even have 50% correlation. In fact, the only study that attempted to study identical twins separated at birth (and thus filter out environmental effects) found ZERO correlation — but, the sample size was too small to make the study definitive. The actual evidence — routine misreporting by a horribly biased press corps notwithstanding — points to an environmentally determined effect that has some, undefined genetic support.
And even this notion of genetic support needs to be qualified. Watusi warriors and Swedes are genetically tall; they can properly be said to have genetic support for success in basketball. However, the fact that their basketball ability has a genetic component is not in any way the same as saying that they’re genetically determined to be basketball players; basketball fitness is a statistical marker, not a genetically caused trait. The genetic trait is height. Same with homosexuality; there’s probably a genetic component in homosexuality, but that’s not within light years of saying that homosexuality is genetically determined.
Plenty of gays have recovered and gone straight; in fact, 75% of men who self-identify as “gay” while aged 14-25, will self-identify as “straight” once they’ve passed that age group. Homosexuality is not genetic.
Finally, your Guardian article about the Stonewall “study” is interesting, but because it relies entirely on self-identified “violence,” it proves nothing but that homosexuals in Britain regard themselves as victims. When a person says he’s been abused because he was a homosexual, does that mean it’s actually happened? Articles I’ve read suggest that a huge percentage of the complaints American cops answer that involve “gay-bashing” turn out to be violent domestic disputes between gay partners. If the Stonewall “study” even attempted to address that or similar possibilities, it didn’t show up in the article. Notice also that the article identifies Stonewall as a “charity,” and doesn’t mention that it’s a GLBT activist group; this is hardly the way a scientific study ought to be represented, and the coincidence between the findings and the advocacy position of the organization (coupled with the attempt to mask the advocacy position of the organization) has to make the study suspect until we’ve seen corroboration from independent sources.
Notes:
(1) See Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp.190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no.16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et.al, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases“; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan’s statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp
(2) See, for example, Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. “New England Journal of Medicine,” 1980302463-4; also http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=1432868.
(3) See Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L., 1999: Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880.; Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T., 1999: Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874.; Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel, 2001: Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, pp. 85-91.; Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 876-880. Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True, W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen, S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, pp. 867-874. “Not Afraid to Come Out: A celebration of freedom from homosexuality,” by Matt Kaufman, Boundless webzine, Focus on the Family, September 30, 1998.
(4) See Sartinover, Jeffrey, MD, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Hamewith Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996, p 57.
(5) From a footnote found at Americans For Truth: Mr. Trey Kern, President of the Citizen’s for Parent Rights, in Pasadena, Maryland has collected an impressive amount data on studies documenting the diminished lifespan of active homosexuals. Studies include: (G. Tardieu, 1858; M. Hirschfield, 1914, Kinsey, 1930’s, 1940’s; Mattachine Society, 1950’s: Berger, 1960’s, Kinsey Institute, 1969; Spada Report 1978; M. Mendola, 1979; Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, 1994; Hogg, R.S., et. al, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997; Cameron, P, Cameron, K, Playfair, WL., Psychological Reports, 1998. I don’t doubt that Paul Cameron’s name will generate some heat; however, what he reports, while methodologically assailable, is consistent with what we’d expect given the other public health information (indeed, it would be remarkable if not true) and clearly deserves further research. The Americans For Truth footnote includes a reference to a document called “Homosexual Myths: Homosexuals Live Long Lives,” at http://www.cprmd.org; however, I have been unable to find any documents at that site. If anyone knows where I can obtain this document, I’d like to read it.
(6)G.A. Rekers, et al, “Family Correlates of Male Childhood Gender Disturbance,” Journal of Genetics and Psychology 1422, number 1 (1983). pp. 31-42.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:24 am
“Studies have established that homosexual males engaging in anal sex have as much as 4,000% greater likelihood of contracting anal cancer than the population at large”
So it’s anal sex you have a problem with, not homosexuality?
Many gays don’t practice anal sex, many straight couples do.
Vegetarians are far less likely to get cancer than meat eaters, does that mean that eating meat is immoral?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“Notice also that the article identifies Stonewall as a “charity,” and doesn’t mention that it’s a GLBT activist group”
It’s not a “Charity’, it’s a charity. Putting the word in inverted commas doesn’t stop it being true! Stonewall doesn’t conceal that it’s a LGBT activist group, and it makes no difference that it is.
“The actual evidence — routine misreporting by a horribly biased press corps notwithstanding — points to an environmentally determined effect that has some, undefined genetic support.”
That makes no difference whatsoever to the analogy with left-handedness.
“Articles I’ve read suggest that a huge percentage of the complaints American cops answer that involve “gay-bashing” turn out to be violent domestic disputes between gay partners.”
I’m not especially interested in ‘articles you’ve read’ perpetrating such nonsense. Are these articles from publications you admit yourself are ‘horribly biased’? By any chance written by people such as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh?
When someone gets set upon in the street by strangers, it’s a bit rich to refer to it as a ‘domestic dispute’. If you’re aguing that persecution of gays is a myth then that’s laughable. Reading message boards of websites like TownHall.com, I find that very hard to believe. You might as well claim that anti-semitism is a myth. In many West Indian countries homosexuality is punishable with heavy prison sentences. It’s a capital offence in others. And if you’re claiming that America is less homophobic than Britain, then again that’s laughable.
You’re denying any of this might contribute to raising levels of depression in gays? You’re living in cloud-cuckoo land.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Andrew, I’m really not interested in your lame rationalizations.
Here’s a tiny test to see if you’re actually interested in even making the attempt at honesty:
Please post here, in response to this comment of mine, statistics from a peer-reviewed journal showing what percentage of gay men engage in anal sex, and what percentage of straight couples do. We’ll ignore for the moment that anal sex is just one of a half-dozen problems I cited, and that what I was citing is only a sliver of the actual data available. We’ll take one small step at a time.
By the way, I notice you’ve gone back to cherry-picking arguments. You have this bad habit of ignoring everything your opponents say, and simply responding to the one item for which you have an unthinking sound bite to hurl. It’s a tactic that sometimes works against novice debaters, but it’s also a pretty clear indication that you’re in over your head. The remarkably thing here is that I suspect you genuinely think of yourself as intellectually superior to the people with whom you’re discussing — despite the fact that you can’t answer most of what they argue, and the few items you CAN answer, you answer without thought.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:42 am
“By the way, I notice you’ve gone back to cherry-picking arguments. You have this bad habit of ignoring everything your opponents say”
I’ve just become a Dad, I haven’t got unlimited time. I notice you had a gap of a week of posting - I didn’t yank your chain about that.
“The remarkably thing here is that I suspect you genuinely think of yourself as intellectually superior to the people with whom you’re discussing”
Likewise.
“you answer without thought.”
Likewise.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It is a fact of nature that homosexuality is bio-illogical, it makes no sense, there is no reason for it exist other than personal desire to engage in the behavior - which then relegates it to the category of choice.
I was just skimming this entry, and I found this and had to say a few things.
By this logic, anything we do for entertainment is “unnatural” and “unnecessary,” and should be avoided. And I’d be interested in seeing some support for these repeated claims that homosexuality is “bio-illogical.”
As for the other arguments….I can’t help but notice that Christians tend to attack the way you argue more than the arguments you actually make. How frustrating >:( If I’ve made a point you disagree with, then fine, but argue with the point; don’t back up and try to accuse me of being part of some secret Liberal Agenda.
And the press is not “biased,” unless you mean “biased towards making money.” It’s not a political issue (unless we count Fox News Channel). The news reports what shocks people, and what’s controversial, because that’s how they get people angry. And the angrier you are, the more you bitch, and the more you bitch, the more free publicity they get.
Believe me, I’m a social liberal (in many ways, not all ways, mind you), and I can assure you that there isn’t a secret meeting room where we all gather and watch the news, smiling contentedly while sipping on our peyote and smoking marijuana. I don’t think anybody’s happy with the mainstream media.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“Please post here, in response to this comment of mine, statistics from a peer-reviewed journal showing what percentage of gay men engage in anal sex, and what percentage of straight couples do. ”
I really haven’t the time, mate. If it bothers you, and you have the time, look it up yourself.
While you’re about it, why not look up incidences of cancer in vegetarians vs non-vegetarians, then tell me if this means that carnivores are less moral than vegetarians on the basis that they get more cancer.
My own answer to the above is no. I’m a meateater - eating red meat increases my likeilihood of getting cancer, but that doesn’t make me less moral than a veggy. It’s a risk I take. I’d suggest that gays (or straights) should practice safe sex. If they choose not to, then the risk they pose to themselves is their choice. The risk they pose to others is a moral issue (tho it takes two to tango).
But this is an argument for safe sex, not an argument against homosexuality.
And I don’t see what that’s got to do with the monogomous gay couples who wish to marry.
“This is a false comparison. You’re presupposing that homosexuality is a genetic trait, like left-handedness.”
I was doing nothing of the sort, and it doesn’t affect my argument either way. You could show that gayness was caused, say, in the womb by too much or too little testosterone, or some other cause, and my argument would be the same.
By the way, just out of interest, is it proven that left-handedness is a genetic trait? Genuine question - I’m interested.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“Homosexuality is not genetic.”
Wait a minute, when you say ‘genetic’, do mean innate? Because they’re not the same thing.
Your stats on 14-25 changing their mind about their sexuality includes children, which just shows that children are too young to make up their minds. It proves nothing. Furthermore…
“75% of men who self-identify as “gay” while aged 14-25, will self-identify as “straight” once they’ve passed that age group. ”
…A meaningless stat without accompanying data on how many men who self-identify as ’straight’ while aged 14-25, go on to identify as ‘gay’ once they’ve passed that age group. I know plenty of people who ‘came out’ after that age.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:45 am
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1447240
Suicide among gays:
“Many studies examining determinants of suicidality specific to gay and bisexual men have focused on both developmental life transitions (e.g., “coming out” or adopting an identity and sense of community based on one’s sexuality) and social and cultural stressors (e.g., stigmatization, victimization, pervasive antigay hostility).
The stresses related to antigay victimization and the “coming out” process (e.g., loss of friends, antigay victimization) can be seen as having both a proximal and a distal relation to suicidality, similar to the immediate and long-term consequences of other traumatic events. First, they may provoke emotional distress sufficient to cause youths to contemplate suicide, and second, they may be linked to low self-esteem, substance abuse, and subsequent mood disorders that increase lifetime vulnerability to suicide.7,17–19
Younger gay men, bisexual individuals, and lesbians appear more likely to both anticipate and experience stigmatization and victimization, which are linked to greater psychological distress.19–26 Societal stresses of being gay are not, however, buffered by support from usual sources (such as family), because many young adults have not disclosed their sexual orientation to family members or have encountered negative reactions to such disclosure.27–29 As a result of the alienation and anomie experienced by many gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths, conventional constraints against self-destructive behaviors (e.g., social supports, problem-solving with others) may be weakened.
Furthermore, without the coping resources and psychological resilience of maturity, youths have an increased vulnerability to distress.30 Thus, we would anticipate that gay-related stressors (e.g., experiences of antigay victimization, the sense of deviance and stigmatization prompted by an awareness of one’s nonheterosexual orientation) and the paucity of psychological resources (characteristic of relative youth) are associated with greater vulnerability to suicidal behavior.”
Pretty much backs up what I guessed would be the case on the subject.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Yup. Tom cats rape — does this justify rape?
October 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“Yup. Tom cats rape — does this justify rape?”
You’re saying that because cats rape, that means homosexuality is wrong?
Worst. Argument. Ever. No wonder another state just legalised gay marriage, if yours is the level of argument against it. What next - Lions eat antelopes, therefore interracial marriage is wrong?
October 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Yup. Tom cats rape — does this justify rape?
Could you be a little clearer about which part of Andrew’s post you don’t understand? I mean, you clearly don’t understand it if you think the argument that he (or anyone else that I’ve ever heard) made was that “animals do it so we should, too.” Otherwise we’d have to say that it’s normal to murder all of your stepchildren when you marry a woman who has children.
I mean, I read Andrew’s post and it made perfect sense. So what did you not get? Maybe we can make things clearer.