Religion in Government

custard responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you believe that the nature of human sexuality has changed fundamentally since the 50's?

---

​

The nature of human sexuality? No. The way the studies were conducted and the likelihood of participants to truthfully self-identify their behaviors? Yes, certainly.

---

But that was the revolutionary breakthrough of Dr. Hooker: She noticed that the reason so many psychiatrists claimed that gay people were psychologically damaged was because the only gay people they ever saw were those that were admitted for therapy.Since the only people they saw were people with psychiatric illness of one sort or another, they came to associate being gay with being ill.So she deliberately set out to find gay people who had never seen a psychiatrist and didn't think they needed to. She then compared them to straight people who had never seen a psychiatrist and didn't think they needed to.And in the end these two groups were indistinguishable.Please tell me how this concept could be improved upon. I certainly agree that her work is not the end-all/be-all. But it is so definitive and exemplary that I can't think of a better way of going about comparing gay people to straight people.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Let's see, perhaps I might try to enlighten that person rather than speak down to him. Perhaps I might try to present some of the data, rather than continue to express my shock at his ignorance since, this particular subject, and Dr. Hooker in particular, is not something covered in general curriculum.I was a political science and history major, not psychology. So maybe you could tone down the condescension a notch; and when you say things like "all sexual behavior is determined by age three" you could bother to cite a source rather than assume we all have the same knowledge as you. I wouldn't treat you like an ignoramus if we were discussing the Sassanid empire if it was apparent you were unaware of significant information needed to continue the debate: I'd provide you with the information or direct you to where you could find it.I notice you very rarely present any data or cite sources in your arguments, so I might be asking for too much here, but even a name, like Hooker, helps.I'll take a look at her study. Remember what I said about that arrogance thing? You are doing it again. You made your point once when you mentioned Darwin. You made it a second time when you mentioned Newton. The alphabet analogy is just rubbing it in. Are you really that much of a jerk? I still don't understand why there couldn't be a gay person if sexual orientation is primarily influenced by environment. That's like asking how can there ever be person who wanted to have any sort of sex that wasn't part of the dominant cultural paradigm.You don't think it's possible for an individual to have a series of experiences that would lead him to feel uncomfortable around women, but not around other men? That individual wouldn't then pursue his sexual desires with those he felt comfortable? Why doesn't that work for you? Actually I found this study: Exotic Becomes Erotic:
Explaining the Enigma of Sexual Orientation, by Daryl J BemWhich contradicts two claims you continue to make:1-"There is a biological basis to attraction and it appears that the fundamental question of male/female is overwhelmingly biological in origin."2- "All evidence indicates that sexual orientation is set before age three."

quote:

---

It proposes that biological variables do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child's preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities. These preferences lead children to feel different from opposite-sex or same-sex peers--to perceive them as "exotic." This, in turn, produces heightened physiological arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of peers: Exotic becomes erotic. The theory claims to accommodate both the empirical evidence of the biological essentialists and the cultural relativism of the social constructionists.

---

While I did not see specific ages in this theory, a great deal of it relies upon types of peer interaction which infer sexual orientation determinants continue to affect the individaul AFTER age three.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 06:36 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 06:38 AM

custard responds to me:

quote:

---

and when you say things like "all sexual behavior is determined by age three"

---

Show me where I said that.I demand chapter and verse.Show me where I even hinted at such a statement.If you aren't going to bother to read my posts for content, there is little point in continuing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Oh, by the way, regarding Bem's study. It contains a fatal flaw:It assumes gay people are "non-gender-conforming."This isn't true. There is no evidence that non-gender-conforming children are more likely to turn gay than not.Too, despite the fact that it recognizes that all children experience teasing, it concludes that only non-gender-conforming teasing leads to homosexuality.This doesn't seem to be able to account for the hypermasculinization that is seen in gay culture. If little boys who feel more like what the culture claims little girls should feel like grow up to be gay, why is it they so often seek out hypermasculine males and try to become hypermasculine, themselves?I'm not saying that this is an across-the-board response (there are the flaming drag queens for whom no matter how butch you dress them up, they open their mouths and yards of chiffon come pouring out.) I'm pointing out that the gamut of gay "gender conformity" is so extensive that it makes no sense that boys who are more like girls grow up to become the most male of all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it were environmental, how could there ever be a gay person?

---

​

I still don't understand why there couldn't be a gay person if sexual orientation is primarily influenced by environment.

---

Because there is absolutely nothing in our environment that would ever allow for a gay person.If environmental factors influence sexual orientation, how could there possibly be a gay person if there is never an influence to be gay?With absolutely no stimuli to influence a person to be gay and every single influence absolutely and with no hesitation pointing toward being straight, how could anybody compete, ignore the constant bombardment, and turn out to be preternaturally gay?

quote:

---

You don't think it's possible for an individual to have a series of experiences that would lead him to feel uncomfortable around women, but not around other men?

---

To the point of being exclusively sexually aroused solely by men and to become physically ill at the thought of having sex with a woman?Not without incurring psychological damage.Could we please agree that we're not talking about people in need of psychiatric assistance?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

OK, 'orientation' not 'behavior.' It's a minor distinction from my perspective as that is what I meant to write anyway; and it does not affect my request that you substantiate these types of claims.I have read everything you have written with sincerity; what's the point in biting my head off? I'm not trying to trick you with semantics. It was an honest mistake which had little or no impact from my perspective.

Do such people exist? People actually throw up at the mere thought of having sex with a woman? Really?

It's late, and I'm confused, but how the hell is this germane to what we are discussing? I never claimed homosexuality was a psychological problem.If it is simply in response to that anecdotal reference I mentioned about abuse, I stated my sample set was too small to be valid.And yes, I agree we are not arguing pathology. I don't understand why you persist in claiming I think homosexuality is pathological. For someone who is so insistent that he not be misquoted, you certainly have no reservations putting words in the mouths of your opponents.In any case, I would still appreciate some data or sources that discuss sexual orientation being influenced/determined by biological factors other than genetics. It sounds interesting.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 11:54 AM

This contradicts your claim that no evidence exists: Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Body Dissatisfaction in Gay and Heterosexual Men, by Scott M. Strong, Devendra Singh, Patrick K. Randall

quote:

---

Adult gay males recall more childhood gender nonconformity, such as disliking sports, dressing as girls, and having female playmates, than do heterosexual males (see Bailey & Zucker, 1995, for review). Longitudinal research finds that approximately 75% of "sissy boys" identify as gay or bisexual in adulthood (Green, 1987). Cross-culturally, the association between childhood gender nonconformity and adult male homosexuality remains strong (Whitam & Zent, 1984).

---

quote:

---

Among adults, accuracy of recalled childhood gender nonconformity might arguably be compromised by reassessment of childhood behaviors via socially defined gay or heterosexual perspectives (Ross, 1980). Still, the ability of childhood gender nonconformity recall measures to accurately identify the sexual orientation of over 85% of adult males suggests that these measures tap into germane aspects of sexual orientation and M/F (Hockenberry & Billingham, 1887; Phillips & Over, 1992).

---

sample size:

quote:

---

One hundred eighty one males (129 gay and 52 heterosexual) participated ranging in age from 18 to 58 years.

---

results:

quote:

---

Consistent with previous research, gay males were more feminine, less masculine, and more dissatisfied with their bodies than were heterosexual males.

---

This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 12:01 PM

I tihnk the real problem here is not rights for gays but peoples definition of marriage.If I think that the word marriage does not cover man with man, then it could never be a right to do what is impossible. The word same-sex marrige is just not a word to me. No I wasn't. It was a response to someone else's comment. I do not have a problem with the taxes if the governement makes a law and says I have to pay.I was also pointing out that if I pay taxes supporting gay marriage, then I am supporting gay sex, which could possible be against God's will. This is where I am not sure.
I understand abour giving to Ceaser. But if I have an opportunity to make it so this conflict of interest could not happen, then I am going to stick up for my rights and belief's. Regardless of my religion, I have felt that it is wrong. All of them? How do they have babies? Because I find it interesting.

Same thing could be true of gays. Some people never know they are gay until they are showed it's ok.
It takes 2 to be gay. There is probably a lot more to that.
I also wonder how many of those people are born again.
I know of one person that was strictly gay, yet when he found God he had a change of heart. He wasn't going against what he believed in either. You are completely wrong about that. I am not going to explain to why, because I won enough prizes already, thank you very much.But you just did completely take away all of God's power in a single sentence. Just because you think its not there, doesn't mean that it isn't. I knew I should have saved that quote. I tried searching, but couldn't find it. Someone else was talking about athiet's, and you included yourself in the group. It was from that point that I knew you were an athiest.
But I could be wrong, whatever you say. It doesn't really matter anyway, only for you. Then we are all gay right? ???????????????????????????
Dude you do not know me.
I never said any of that. That is what you think, I think.
You obviously have no clue.Is that how you feel? Because I never said any of that. Just once. If I was gay.
When I do something, I do it for the Lord, and I do it with all my heart. But since the Lord doesn't approve of it, that one time will never happen. Then why do we discriminate against thieves? Oh, now we speak dog?

This is coming from someone who won't tell us anything about himself except his name and location.I, on the other hand have told you a lot about myself and opened up to the scrutiny of the forum.When I first registered with the forum, I was careful about putting down that other information, as I do not know you guys. Either way if a lawsuit was to devolope the administrators would then have to reveal that information. So my point has been proven. That is a forum rule. If it was determined that you were sexually harrssing me, you would be breaking not only the law, but the forum rules as well.If the federal government uses the internet to catch child molestors, then it would have no problem convicting sexual harrssment on the internet. The right to anonyminity on this forum does not mean you can be sexually harrassed. That is why you must be registered, incase something like this happens.
The admins know who I am. Prove me wrong.
You are being hypocrytical. You once implied me that just because 2 million people believe in a dumb thing like God, doesn't prove that there is one.
Now you are saying that because 2 million people think that all the God's are different, it must be true.
You use arguements for your own good, not for there true meaning.So now these people are arbiters of who there God is, where as before they weren't.Everything was created for God's glory. Who am I to say how many God's there are. Or if even they are all the same God.Since you seem to know that they are all different, I would like for you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes you are right, I was wrong. I shouldn't have said that. It was an assumption and goes against what I believe in, even if it is true. I mean the bible teaches us this is what I should have said. Sorry.
That was me defending myself, not acting in a Godly manner. I never said I was perfect, only God is.

No but you just suggested it. There are, I told you I know of one. This could be because there aren't as many gays as straights, and the odds are against it ever happening at all. Percentage wise it could be the same.How do you know the those "straight" people weren't bi ? Wow dude, thats nuts.
But that still doesn't explain away the fact that it was a gay attempt at molestation, as it happened when I was older with hair. You can't prove that one. Not for me to judge. We are told by God what a sin is. If you commit a sin, you are a sinner. That is not judging.
If you steal you are a thief.
If you drive a car, you are a driver. I agree with this, but it is not my reasoning for being against it.
You could one by one show the other side of an arguement for all these things I am saying, but when you add all the facts together, it has to be looked at in a different light.
That also means that your side of the arguement isn't always correct.Pork and being gay are 2 different things. Correct, but it is still sin to steal. that makes him a sinner as well by definition. I am not judging this person if I reconize that.If I think he stole something, and there was no proof, then I am judging that person.You don't see the difference? That would be easy, but not neccessary. To call it a sin, is not claiming that God will punish.
It's just a sin. God will decide if it is punishable or not. Yes I agree with this. That is why I said I am ultimatly not sure what the right thing to do in God's eyes is.Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,So Jesus to go and point out to the rest of the world his ways.
If that goes against gays, then I feel the need to point that out. This does not mean I am judging it.1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders You are when you go against God's will.

edited: not germane to discussion.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 12:03 PM

Well Rrhain, I always suspected your posts were more attitude than substance and it appears I am correct.Your recently expressed shock over my ignorance regarding Evelyn Hooker appears to be nothing more than a platform to deride me, thereby attacking the arguer rather than the argument.Here is my proof. You compared her to Darwin and Newton. So I did some research on Dr. Evelyn Hooker. Surely, if as you contend, she is on par with these great scientists, she should be quite well known in the field of psychology - in fact, she should be one of the most important, reknown individuals ever.So I asked my friend who's undergraduate degree required two years of psychology. Never heard of her.I thought that was odd. How could my friend have never heard of this icon of psychology who is on par with Darwin and Newton? It would be like asking someone who took two years of biology saying he had never heard of Charles Darwin. But I took your position and simply assumed my friend was either stupid or ignorant; besides, this was only anecdotal evidence so I didn't give it much weight.So I looked in her college psychology textbooks. Oddly there was not a single reference to Evelyn Hooker. Even the textbook dealing specifically with human sexuality (Our Sexuality, sixth edition, Crooks & Baur) had no mention of Evelyn Hooker.Can you imagine any introductory biology text that had NO MENTION of Darwin? Any introductory physics text that had NO MENTION of Newton? Neither can I, but since your claim is that she is as well known in her field as these individuals, I was understandably perplexed.So did some research on the internet perusing the various lists and collections of 'the greatest/most impactful' psychologists of all time. Do you know what I found? Dr. Evelyn Hooker wasn't mentioned EVER.Even this study which lists the 100 most frequently cited psychologists in introductory college textbooks had NO MENTION of Dr. Evelyn Hooker.Your claim is completely bogus; furthermore, I contend you made this specious claim, and spent six paragraphs expressing your shock at my ignorance, for the sole purpose of trying to make me look foolish; you were attacking me, not my position.You compare not knowing who Hooker is when discussing human sexual behavior to not understanding the order of the alphabet when discussing Hamlet.

quote:

---

It's like having a discussion about the meaning of Hamlet and being asked to justify why the alphabet is in that order.

---

It's actually not like that at all. That you make this comparison is further proof that you are not interested in actually discussing this topic, but, rather, simply berating the individuals who do not agree with your position.In fact, the entire mention of Dr. Hooker's work is hardly germane to subject beyond demonstrating that homosexuality is not pathological behavior - a claim I NEVER once made.You state:

quote:

---

You are engaging in a conversation where you don't know the person who literally started the entire discussion in the first place?

---

But we were never discussing homosexuality as normal or pathological behavior. Ever. Our discussion pertains to why or why not individuals prefer same gender sex partners.Please show me where Hooker's experiment demonstrating homosexuality is not pathology addresses this topic? It doesn't. That's my point. Hooker's research is tangentially, at best, related to this topic; not, as you contend, the crux of it.Again, this only serves to demonstrate you are more interested in attemting to bludgeon your opponents into submission than actually persuading anyone of your position or legitimately discussing the subject in a constructive manner.The fact that NOT ONCE, in this entire thread, have you submitted a single shred of data; yet instead you continue to make broad, sweeping claims as though they are accepted fact (e.g. all human sexual orientation is determined by age three) merely to contradict my point is not debate; it is the most egregious example of not adhering to the second, third, and fourth rules of this forum that there is. [quote] 2-Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.3- Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.4- Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. [/qs]You have violated, and continue to violate these guidelines at every turn. When challenged, I have made good faith endeavors to find, and present data which supports my position. You have not. Not once. You merely scoff at my position and accuse me of being so ignorant that I am not capable of participating in a meaningful discussion.If you are truly interested in debate and discussion, then you need to start bringing more to the table than contradiction, bare assertion, and arrogance.

It will be interesting when the same sex marriage issue comes to a vote in July in the senate, how the democrat senators vote(for or against)in respect to same sex marriage, the democrats themselves may well create swing votes needed based on how they vote in July,
for the conservative republican fundementalists to win close elections, which would be a good thing, to end grid lock in the senate due to power abuses of filibuster powers by democrats, etc...P.S. The democrat senators that want to get relected realize only a small percentage of the voters are gay, if they want to win in close elections, it will be interesting how they vote, sounds like its a possiblility that an amendment defining marriage will be an issue in the coming election, cause most people that are democrats/republicans are not gay, so how can these senators vote for the minority, when it may be a trump card for the republicans, that are in agreement with the majority of the American people both democrat and republican in respect to gay marriage issues in respect to close elections, etc...