Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 196 of 309 (160937)
11-18-2004 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by contracycle
11-18-2004 5:29 AM


The purpose of a demonstration is to DEMONSTRATE your position to others, not to tug your forelock and beg their consent.
You can demonstrate in a way that is unproductive or counterproductive. That is simply a fact. Other than an assertion, I am waiting for evidence to show how productive these particular "demonstrations" were.
Yes - as long as you yell and spit at their enemies.
No spitting at people doesn't always look classy, and can turn potential allies into enemies.
And as part of this debate is showing even friends are spit on as enemies for simply stating some facts.
The fact that the bigots came out fighting should not be allowed to intimidate anyone into backing off; it is craven to say "I have principles, unless and until they are opposed".
Agreed. But that does not create a stock dilemma on what to do, or what the most productive course of action is.
I love all this nonthink going on. It isn't possible to criticize the gay marriage activism in its choice of actions, or you are against them? Gee this sounds familiar.
"I'm not homophobic, but many other people are." Homophobia by proxy, just like racism by proxy.
Are you accusing me of homophobia?
Holmes, why don't you self-identify as a conservative? Every one of your arguments appears to be conservative, containing a reflexive hostility to anyone who wants to change anything or who takes steops top actually do so. It seems to me that your vision of the good society is everyone knowing their place.
I'm an independent, because I have some very liberal positions and some very conservative positions. In a way I tend to have a lot of conservative principles.
However in this case this doesn't apply at all. I have already said I support gay marriage. Indeed I support polygamous marriage against some of the gay antipolygamy bigots around here.
The only things I said, which appears to wrankle people like you, is that it is possible to criticize gay marriage acitivist organizations for how they chose to pursue their agenda, that there really are some people out there that have an issue with changing the definition of a term that has specific historical connotations, and that a compromise could be had to gain their support for a reasonable solution.
I do agree with arguments that if marriage has such religious connotations that perhaps the government shouldn't be dealing such licenses in the first place, and that if it is willing to bend on any definitional property then there is no reason not to grant them for gays.
Wow, whatta bigot I is.
Achievements by radicals:
The invasion of Iraq. The alienation of "Old Europe" for "New Europe". Establishment of Israel and continued support of Israeli aggressions. Undercutting civil rights by inducing fear. The crushing of pagans and science.
Wow, you certainly have me convinced.
Triumphs of moderates:
Socialized healthcare? Welfare? Scientific methodology and exploration?
"The unreasonable man is the one who expects the world to adapt to his needs, the reasonable man is the one who adapts himself to suit the world. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
Oh, I thought that was George Walker Bush.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by contracycle, posted 11-18-2004 5:29 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by contracycle, posted 11-19-2004 4:49 AM Silent H has replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 197 of 309 (160940)
11-18-2004 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by pink sasquatch
11-17-2004 7:42 PM


Re: stats
Thanks for the stats. I didn't ask for them because i did not agree with you but more because I really didn't knew. Even though they are a bit out of date you convinced me.
pink sasquatch writes:
The problem with all of the points that you bring up is that heterosexuals practice them as well - unsafe sex, IV drug use, and anal sex. Thus all of the things you list could also be used, by your logic, to describe heterosexuality as harmful.
pink sasquatch writes:
Again, you haven't given a single reason why homosexuality is "harmful", you've only presented misconceptions about an infectious disease and sexual practices.
In order to find something harmful in homosexuality and lesbianism (if it exists) I need to know what is to you something harmfull. I can't go any further without knowing what harmfull means to you.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-17-2004 7:42 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Taqless, posted 11-18-2004 11:05 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 198 of 309 (160941)
11-18-2004 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
11-18-2004 2:29 AM


Rrhain writes:
Then I hope you are mute because the "natural use" of your vocal cords is to cough, not speak.
If their natural use wasn't communication, why call them vocal cords then. Why aren't they called cough cords then.
Rrhain writes:
And I hope you never use your penis for sex since the "natural use" of the penis is for urination.
So i guess that we reproduce unaturally. Is that what youre saying?

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 2:29 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2004 11:09 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 199 of 309 (160954)
11-18-2004 9:06 AM


rrhaindom bits...
Whether we call the food "Kosher" or "non-Kosher" is irrelevant as the argument is over whether or not we call it "food."
Such a statement shows that the analogy has not been understood. The analogy is as follows...
In a society that was vast majority jewish they created a legal process for regulating food manufacture and sale. Given the nature of the culture the regulations included not just physical issues, but traditional cultural concerns. Accepted food was given the label Kosher, in standing tradition of acceptable food according to jewish tradition.
Then people came in that wanted to manufacture and sell foods which did not match the traditional proscriptions to make them "kosher", yet addressed the physical concerns regarding safety. There was no real reason to block food manufacture or sale for the people not concerned with the traditional concerns and so regulations were expanded such that they were legal.
However there was an issue for some in using the traditional Kosher label, since its traditional definition contains more than just physical concerns. Thus they are willing to accept a different, but legally sanctioned for use, category.
This is an appropriate analogy as marriage within western culture, indeed almost all cultures and certainly all that have been working within the US, have had the concept of marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. There are logical historical reasons for this definition both culturally and legally.
Now why this cannot change as cultures change is as you have stated, a semantic issue. However the answer of why some people would not want it to change is in line with the Kosher analogy.
We are not talking about "food", as long as unions are made available to all. We are talking about using the label marriage which historically and culturally has a specific definition regarding a type of union.
It's simple logic: If two things are identical, why are you using different terms to refer to them? The only reason is because there is something different between them, which means they will be treated differently.
They are not identical, and traditionally are not. The concept of marriage being between any sex coupling is a very very recent phenomonon and is not popular.
I'm not arguing that it could not change, but you are being arrogant in asserting that this fact is not true, and anyone stating so must be against gay rights (or even gay marriage, as I can admit that fact and still say gay marriage is the best solution).
You're arguing "separate but equal," holmes, and you know better than that.
No I'm not. I actually argue that it would be more logical to just expand the definition, or remove the term from all legal contracts for unions.
However I am recognizing that people who do not agree with me can hold a logical position about the traditional definition of marriage, supported with facts, even if I do not believe this is enough of a reason to not expand the definition of the contract.
I am also recognizing that a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights is a possible valid compromise. In essence the majority should be satisfied.
The only people upset should be the people who do not wants gays getting rights at all, and gays who have equally strong semantic hangups and need to use that name.
Actually recognizing what my position is, and the arguments I am making might help you in correctly addressing my posts.
We are arguing reality, not theory, holmes.
Yes. Lets...
So if I can show you Christian same-sex marriage, can we drop this specious argument? Same Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. It even includes the Catholic marriage rites for same-sex marriage.
I am uncertain why you are bringing this up since you know we both share knowledge of this work.
First of all, it is not clearly a marriage rite. This is a theory which is in dispute and the opposition has some credible points.
Second, even if it was clearly a rite uniting a same sex couple in a sexual relationship before god, it is also clearly "separate but equal". Indeed it takes a different form, and is not called marriage is it?
Third, even if it was a marriage between same sex couples, this only reinforces the concept that marriage is not traditionally defined that way. By the author's own work it is shown to have existed during a very short period of time and used infrequently. It certainly has not existed as a known practice for at least a millenia.
Fourth, it was a religious service and not necessarily a legal union which further casts it away from a traditional legal definition of marriage as anything but between a man and a woman.
Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages. These were also done, more openly and across more history, and still are across many cultures. It seems odd that you feel no one but yourself can pick and choose what must be integrated at one time into our legal system.
It's the only way to find out who truly is committed to equality and who is just a homophobe pretending to be supportive.
This is not the statement you made about polygamists using the exact same method to demonstrate their rights before San Francisco did the exact same thing.
Remember you said that them breaking the law to issue themselves licenses was not something that was admirable and going to get people on their side... something like that. Then the SF marriages began happening and I pointed out here gays were doing the exact same thing, and then you ran away never to be seen in that thread again?
Do you care to revise your stance?
Holmes, state-sponsored "civil unions" provide no federal benefits and are not transferable from state to state. They are practically worthless.
Marriages are not necessarily transferrable from state to state. Indeed your own personal bigotry is supported to prevent a marriage involving someone under 17 being accepted in a state whose marriage laws require a person be above 17. This also holds for certain incestuous marriages.
I do hold that if civil-unions are created in a state, if its being done as a compromise, then they must contain all the same rights given to a marriage. The Federal government would also have to acknowledge those unions as identical to marriages when dealing with federal issues.
Anything less is worthless.
You're not seriously saying that the only states that have anti-marriage laws are just those 11 that voted this year, are you?
...Those that did it did so in the great Hawaii panic back in the 90s. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act that Congress passed?
This is disengenuous. Many states did not originally have laws against gay marriage, but they did have laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, unless we are going to leave reality this has a huge historical and practical reason.
Then when gays began trying to get marriage definitions expanded there was a reaction. Do I think it was stupid? Yes. Do I think there are a lot of bigots that are pretending they are not allowing it for semantic reasons rather than blatant bigotry? Yes. Do I think that means everyone who has these semantic hangups is a bigot? No.
And what we saw just happen during the last election was the same type of reaction we saw before. So where is the surprise then? Why is it not possible that another course of action might have better effects?
Marriage was between people of the same race.
The point is that... if you are going to be honest here... race was never mentioned in law books as a pre-req, certainly not traditionally or historically. Opposite sex was, and for some pretty logical reasons given what marriage was about.
Because we're living in the real world, holmes, where it is all or nothing.
So you agree with Bush that the UN is superfluous at this point in time?
I'm, surely you're not suggesting that gay people made a simple choice to be gay, are you?
And you would be right, I'm not suggesting people choose to be gay. If you look carefully at my analogy what I was suggesting is that people choose to be Xian, and indeed particular denominations of Xian.
You make it sound like being gay is akin to having a craving for potato chips.
Perhaps like Jays, you can't stop eating them? Or maybe Pringles, once you pop you can't stop?
Okay seriously, my point was that if one chooses to believe in a God that has those statements, then if you are gay it will be inconvenient because you will be called on not to practice your desires. But hey, there are plenty of other people cut off from their desires as well and it would be just as silly for you to compare them to having a craving for potato chips.
Strict Xianity is pretty damn strict.
Rights have always had to be fought for and forced upon those who cannot stand the thought of giving those rights to others.
Well, yes and no. There are certain desires which people think are a right they need, but they are not. I will only note your own hypocrisy when others come to ask for their rights.
I thought you said you were desperate to get your rights. Since separate but equal doesn't get you your rights, why are you fighting for it?
This is a good example. In the example I said I was desperate to get my rights. Calling my legal union a marriage as opposed to a civil union is not a right that is a necessity (indeed it may not even be desirable). I'd sacrifice semantics in order to get the rule of law on my side.
How do you alienate someone who agrees with you? The only way to do that is to find something that you disagree about.
By which I take it you have no issues with the way Bush conducts foreign policy? You do not believe he alienated our friends even though they agreed with us on the general aim? You do not believe his words and actions have not polarized everyone such that potential allies, those that might have been convinced to agree with us, no longer can?
There is a thing called diplomacy. It is founded on the idea that words and actions are capable of losing allies and potential allies, and that the world is not all or nothing.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-18-2004 09:09 AM
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-18-2004 09:12 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Taqless, posted 11-18-2004 11:23 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 260 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 3:44 AM Silent H has not replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 200 of 309 (161030)
11-18-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Itachi Uchiha
11-18-2004 7:56 AM


Re: stats
In order to find something harmful in homosexuality and lesbianism (if it exists) I need to know what is to you something harmfull. I can't go any further without knowing what harmfull means to you.
-The very first post asks "What is HARMFUL about homosexuality?" NOT "What is considered harmful?".
-So, you need to provide an explanation why homosexuality might be exclusively harmful as opposed to heterosexuality.
-Therefore, PS does not need to tell you what he/she thinks is harmful...car accidents are harmful...YOU need to
.....find something harmful in homosexuality and lesbianism (if it exists).....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-18-2004 7:56 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 201 of 309 (161042)
11-18-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Silent H
11-18-2004 9:06 AM


Re: rrhaindom bits...
Hey Holmes,
The point is that... if you are going to be honest here... race was never mentioned in law books as a pre-req, certainly not traditionally or historically.......
If I'm not mistaken for a very long time the main churches refused to marry inter-racial couples. I have heard from many that they feel there is a biblical basis for not supporting inter-racial unions. My point is that while this lack of support for inter-racial marriages was not underlined by state laws in this country, for non-religious reasons, it most certainly was supported by the mainstream religions in this country for quite a few years. This constitutes both historical and an "unwritten" tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 9:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 2:13 PM Taqless has replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 202 of 309 (161056)
11-18-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tusko
11-18-2004 6:27 AM


Under age sex does not carry any stigma in british society for men. many even boast about it. So why do they have psychological problems over and above people who don't have consensual under-age sex?
And how do you propose we tell which children are and aren't consenting to have sex?
Masturbation is just another everyday activity, but sex is not. At least not for me. The trust involved and the emotional satisfaction it gives are more important than the physical parts - if it were "just another everyday activity" these would be lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2004 6:27 AM Tusko has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 203 of 309 (161058)
11-18-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Silent H
11-18-2004 5:27 AM


Look at the table for psychological harm. Those who have under age sex are subject to greater psychological problems later. Which causes which is not known, but the link is there. That would suggest under age sex was a symptom of early psychological problems, or possibly (though unlikely) the cause.
And yes, it says a greater risk exists for gay men. Does that mean being gay and monogomous mean you will be raped? No. It means being more promiscuous is more dangerous.
It is clear from the authors own words that you quoted that the threat comes from certain parts of gay culture - like the increased promiscuity of the gay men studied. Being gay doesn't make you promiscuous, like being straight doesn't make you monogomous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 5:27 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 3:04 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 204 of 309 (161091)
11-18-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Silent H
11-18-2004 5:33 AM


holmes writes:
And that differs from your stated position, how?
You mind telling me where I said you are ignorant?
I also said I realize there is a group using this in order to oppress gays. My crime appears to be the wholly rational position of trying to understand what other people are saying, and then explaining to you how a compromise can be reached.
What compromise? Seperate but equal compromise? Dream on!
Yes you prefer ignorance.
Tell me again how I am ignorant? Does my unwillingness to compromise on the issue of equal rights make me ignorant?
Let me repeat myself. Equal rights means equal rights. Equal rights except for some minor details here and there ain't equal rights.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 5:33 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 2:27 PM coffee_addict has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 205 of 309 (161108)
11-18-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Taqless
11-18-2004 11:23 AM


My point is that while this lack of support for inter-racial marriages was not underlined by state laws in this country, for non-religious reasons, it most certainly was supported by the mainstream religions in this country for quite a few years. This constitutes both historical and an "unwritten" tradition.
What you are stating is true which is why it took people to stop people from refusing to adminiter the law equally as written. Same race was not set law, and while discrimination like this was "common", it was not wholesale.
This means that while denying mixed race (mixed religion too) marriages were certainly historical and in certain regions tradition, it did not have anything like the history and tradition of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, and was not at all of historical legal precedent.
Everyone has to keep in mind I am not trying to say this legitimates the idea that gays shouldn't be married. All I am showing is that in fact there simply was no concept of same sex marriage... again you can even go back to cultures which accepted homosexuality and longterm homosexual relationships. Marriage as an institution is about property and particularly heirs. Its about children.
Even in I believe it was Greek culture, gay lovers would end up helping their lover choose a wife. Gee what would that be about?
In modern times we have become much more legalistic about everything and rights have been granted to those relationships classified as "married". And at this point in time it is more likely that a gay person will have a child of his/her own, or shared between two partners. Gays have every right to say their relationships, including children, should not be excluded from getting those same legal rights which have been granted to married couples.
The question becomes how to get them that recognition. Is it to change longheld legal definitions of marriage? I say why not. But we could just as easily draw up another category with a different set of definitions, yet has the same rights. I'd say why bother, yet it is an option.
In the end it would make no difference except on the surface. If people are going to make a fuss about keeping a longheld definition in place, but are willing to grant the same rights without the name, and they would make up teh vote difference... maybe a compromise is in order.
Only people playing semantics games are going to make a case of my stating this option as some sort of bigotry, or caving to bigotry.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Taqless, posted 11-18-2004 11:23 AM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Taqless, posted 11-18-2004 4:56 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 261 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 3:49 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 309 (161124)
11-18-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by coffee_addict
11-18-2004 1:42 PM


You mind telling me where I said you are ignorant?
+
What compromise? Seperate but equal compromise? Dream on!
+
Equal rights means equal rights. Equal rights except for some minor details here and there ain't equal rights.
You don't understand that you can call a person ignorant without explicitly using that word. I mean I'd have to be ignorant for the last two comments to be true, right? Either ignorant or a lying bigot.
I have given you examples and I have given you facts and I have tried to explain to you that while I actually am for gay marriage, other people do have a valid point, and there could be a valid compromise. You reject this by simply repeating the mantras you started with.
Not only that, but I can't even suggest that activists for gay marriage may have made some tactical mistakes?
Equal rights do mean equal rights. Standing up for one's rights is necessary. Negotiating on a point that makes absolutely no difference to those rights, is a detail.
Assuming all rights are granted, what would using the name Civil Union as a legal document for unions not originally under state defs of marriage mean to you? That is what right would you lose? On what priniciple would you reject it?
And don't repeat equal, but separate. We have differences in legal contracts and legal regulations all the time, as new items come up they don't always expand defs... we get new forms with new titles.
Why does this case merit such concern for a name?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2004 1:42 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2004 9:24 PM Silent H has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 309 (161129)
11-18-2004 2:34 PM


Did anyone see my post about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether? I was hoping to get some comments about why it is that the government should recognize anyone's marriage if, as the argument against gay marriage tends to go here in the South, marriage is a sacrament or blessing from God.
Why should the government ever grant or recognize anything more than a civil union?

Dog is my copilot.

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2004 2:49 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 211 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 3:09 PM berberry has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 208 of 309 (161149)
11-18-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by berberry
11-18-2004 2:34 PM


berberry writes:
I was hoping to get some comments about why it is that the government should recognize anyone's marriage if, as the argument against gay marriage tends to go here in the South, marriage is a sacrament or blessing from God.
That the powers the gov have are from god?

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by berberry, posted 11-18-2004 2:34 PM berberry has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 209 of 309 (161154)
11-18-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:29 PM


This is from the BMJ report on non-consensual sex in men, in the section labelled "Psychological problems, at risk drinking, and self harm"
The effect of consensual sexual experiences in childhood is unknown.
I thought you said:
Men who have consensual sex under 16 have an increased incidence of psychological problems.
This seems to flatly contradict you. Thoughts?
Much to my shame, I didn't read the source you referenced at the time and took your word for it. (I'm a busy library worker, okay? ) There is of course the possibility that I'm misinterpreting it, but I'm sure you'll let me know if that's the case

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:29 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 3:18 PM Tusko has not replied
 Message 219 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 5:30 AM Tusko has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 210 of 309 (161159)
11-18-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jon_the_Second
11-18-2004 12:00 PM


Look at the table for psychological harm. Those who have under age sex are subject to greater psychological problems later.
Strike Twooooooo!
I'm sorry I was quite clear about this. You need to explain what this study did, and how its methods and results show that sexual acts inherently cause harm in minors. Indeed I even asked you to show me what age was indicated.
The results are not what you just said they are and I think if you read the written results which include a summation of what data means, rather than at just a graph, you would know this.
You would also be aware of what the scope of this study can and does cover.
Which causes which is not known, but the link is there. That would suggest under age sex was a symptom of early psychological problems, or possibly (though unlikely) the cause.
Wrong! All the way around. First of all even if I pretended you were right the very first sentence negates this being used as support for your claim.
There is a thing called causation, and there is another thing called correlation. They have very different meanings. If you are not very clear of the difference you should not even bother quoting studies or saying you have evidence of anything.
it says a greater risk exists for gay men. Does that mean being gay and monogomous mean you will be raped? No. It means being more promiscuous is more dangerous.
See how you go racing for the difference between correlation and causation when it is your pet moralism on the line?
And just to let you know, they did not actually show that more promiscuous is more dangerous either.
It is clear from the authors own words that you quoted that the threat comes from certain parts of gay culture - like the increased promiscuity of the gay men studied. Being gay doesn't make you promiscuous, like being straight doesn't make you monogomous.
The threat comes from certain parts of gay culture? Are you certain they weren't saying gay isn't inherently prone to promiscuity? After all why wouldn't the straights be suffering the same issues unless there wasn't inherently more promiscuity in gays than in straights? Or that there wasn't more danger in gay promiscuity than straight promiscuity? Thus, either way, more problems inherent to being gay.
That is of course if we are to believe the promiscuity is the area where the danger actually resided. Was that quote conclusive or conjectural on that point?
Heheheh... and I haven't even mentioned the other beautiful little tidbit about homosexuality that the study would "prove".
You are on strike two. Make the next swing count.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-18-2004 12:00 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 5:43 AM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024