Harm in Homosexuality?

But I hadn't made one... that's the point. And this is part of what is really pissing me off and why I think you are being quite uncivil. You start a thread saying group X must use a specific criteria to determine that something is wrong. You also announce that you use that criteria, in a way that is essentially lording your group Y morally over group X.Then in an example to show that shows you use that criteria, you explicitly show that you do not use claimed criteria. When this is pointed out that avenue is shut off and even now (right above) you claim you don't have to prove that you use your criteria.So in this thread X must prove that it uses your criteria or they are wrong, but you guys in Y in no way have to prove that you actually use that criteria and indeed can keep repeating that you do, despite the outstanding counterexample.Thus this thread is punk on people with a different moral value thread. Unless that is you are willing to defend your own claim? You are right as that would not have opened up your position to criticism of inconsistency and hypocrisy.I may completely despise the values that Xians hold, and even believe that they are hypocrites in how they are enforcing them. But I hate hypocrisy in all its forms and that means from everyone. When I am told I cannot discuss what I see behind the curtain and then the facade is allowed to be reasserted, I get pissed.That's another huge reason I'm a bit cranky. I also do not agree with fundamentalist Xianity, and with Xianity in just about any stripe. Saying who grew up closest to them does not really matter. I've posted my street creds on this before, and I'm getting tired of doing so.The problem is you logically cannot prove their God is bad, by judging his laws based on your criteria. The most you can do is show that to you, or according to your moral position, their God seems to have some bad laws and in any case you really don't like them as they don't fit in with your vision of reality. But I have already refuted these positions.First of all a person who believes in a God can certainly believe something that seems to be bad may actually be for the good. That would be similar to a soldier having faith in the oddly negative seeming orders coming from up top... only in this case the person up top is omniscient so these people have a more valid reason to trust the orders are good and helpful.Second, the can certainly ask God to change the law, but he can always say no, or not say anything at all and let the law stand. A mortal's viewpoint cannot be that our petition was righteous and so he must change. If he says no or nothing then our petition was wrong. That's the logic which stems from having a God.In the end you are asking them to change their mind, not God to change his. Maybe that is something gays who love the Xian God should get to work on. Certainly if God showed up and said "I take it back, gays are great" that would do wonders. But then the answer is clear. If one believes in God, and believes that God is just, and God says (again we are assuming the intention of the text) that homosexuality is wrong, then that is just. If you still find it wrong, then you are missing the piece of the puzzle, not him.I don't see how you do not see that that is totally logical, and completely moral, given the presumption of an existing God, and a statement from him.Of course you can always claim that you worship another God which says something different. In that case you can then logically argue that the Xian God is actually a false God, or in any case an evil one that is encouraging people to harm each other.You simply cannot logically say that I alone as a person, believe that this one God exists, and yet say that I can prove his laws unjust because his laws do not match my laws, set by my criteria. Not really as long as he has the power to change at any time what can weaken him. This should make some sense. And in any case it doesn't even have to weaken him, but simply revolt him. Something that tastes bad does not weaken you but it makes you upset. It depends on why he is disgusted. Again this could have something to do with astral plane garbage we have no knowledge of. For example Cain and Abel. He was offended by one offering and liked the other.Does his repugnance at an offering of vegetation make him vegephobic? Does he hate vegetation? No, but it does not agree with him.He is the God of life and created our organs for reproduction. He is pretty clear that that is what he wants. Maybe vaginal coitus creates some cool vibe, and all other coitus (which homosexuals must engage in) is like nails on a chalkboard. That statement says it all. You are asking a people who derive their morality explicitly from authority, to prove homosexuality wrong using your own criteria.They have a deontological moral system, whose directives come from a single authoritative source. There simply is no way to get around this reality.Don't you see then how your request is just mindlessly bating someone? No, you haven't helped anyone.But I will now note that someone trying to prove the consistency of your harm=wrong criteria against pedophiles, has just submitted the evidence you requested from those against homosexualityMore so than underage sex acts, homosexuality (in the listed study) is majorly tied to coercive sexual practices. Whoops! Looks like you shouldn't let others try and defend your lofty moral towers, as they just undermined them.

---

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

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. 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. 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. Are you accusing me of homophobia? 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. 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. Socialized healthcare? Welfare? Scientific methodology and exploration? 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)

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. 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). 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. Yes. Lets... 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. So you agree with Bush that the UN is superfluous at this point in time? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 AMThis 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)

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)

+ + 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)

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. 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. 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. 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)

I agree this is also a good alternative, and indeed the more the "save marriage" advocates speak the more I think it explicitly demands that situation.But that is another topic, and I think it's already been talked about in detail in another thread.

---

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

Damn you! I said I was going to rip it to shreds when he finally explained how he thought the study proved what he said it did. Ah well.That was just one gem among many.The shame is not on you for having taken his word for it, the shame is on him for not having read it before posting it as his "evidence".FYI: If there is one thing that I have found to be true on this forum, very very few links to social and psychological studies ever end up supporting the claim they are said to. It seems most people see a sentence or a title or a graph and put up a link. And there is a surprising number that don't know the difference between causation and correlation. In other words, if you want a laugh, or a good counterpunch, read the links to studies before responding.

---

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

Again, for totally practical reasons I agree.The possible counterargument is that while it is the same rights it is a different definition. Like there are different licenses between car and motorcycle, or car and large truck, despite giving the same rights. Or in my analogy to food regulations, kosher and nonkosher, genetically modified or not, though both are available for sale and consumption.I don't agree that that is a good enough reason to not expand "marriage", but at that point I realize it is a matter of opinion and not a matter of differing facts or logic.It is possible for two opinions to be equally sound. That is where compromise is important.

---

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

Yes it is. That appears to be all you are actually concerned about, if I discuss a hypothetical where all rights are granted and you still can't handle not using the name marriage.See that's a great litmus test. When you can't even handle a hypothetical, in order to further discussion, you are having a problem. I currently live in a nation with three different ways to have a relationship legally recognized by the government. Believe it or not, this is a viable alternative.If you are concerned that in the writing of laws on civil unions, that there will be an exclusion, or perhaps a backdoor, such that something can be granted or taken away from one but not the other, then it seems a good thing to have is a clause in the law stating that future legal effects relating to one will automatically apply to the other.Wow, that was really hard.If such a clause is not in there, then someone is making a mistake. If it is suggested and then shot down, it is not equal rights and there is a reason to fight.You seem to forget what actual debate and compromise in law is all about. If you have a concern, put it in writing.

---

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

They are only productive in this manner, if failures during any singular demonstration can be pointed out, and then fixed. Without that critical ability demonstrations will flounder in place, blaming everyone else for not understanding how successful they are being.I am critical in order to improve. You are not being critical, and so detrimental. What a crappy 21st century this is. I was so looking forward to it when I was young, but now were right back to square one. I wasn't criticizing radicalism in general, especially as inherently reactionary. Does that even sound like something I would say?I was criticizing a set of specific actions which turned out to be counterproductive because the extent of their radical nature gained nothing for the cause, and actually misled potential allies. Hahaha. You said look at what radicals can produce. I showed you what radicals can produce. Then you blame moderates going along with the radicals you happen not to like. What a joke.The point I was making is that being radical can be useful but it can be detrimental as well. You can't just champion radicalism. It is simply a fact of life. And sometimes it works the way we want, or generally for the good. And sometimes it falls flat on its face.Sometimes great works do come from the moderates. And if anything your reply seems to have pointed that out. Moderates are where the power actually lies. You are apparently only familiar with a selection of recent western history? Social healthcare was not radical nor was it assumed part of communism, unless you are going to focus only on particular nations.In the end, from small communities on up, social healthcare... working social healthcare... comes from moderates expecting that in their daily lives. They don't need people spitting on others daily, just to keep it around. That's funny since (in the US) it was created in direct response to the failure of profit alone as a system that can ensure safety for all. It didn't take radicals to push it through.Radicals have since taken it back apart, convincing people they don't need it because levels of prosperity are generally high, and people have become suckers for gambling. Given a big enough fall, the moderates will return. You are now equivocating and being somewhat disengenuous. If radicalism is always the answer, then I should now be fighting the orthodox explanations and methods of modern science.The fact is that radicals repressed moderate methods of careful analysis. Eventually people grew weary of that and slowly returned to the moderate position of critical thinking.They may have seemed rebellious and "radical" to the extremely radical population they were in, but that is relative, not absolute.During prohibition it was "radical" to get a drink... in the US. Yet it really was the moderates that wanted to drink and eventually got it back. Why? I took part in the elective process and I did not vote for him. Indeed my state did the "right" thing and voted against him. I don't blame myself at all.In fact, I am doing something you are not. I am critically evaluating what happened and what could be done better in the future.I am also not going around and waving Bush's flags of ignorance and intolerance as if they are correct.You can pretend to hate him, but when you champion his virtues it sounds to me like you are just jealous.

---

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

Find where I said it once, much less many times. I was not talking just about hardcore fundamenatalists, which I think we can all agree are not for gay rights in any aspect.Your question was why they think being gay is wrong, and then ask them to fulfill your criteria of harm to prove to you that their moral system come to the correct conclusion.All I did was point out that that is logically impossible. You can choose to judge their system as worthy or not because you personally place more weight on your system than theirs, but you cannot say you have determined, or suggest that you are showing that their system is wrong or "bad".Oh yes, you can also appeal to their sense of temporal judgement that it sure seems to be coming out with an result they find unappealing. However for true believers in a God, they do have the logical ability to say what appears to be bad from my vantage point may not be from a greater vantage point. Again, the soldier and the general analogy stands. If the sole issue is what harm comes from homosexuality, then you are right. If the sole issue is why does God say homosexuality is wrong, then you are right.But you were not limiting it to that subject and neither were a number of others. While asking the above questions, it was also asserted that you and people like you have a specific moral system which comes to better moral labels because it is based on criteria of harm.That is right in your opening post. And note that I did not even bother to address this until you (in order to make an example regarding causes of behavior) reasserted how your moral system functions.That completely opens the door for me to point out that your system does not function as you describe, specifically given the example you made.Indeed the superiority of your moral system to that of the Xians continued to get asserted, including more references to that example... though any other sexual minority will do.That is why if you had mentioned alcoholism that really would have been the perfect dodge. It is equating too wholly different phenomenon. The effects of sexual acts, whatever the cause for wanting to do them, is in no way comparable to the effects of ingestion of chemicals (the inherent deleterious effect of poisons, and their addictive qualities), whatever the cause for wanting to do them. That is if your system is really harm based you should be able to note the vast gulf between the two as examples.Of course if you had mentioned alcoholism in the first place you would have gotten another criticism altogether. Are you honestly stating that you would judge alcoholism to be wrong? Or even worse, that alcoholic acts are wrong? That would of course be the comparison to what Xians are saying, and I don't think you want to go on record saying that taking a drink of alcohol is wrong. Actually it is inconsistent given your stated criteria for judging what is wrong. But that is besides the point. The hypocrisy I am attacking is your criticizing another moral system for what its results are, while saying how pure yours is and then not wanting it to be examined... or think that criticism is off topic.The fact is if their proving the harm of homosexuality should be so easy it is no problem for them (and thus prove their system worthy), why should it be so hard for you? Why can't you set a real example and show how your declared moral system can determine wrong based on harm caused by a sexual act. Heheheh... Can't defend your own position and so you lash out at me with the same criticism? Well I guess that's in keeping with how you do business. 1) You didn't specify which position you are talking about. If you mean that I don't agree with the Xian moral system, that is true. I am certainly not arguing it is right. I am only pointing out the fact that your argument is incapable of proving it wrong.2) I didn't fervently argue against gay marriage. I argued that while I am for gay marriage and believe that is the best option, there are those who don't believe its the best option and have a reasonable argument for their position. If necessary, there is room for a valid compromise solution. Whatta hypocrite.3) You've seen that civil unions inherently can't be equal? Where did you see that? From singular examples? I am still waiting for an explanation how a contract which has all the same rights and a different name, gives something less than equal.4) I did not say that no protests are useful. I was critical of the nature of the one's that happened. And I wasn't even critical in the sense that I didn't like them. But the point of protests is to create change in someone other than me. I simply pointed out that they don't seem to have worked, and why they (as they were conducted) did not seem to work.4b) I'm not sure if you are talking about the people that think homosexual acts are wrong or that gay marriage is wrong. In any case you are mistating my position, but each requires a different explanation of why you are wrong. Philosophy comes screeching to a halt... What the hell are you talking about? Do you know the difference between deontological and teleological systems? Do you not recognize that cultural definitions of "promote benefit" would completely remove an objective criteria of what harm and benefit are? Objectively define benefit. Think to whom? For what? I find it hard to believe that you cannot conceive some moral systems have proscriptions based on the idea that an action (or lack of one) is moral (or not), regardless of consequences. Enter your circular argument? No, thanks. If there is a God who knows more than us, then we may not know what is harmful or not, or would not be in a place to judge harm as well as him. I have already explained this, but let me take a different tack using your own theory of ethics. To you the end of all ethics is promote benefit. Thus harm reduced, while benefits maximized. Let's say God agrees and he just happens to see that in the long run an arbitrary rule proscribing homosexual acts does less harm than benefit. After all homosexuals are a minimum of the population, and so social cohesion of the majority may way out. You cannot laugh at the possibilities but that does show your contempt going into the debate. As far as the reasons you list, they are not paper thin once you believe in Gods and magick. They all become possibilities of things you may not know.I don't believe in that stuff so for me it is not realistic. Why does that remove my ability from seeing that those that do can believe in it? Well that's the irony isn't it? The first evidence that has come in... trying to show that there is secular harm in pedophilia... actually showed that homosexuality "causes" harm.Or are you going to pretend the link has not been posted?Oh I suppose before you claim I'm being hypocritical I should say I don't believe the study proves anything. But the point is it has been advanced as evidence of harm according to you system, and if it does, then homosexuality comes off worse.

---

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

Tsk tsk. I sure did. And just because an age is listed does not make it proof of anything particular. For example how would it change if I moved it up or down? Oh the irony. The problem was he didn't read your link and assumed it was right.I already said I didn't assume anything, and did read it. My recommendation was that if he wanted a laugh OR A GOOD COUNTERPUNCH, he should read links in the future... before ASSUMING THEY ARE RIGHT.It's cute how you then chose to make it look like the problem is assuming something is wrong, and saying I only read things for a laugh.

---

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

Steeeeeerike Three, an' yer out of there! This was so bad it didn't meet my criteria for even having to rip it to shreds. But what I will do is give you some pointers on how to analyze a study and so where you missed a few things. Nice way to pretend like you are answering my question... put in a few details.Thankfully it provides a few examples of where you should realize what this study is limited to. It is indeed a study of men, specifically just england, and those in general practice... actually just a percentage of men willing to agree to self-assessment tests that are in general practice.The fact that they are in general practice has some important ramifications which even the authors mention in places. These are not the general population. These are people that are seeking help in the first place and may be more likely to have psychological issues they want to deal with.The stats may be very different for the general population. And indeed it may be a function of the nature of certain people that will influence them seeking treatment.So right off the bat, we realize what is under study is a statistical breakdown of men in english culture, who are inclined to seek help and take part in surveys about their issues. This study could have had vastly different results for the population, and if done in different cultures (even crossing the english channel could make a difference).They even mentioned cultural differences within england that might have had an influence (cohort effect). I thought this was a very smart move on the part of the authors. While they did include the legal age (16) they actually ignored its ramifications for determination of consensual and nonconsensual. They then used as a separate criteria a common concept of child sexual abuse which is 5 year difference when under legal age, no matter if consensual.But this should be made clear. The one thing they did not do is define what is a child and what is adult. They were not probing, nor did they intend to probe, into the specifics of sex as it relates to age. They were pretty clear about looking at the effects of concensual and nonconsensual sex, and as a variable added the socially arbitrary definitions of age with respect to abuse.They were looking if correlations would match expectations, and this would include perhaps sex/age issues, but as another poster and I keep pointing out that in no way indicates anything beyond cultural expectations creating the results. This is, after all, what hurt gays for such a very very very long time.They did not break it down through age groups, nor did they simply raise and lower the age bar. The exact same study could have been conducted in the Netherlands and the age could have been set at 12, or Denmark and it set at 15. Given the results of this study can you tell me what you would have seen?Did you understand what you were reading or did you simply see 16, and think that meant something objective? This of course was the claim from the original poster of this thread, and you originally claimed this is what the study showed. But that is just the point. It is not a causative effect, and in any case the effects are mainly related to nonconsensual variety which includes rape and yes I already agree that rape has negative effects...Here is their list again: Here is the result: Look what that says..Moreover it shows a huge correlation between homosexual acts and nonconsensual sex, and as a result... since that was the most tied to psychological problems... psychological problems.Thus it appears that homosexuality ought to be a pretty big concern all around.Personally I'd love to see more data from the CAGE assessment anyway. How do two, totally separate things, suddenly get coupled?This would be like me saying this stat about homosexuality, coupled with the incredibly damaging effects of rape on men...Give me a break. Yeah, rape is damaging. I would argue we are all as a society making it a lot worse on the victim than it has to be, but yes the effects of rape alone (depending on level of violence) can be bad enough.That does not then attach itself to something else. Yeah, do you have to force the kid to do it or not. Why are you asking after presenting a study which explicitly defined consensual/nonconsensual? Why?... By which I mean for the reasons listed so far... Are you saying that with a law in place saying you can't rape a child, there will be more rapes happening than if you have a law saying you can't have sex with a child? I'm sorry where did you get that. Where exactly did you get the data to make the conclusion it was promiscuity versus monogamy which increased the risk of rape?If anything, since you are obviously basing it off of a couple of conjectural statements, you should note that they could just as easily be saying that promiscuity is correlated highly to being gay... maybe inherent?And again I should point out that if it was promiscuity alone, then this should show up for promiscuous straight men too, right? Unless of course, and correct me if I'm wrong but this would be necessary, gay men are more likely to rape... and I suppose that would have to conclude raping children.There is of course already a "study" going around fundie circuits supporting that claim. The above is an ironic conclusion given your described moral system, and your boosting the claims of this study on where it found minimal effects and then attempting to dodge the stats on the other side.Let's look at those quotes again... That is a clear statement. It is either conjecture on their part or homosexuality shows an inherent inclination to promiscuity, no? Conjecture. Thus maybe promiscuity may be the culprit maybe not. Maybe gays in england tend to live in areas where they are more likely to be victimized. Or viewed as victimizable? Or maybe not.You are pretty well tied into rejecting or accepting the results of this study for the claim that you made. I think I know what the right answer is. Do you?

---

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

The fact that anyone who gets ill, goes to their GP, does not mean or even imply that a study based on men going to the GP during a certain section of time is getting an accurate representation of the population as a whole.What's funny is that you missed the statement in the study which explicitly made that point. Indeed there is a potential that people with psych problems may have differences in attending the GP when they have problems.I've lived in two different nations with socialized healthcare systems, I know what a GP is, I know what limitations specific location testing provides, and I know how to read.Looks like one for you, three for me. The degree of violence used most certainly plays a significant part in how much psych damage is caused, as well as number of violations, and duration. I didn't say there would be no damage when a person is forced to have sex without overt violence, just that it would not necessarily be as deep and longlasting.I would also point out that in cases of nonviolent rape the problems stem more from social impacts than from the actual sex itself. For example creating socialization problems due to trust issues (as they get mixed messages). I am also suspicious if you are trying to equivocate nonviolent rape, with consensual sex, as if lack of violence means lack of force. I must point out that we are now getting into legal questions, which are a totally different subject. Even if I were to agree to your position for legal reasons I would not then say that a person conducting consensual sex acts with a child would be morally wrong, just legally proscribed.That said, I don't agree. We would ask, and we would have counselors talk to the child. Unfortunately that is what we are stuck with. The fact that plenty of innocent people have had their lives ruined, and gone to jail, by false testimony by children, coerced by relatives and zealous psychologists, sort of undercuts your argument.Children can be coerced either way, and legal proceedings end up hurting child and adult alike for actual consensual cases, so I'd rather wait and only punish people for actual rape, rather than watering it down and punishing everyone.I guess I tend to feel it is wrong to punish the innocent for no better reason then bad guys can cover their trail. Wrong morally and wrong legally.And as you have pointed out rape does result in some sort of trauma, if real rape does occur their should be signs which a doctor can help or treat, or use to bring a case against a perpetrator that has convinced a child to remain silent. You are intentionally blurring lines. Indeed you are using a form of the argument from ignorance. The fact that consensual sex is possible for children argues for not punishing every sexual act as if it is nonconsensual. That in some cases you might not be able to tell should not tarnish them all.Abuse cases happen at all ages, as your very link suggested. It is well established that coercion prevents many adult domestic abuse cases from ever seeing court. They also result in lots of psychological problems, perhaps more percentage wise than any other problem. The answer would not then be to outlaw relationships and marriage.If you have some indication that allowing consensual sex to occur would somehow make the amount of real rapes increase, then you might have a case. This actually has some evidence against it... but that is a different topic. Given the fact that you have missed most of what this study has said, including points I haven't even mentioned yet, the question is more whether you read the reference or understood it... not me.Remember what I'm saying is that if we are to use the same criteria that you are for underage sex to homosexuality, that very statement ends up quite damning unless it is conjecture.My actual feelings about whether conjecture actually lay were with what came after... whether promiscuous nature of homosexuals alone became a factor in unconsensual sex. I want to get this straight, your claim is that the UK does not look down on underage sex, and yet they have laws in place, and should have laws in place because the majority feel that it poses a great threat and harm is done to them?That is, even in spite of what you claimed earlier, now you are saying that kids are harmed and yet love it? And so your position is that homosexuality, mixed race relationships, masturbation, unmarried motherhood, and other previously hated and demonized behaviors were actually bad, despite their apparent "psychological effects" clearly coming from the social isolation and pressures put upon those by society?The above comment defies any sociological or historical knowledge.But hey... you find me the study which shows that people live isolated from the stresses of societal expectations.Now let's review.1) After announcing you had positive proof, you have avoided addressing the counters to your claim of harm coming from the study itself, gradually shifting to legalisms of not knowing if someone had nonconsexual sex or not.2) You are now claiming that in spite of what the study is showing for homosexuals, it is more about promiscuity. You appear to be asserting that gays are not intrinsically promiscuous though that would be the suggested connection, not to mention they are more likely perpetrators (if you are going to be consistent).This is nice use of a study to prove your point.Oh by the way, so I guess you are in favor of making fornication and adultery illegal as promiscuity is certainly highly correlated with increases in nonconsensual sex and psychological problems and so we are better off preventing anything but monogamy just to be safe? That's a great answer right? Then you couldn't have sex with minors and there is little chance for rape from casual flings!This message has been edited by holmes, 11-19-2004 01:25 PM

---

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