Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right
Family Research Council ^ | Peter S3prigg

Posted on 10/29/2010 4:58:55 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan

Early in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began giving out marriage licenses—illegally—to same-sex couples. One of the homosexuals who traveled to San Francisco in search of a marriage license explained his rationale succinctly: “I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus.”1

The allusion, of course, was to the famous story of Rosa Parks. Parks is the African-American woman who, one day in 1955, boarded a racially segregated city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, sat down near the front, and refused the driver’s order to “move to the back of the bus.” Parks’ act of civil disobedience violated one of the “Jim Crow” laws that enforced racial segregation in various public services and accommodations in some states.

Parks’ arrest for her courageous defiance sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, led by a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., which is generally viewed as the beginning of the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It culminated legislatively in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning racial discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The stories of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. have become an inspiring part of American history. It’s not surprising that homosexual activists have tried to hitch their caboose to the “civil rights” train. They do this in the context of efforts to change the definition of marriage in order to allow same-sex “marriages” (by comparing same-sex “marriage” to interracial marriage) and efforts to pass “hate crime” laws (which stigmatize opposition to homosexual behavior as a form of “hate” comparable to racism). The arguments in this essay are relevant to those debates, but focus particularly on laws that would ban employment “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (such as the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is regularly introduced each Congress).

This essay is not a legal treatise, but an exploration of the philosophical justification for including various characteristics as categories of protection under historic civil rights laws—and why “sexual orientation” simply does not compare with them.

Defining Terms: What Are “Civil Rights,” Anyway?


The dictionary defines civil rights as “rights belonging to a person by virtue of his status as a citizen or as a member of civil society.”2 The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution guarantees every American the right to freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as “due process of law,” and gives protections against unreasonable search and seizure, “double jeopardy” (being tried twice for the same crime), and self-incrimination.

These are true “civil” rights, in that they belong to a person (every person) “as a citizen or as a member of civil society.” But please note well—homosexuals have never been denied any of these rights, nor is anyone proposing to deny such rights to homosexuals in the future.

When homosexual activists talk about their “civil rights,” they are not talking about their constitutional rights, which have never been systematically denied to them as a class (unlike the historical experience of black Americans). Instead, they are talking about “civil rights” in the sense that the term was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which laid down five protected categories in which it was illegal for an employer or banker or hotelier, and others, to practice discrimination (“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”). Many states now have similar laws as well. The true “constitutional” rights cited above place a restriction on the actions of governments in carrying out the law. And when a constitutional right is extended to a group previously deprived of it, no one else suffers any reduction in their rights as a result. For example, when the right to vote was extended to blacks and then to women, this did nothing to limit the right of whites or of men to vote.

Civil rights laws that bar employment discrimination, however, place a restriction upon the action of private entities (such as corporations) in carrying out their private business. This is why Congress rested its authority to pass the Civil Rights Act not on the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection of the laws,”3 but on its power to regulate interstate commerce.4 When such a “right” is extended (for the individual to be free from “discrimination” in employment), it infringes upon what would otherwise be the customary right of the employer to determine the qualifications for employment. The extension of historic constitutional rights is a “win-win” situation, but the extension of laws against employment discrimination is more of a “zero-sum” game—when one (such as the employment applicant) wins more protection, another (the employer) actually loses a corresponding measure of freedom. It is because of this that lawmakers should be exceedingly cautious, rather than generous, about expanding the categories of protection against private employment discrimination.

Because of our national shame at the historic legacy of racial discrimination against blacks, many people have come to think of “discrimination” as inherently evil. However, the basic meaning of “discriminate” is simply “to make a distinction.”5 To compare and evaluate candidates based on their education, experience, intelligence, and competence is inherently “discrimination.” The question, therefore, is not whether “discrimination” will take place—it can, it will and it must. The question for public policy is: which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress answered that question by including only five categories of protection. As noted above, those categories were: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”6 For instance, a banker could deny an applicant a loan because the applicant was not credit-worthy, but not because he or she was Jewish or black. What do these protected categories have in common?

While there is no definitive legal answer, the most logical answer would seem to be that the case for granting legal protection against “discrimination” is strongest when based on a personal characteristic that is:



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fdrq; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
A Note on Sodomites in the Military: Remember that we should first and foremost oppose homosexuals being permitted to join the military because our Military is the best in the world and it remains one of the few institutions left in these United States that maintains excellence, standards, and is held up as an example for all. The Military is not for everyone; it is an exclusive organization by nature and those that volunteer for the organization must uphold high standards of conduct, impeccable character, decency and HONOR above all.

I implore everyone to fight these efforts by millionaire progressives and politicans to destroy the last institution they have failed to corrupt, and remember the very people seeking to implement this policy have nothing but disdain for our Armed Forces. Our soldiers, officers, and commanders must stand up to these politicans; thiese dissolute, degenerate people are the very antipathy of what it means to be a soldier...they put their selves ahead of anything else in their disgusting desire to make their perversion the center of everything and it defines them as a person. I would remind you that God Almighty condemned this sin in no uncertain terms and it would serve us well to remember the example of Sodom and Gomorrah. Our founding fathers considered it a crime against nature.
1 posted on 10/29/2010 4:58:56 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

ping..


2 posted on 10/29/2010 4:59:44 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan ("The liberal agenda is the liberal neurosis made manifest."--Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Dirt chute daredevils need not apply.


3 posted on 10/29/2010 5:01:10 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Sorry, but a thread like this is useless without pictures.




4 posted on 10/29/2010 5:07:53 PM PDT by Bean Counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I implore everyone to fight these efforts by millionaire progressives...

Not to stray off topic, but the above is representative of a disturbing trend I'm seeing more and more of on FR. What significance is the wealth of the progressive? Obviously some, or it wouldn't be mentioned. Why is it suddenly looked down upon in certain circles to be wealthy or have an Ivy League education? It used to be that only the left held the wealthy in disdain, and I prefer it that way.

5 posted on 10/29/2010 5:12:01 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

6 posted on 10/29/2010 5:12:23 PM PDT by CharlesMartelsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Thanks for the ping. I will alert the list shortly, gotta read it first (and do a couple of other things too).


7 posted on 10/29/2010 5:17:19 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; wagglebee; little jeremiah

Advocates touting homosexuality as a civil right seek foundational scientific credibility in the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removing it as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Removal followed a two year campaign Newsweek described as ongoing disruptive, chaotic attacks on psychiatrists and physiologists. Yet throughout these disruptive attacks, no academic papers arose at conferences refuting any research previously done.

Eventually onslaughts forced sufficient abstentions and apprehensive responses for a third of APA’s 17,000 plus membership to approve removal. The under-voting and public attacks support the understanding that the DSM is as likely to accumulate political manifestos and marketing brochures as attempted scientific expositions.

After this decision, activists targeted leading individual researchers such as Dr. David Reuben to ensure perpetual sanctity for the APA action. No research papers would again arise to confirm initial therapy success rates of 30% to 60 %, substantiating that 7 of 10 homosexuals could eventually walk away from the lifestyle. Persistent activism over 37 years enabled ubiquitous infiltration of academia ensuring pre-ordained theses, acceptable flexibility in research design definitions, suitable human data points, and enchanting statistical enhancement. The result has been social alchemy.

Psychology and Psychiatry chose to relinquish scientific rigor for popular societal and political acclaim. With studies concerning homosexuality freed from objective analysis, advocates can rely upon base antidotal politics to dominate debates.


8 posted on 10/29/2010 5:19:02 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

This piece isn’t classified as “News.” Belongs in “Bloggers.”


9 posted on 10/29/2010 5:19:57 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

The emphasis is on their ‘progessive’ position not their wealth. That only stands as a reminder that they are using it to drive the country over a cliff and it is the millionaire (billionaire) progressives driving it:
Bill Gates
George Soros
Bloomberg
Jobs?
Buffet
The majority of dems sitting in congress. It’s the John Kerrys, the Nancy Peolosis, the Reids and on and on.

That’s just my interpretation and mho.


10 posted on 10/29/2010 5:20:09 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (If you try to remove the 1st Amendment, we'll just have to move on to the next Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Melas

If the subject is Gay, anything is okay. You’ve been around here long enough to realize that; haven’t you?


11 posted on 10/29/2010 5:22:37 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman
. . . the Nancy Peolosis . . .

A rare gay affliction?

12 posted on 10/29/2010 5:25:06 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Well then, let me be the first to explain this to you in terms you can understand; we do not deplore wealth, nor do we harbvor envy for them, but more accurately the Elites or the "intellectual class" that have been commented on by conservative for a very long time. George Soros, and quite a few like him, are using vast sums of wealth to promote progressive/socialist agendas that I opposwe...and under their plan I suppose they'll be the privileged class and we'll be the serfs.

I believe that David Horowitz has shown that the Ivy League is more interested in political indoctrination than it is in excellence or education. For crying out loud, Paul Krugman taught at Princeton...he's a marxist that amazingly believes Obama didn't spend enough....Barack Obama has given us historical deficits and spent massive amounts...and the economy is still in the gutter.
13 posted on 10/29/2010 5:26:40 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan ("The liberal agenda is the liberal neurosis made manifest."--Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

In total agreement - great post!


14 posted on 10/29/2010 5:27:54 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

lol...does look like a terminal disease doesn’t it? Well that spelling suits her. There I coined a new term: Peolosis = democrat dementia Incurable as far as we know


15 posted on 10/29/2010 5:31:26 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (If you try to remove the 1st Amendment, we'll just have to move on to the next Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso; Melas
This is what it's about.

Mass.Governor getting money from millionaire homosexual political activist Tim Gill

16 posted on 10/29/2010 5:48:33 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
delenda est...
17 posted on 10/29/2010 7:37:00 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- Voter Fraud should be a Capital Offense!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
What significance is the wealth of the progressive?

Are you serious?

18 posted on 10/29/2010 7:43:05 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (I'd rather take my chances with someone misusing freedom than someone misusing power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

The Family Research Council is not a blog. It’s a regular website.


19 posted on 10/29/2010 10:07:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike

Great information...that’s the point I make all the time...they removed it from the DSM for political reasons. Dr. Fittzgibbons has a lot of good research. This is a big issue and we have to stay on top mof it no matter what the naysayers think...because this issue is going the same way abortion is...eventually the court is going to legislate homosexual marriage.


20 posted on 10/29/2010 10:59:34 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan ("The liberal agenda is the liberal neurosis made manifest."--Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

A blog is a “regular website,” too. The question is, how does it qualify as a news source? It is an opinionated, agenda-driven site no different than DU or Rush Limbaugh.


21 posted on 10/30/2010 12:50:07 AM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

PS. Notice where this thread currently resides.


22 posted on 10/30/2010 12:51:39 AM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

Yeah, just like DU.

Hmm, is that where you usually hang out?


23 posted on 10/30/2010 5:03:08 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Never been there but it is frequently referenced on FR, so I get the gist of it.


24 posted on 10/30/2010 6:02:35 AM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

My specific interest in this subject originates with taking a 500 level statistics course for my MBA at the University of Oregon during 1973 and 1974 after serving in the Navy. Because of that course, I could join in the lament over this woefully unsupported decision expressed by a Psychology professor, who published text books including the subject of homosexuality. I could also join his lament, because of training in the classic scientific method as part of my undergraduate Chemistry major. Therefore I can trust this link, because it confirms the information he shared with me.

Action of APA to remove homosexuality from list of disorders DSM
Link: http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/


25 posted on 10/30/2010 9:17:17 AM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

If you think the bias at DU is equivalent to the POV of the Family Research Council, you have something really wrong with you.

I guess you don’t think there is such as thing as objective reality or truth. Or maybe you’re a libertarian.


26 posted on 10/30/2010 2:45:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

The key to defeating the homosexual agenda is to have former homosexuals healed through finding religion speak out against their former lifestyles. Something they are usually happy to do.


27 posted on 10/30/2010 2:50:04 PM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

This is an excellent compendium of reasons - covers the entire spectrum from disease, to violence proneness, to child molestation, to drug use, to mental illness, to the "born that way" lie, to the Constitution - why homosexuality is not a civil rights issues whatsoever.

Anyone who has little time to read all the pinged out articles, please read and save or bookmark this one. It has all the ammunition you need to discuss with others. Homosexuals in the military is a big issue right now since the Evil Dems are trying to shove it through quickly. Yesterday on a thread about homosexuals in the military (a faux survey claimed most mil members don't mind serving with homosexuals supposedly) really brought out the trolls and pro-homosexual so-called conservatives.

Homosexuals in the military serves two purposes for the left. One, advances immorality and destruction of the natural family, thus requiring bigger and bigger government. Second, causes great harm to the military, which they loathe.

Conservatives must fight the "gay" agenda, or they are not conservative. It does and will affect everyone. Very adversely. Anyone who says "I don't care, gays don't bother me" or "what gay agenda?" is lying and is a supporter of the nazi-esque homosexual agenda. Either that or a liberaltarian who smokes too much dope to think straight and lives in a fantasy world.

28 posted on 10/30/2010 3:13:10 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vision

Of course the MSM refuses to ever touch the fact that there are any former homosexuals. Even ones who healed without religion need to be heard. They all need to be heard.

A few years ago a large number of former homosexuals - I think number one or two thousand at least (I wish I could remember) wanted to buy a full page ad in the NYT listing their names, and info on organizations that help homosexuals change. Of course the NYT refused their ad.


29 posted on 10/30/2010 3:39:30 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yawn.


30 posted on 10/30/2010 4:49:15 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

ROTFLOL!

Oh yes, the blase, cynical, know it all, cool guy who can’t discuss morality or truth since it is so borrring, yet has to post a “yawn”.

snicker...


31 posted on 10/30/2010 4:57:42 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Could you get the mods to fix the typos in the author’s name? I’m sure his last name isn’t really Peter S3prigg!


32 posted on 10/30/2010 4:59:52 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso; little jeremiah
It is an opinionated, agenda-driven site no different than DU or Rush Limbaugh.

You have no idea who they are, do you.

33 posted on 10/30/2010 5:12:22 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

My original post had to do with the forum it was posted to. Nothing else. Everybody relax.


34 posted on 10/30/2010 6:37:55 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

These people are not bloggers. And it’s not a link to a blog that was posted. I’ll ask again, do you even know who they are?


35 posted on 10/30/2010 6:40:40 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

What difference does it make? It is not a news source.


36 posted on 10/30/2010 8:46:50 PM PDT by Misterioso (Burning a Koran is a victimless crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Should add pedophilia to the same list and out the rest of the homosexual agenda—seeking control of other peoples’ kids is a huge part and male homos seeking sex with boys is not one of their rights.


37 posted on 11/01/2010 9:27:09 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso; little jeremiah
The question is, how does it qualify as a news source? It is an opinionated, agenda-driven site no different than DU or Rush Limbaugh.

It is actually a scholarly research organization, with greatly respected family scholars in residence, such as Peter Sprigg and Patrick Fagan. The results of FRC's studies are valid material on which to report, just as the MSM trumpets its usually flimsy, 100-person "studies" in support of their leftist agenda. The scientific method demands that other serious scholars who read about studies then not only examine the criteria for a study, but also seek to replicate the findings with double-blind experiments.

This particular essay is a digest of a large amount of material. Based on the findings of many other studies, the author has drawn relevant conclusions to further the discussion.

38 posted on 11/01/2010 12:43:00 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Government does nothing as economically as the private sector. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Thank you! You said it much better than I could have.


39 posted on 11/01/2010 2:15:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
It is actually a scholarly research organization, with greatly respected family scholars in residence, such as Peter Sprigg and Patrick Fagan.

... who happen to be associated an organization that promotes a particular political and religious/moral point of view, and this report just happens to support that point of view.

Sorry, but that's just the truth. It's not enough simply to claim "scientific method" when an interest group conducts and releases a study that supports its agenda. The possibility of bias and misapplication of data (whether inadvertent or on purpose) cannot be assumed away, just because we like what the report has to say.

40 posted on 11/01/2010 3:20:40 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
And here's an example of how authors might misapply or misinterpret the data:

There are three aspects to “sexual orientation”: attraction, behavior, and self-identification. Attractions are indeed “involuntary.” But people do choose, and can be held responsible for, what overt sexual behaviors they actually engage in.

Note how, although the authors had previously dismissed all supposed causes for this "involuntary" attraction, by referring to scientific studies showing "no result." And yet the authors then admit that "involuntary attraction" is a real phenomenon -- whatever its source.

So they've got a little problem, which they try to finesse by changing the subject, from "attraction" to "choosing to act on the attraction."

Ooops. They basically took all those studies they quoted, and tossed them out the window by discussing how it's the choice that matters, not the attraction itself.

Their underlying argument has now transitioned from the allegedly scientific argument they were making before, to what is in essence a non-scientific discussion of morality (i.e., "can be held responsible for").

One might charitably suggest that the authors were simply too caught up in their own viewpoint to notice the transition.

But an honestly peer-reviewed scientific article wouldn't be allowed to get away with such a shift.

When all is said and done, this little article is just another opinion piece, published to support a particular interest group's point of view.

41 posted on 11/01/2010 3:34:32 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

So what (according to you) would be an example of an organization that discusses the same topic that is not biased?


42 posted on 11/01/2010 8:18:21 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
So what (according to you) would be an example of an organization that discusses the same topic that is not biased?

I'm not sure that there are any interest groups, on either side of this issue, that are not biased. They all have a big stake -- be it emotional, political, monetary, or all of the above -- in having the answer come out their way.

It is possible to approximate an unbiased assessment of homosexuality and so on, by means of rigorous sampling standards and analysis techniques, and a strict and dispassionate peer review process. That's not the case here.

And that's I was making: I was responding to the claim that the subject article was a "scientific" report, when it clearly is not that. The authors had a going-in opinion, and the purpose of the paper is to try to convince us that their opinion is correct.

43 posted on 11/02/2010 7:45:49 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

So what is the “neutral” position on homosexuality if you think that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is “biased”?

Hm?

Sounds as though you either support “gay is good” agenda or are a liberaltarian or both.


44 posted on 11/02/2010 9:31:48 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Sounds as though you either support “gay is good” agenda or are a liberaltarian or both.

Sigh..... you're clearly not worth the effort.

45 posted on 11/02/2010 9:47:13 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

IOW, you don’t want to articulate your position.

So far, on many threads, you’ve said (more or less) that opposition to the standard “gay is good” POV is “biased”. Now that I’m asking you about what you would consider “non-biased”, it’s “sigh, you’re not worth the trouble to communicate with”.

Like you’re fooling anyone but yourself.


46 posted on 11/02/2010 10:22:00 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
IOW, you don’t want to articulate your position.

I articulated my position above. You might choose to read more into it, but to do so is incorrect.

I have already corrected you on that once. Your persistence in ignoring the correction makes you either dishonest or thick-headed.

So far, on many threads, you’ve said (more or less) that opposition to the standard “gay is good” POV is “biased”.

I vote for "Dishonest."

47 posted on 11/02/2010 10:28:12 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I will carefully re-read your comments above and see if I can determine your position, but I will assure you that calling me dishonest and stupid may be your opinion, but it’s not exactly a clearly articulated position on what a “neutral” POV about the homosexual agenda is, if such a thing is possible.

My position is clear. There is no neutral POV about homosexuality, other than for a person who just woke up from a coma, and doesn’t know anything yet about it. In which case, they need to study up, and if honest, will fall on one side or the other - “it’s fine” or “it’s bad”.

Similar to abortion, there is no non-position.


48 posted on 11/02/2010 11:16:34 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; little jeremiah; wagglebee
... who happen to be associated an organization that promotes a particular political and religious/moral point of view, and this report just happens to support that point of view.

Fine. But the scientific method is the last word. FRC is not just a lobbying org; they are serious about scholarship and are the research arm to back up the religious/moral claims of the parent organization with secular fact-finding (which exists in abundance on this topic, and is routinely denied by the left).

You seem to believe that if a conservative organization puts out the results of their research in replicable studies, it is the moral equivalent of a liberal lobbying organization putting out its attitudinal talking points based on flimsy or non-existent evidence.

The heart of conservatism is taking a cautious and incremental view of change, and changing through the system based on facts and what will work in the long term. The heart of leftist-liberalism is immediate, radical change by any means, excusing oneself from doing the homework of digging out the facts, misrepresenting or suppressing facts to make an emotional or political point, making "progress" for its own sake while dismissing the possible unintended consequences, blaming ill-effects of too-rapid change on conservatives, flouting the law and redefining words.

• The Kinsey work widely cited as a defense of homosexuality has been shown to be corrupt data and flagrant child abuse.

• The de-listing of homosexuality from the APA's list of disorders was the result of political pressure, not science; and has been refuted by one of its former champions, who has now been silenced.

• The CDC routinely publishes reliable statistics on the higher risk and greater danger of poor mental and physical health and early death associated with homosexual behavior; all ignored by the MSM and the NEA in their efforts to foist an unsupportable viewpoint on the public.

Yet you object to the publishing of a review of the negative outcomes of homosexual behavior and a discussion of the ways in which it truly cannot be called a "civil right", when young people are being deluded and risking their futures because of the anti-family agenda of the left? Did you even read the essay?

49 posted on 11/02/2010 1:07:59 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (Government does nothing as economically as the private sector. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Fine. But the scientific method is the last word.

But that's exactly the problem -- they did not actually use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusion.

They cited various studies about the origins of homosexuality, and we can assume that those peer-reviewed results were in fact in accordance with the scientific method.

HOWEVER.... the authors then go on to state that the underlying homosexual attraction is "involuntary" (their word). So much for the studies they had just cited. The failure of studies to determine the exact origins of the attraction does not affect the authors' explicit acknowledgement that homosexuality does in fact begin with an involuntary attraction.

(Indeed, they appear to have essentially conceded the underlying argument made by homosexual activists, that they can't help how they are.)

And then, departing from science, they claim that it's not the involuntary attraction that's important, but rather the choice to act on it.

And beyond that, they shift the discussion to one of being "held responsible for" the choice to act on the involuntary attraction.

By this point the authors have left the realm of science very far behind.

Yet you object to the publishing of a review of the negative outcomes of homosexual behavior and a discussion of the ways in which it truly cannot be called a "civil right",

No, what I specifically objected to, was your false claim that this article is somehow "scientific." It is not.

50 posted on 11/02/2010 1:58:31 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson