Posted on 10/29/2010 4:58:55 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
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.
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.
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.
Sigh..... you're clearly not worth the effort.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
We will have to agree to disagree. The FRC paper was footnoted to actual studies and was a review of actual studies. You have only to read the nonsense written by the gay judge in California in legalizing gay marriage - again - to see a lot of personal opinion posing as fact. No footnotes, no citations, not even a valid legal argument — just personal opinion.
As for the matter of “involuntary”, the authors were talking about the individual’s perception while he or she is in the untreated stage of the disorder. They are not meaning that the attraction is an unalterable condition for a lifetime.
But the authors did not write a "scientific" paper. You keep insisting they did, because they referred to scientific studies. But their own article, and their conclusions, are what matter here -- and they are not scientific.
As for the matter of “involuntary”, the authors were talking about the individual’s perception while he or she is in the untreated stage of the disorder.
.... read that again, very carefully, and see if you can realize what you just said.
They are not meaning that the attraction is an unalterable condition for a lifetime.
But they are acknowledging something that is directly counter to the conclusions they had just drawn from the scientific studies. Even if they had been "scientific" before this, they can no longer make that claim.
And to top it off, they quickly shifted from the uncomfortable discussion of "involuntary" attractions, to a discussion of "choosing to act" on those attractions.
It's not a scientific paper, FRiend. Stop trying to pretend that it is.
Whether you agree to disagree or not is now beside the point. Stubbornly clinging to your insistence that an organization that is opposed to the affirmation of homosexuality should not be trusted to write about it, either as science or as essay, is your position. It is an untenable position, since think tanks of all types routinely write and cite in favor of their positions, some with more credibility than others; you are rejecting FRC’s very right to do so in spite of their use of footnotes and citations.
I will never agree with your position, so the time has come for you to stop criticizing microscopic aspects of their essay or my responses. Your actual motivation appears to be to affirm homosexual behavior as an immutable condition, which is a position that true conservatives and certainly FR’s owner roundly reject, because the behaviors associated with homosexual identification are objectively toxic for society and for individuals.
Just as heterosexuals feel many types of attractions outside of marriage, the task of choosing what type of sexual behaviors are life-affirming falls on them as well, not just those with homosexual attraction disorder.
It's not scientific, no matter how much you want it to be.
What you're left with is an opinion piece whose conclusion is drawn from a serious logical error on the part of the authors. They actually rejected the only hard data they presented.
It's no longer a question of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, or a civil right, or whatever.
The question now is, can you really trust a couple of guys who made such a glaring error in pursuit of their point?
It is your conscience and your commitment to solve your moral dilemmas through prayer, surrender to God and scriptural study that will settle all questions of how to behave, and which behaviors are beneficial to your soul.
If you do not care about your eternal soul, then this discussion is an entire waste of your time as well as mine.
Pundits of both the left and the right will make their points on any issue, but no one can utterly trust any words but those of God in the ear of a person with a contrite heart.
Good luck.
Nice words. But the article is still not scientific.
Basically what you are saying is that only those who have no viewpoint at all about homosexuality can write anything that qualifies as “scientific”.
Since such a person does not exist, there can be nothing ever written about homosexuality that is “scientific”.
Not at all. What I am saying, is that if a person attempts to defend an article on the basis that it employs the "scientific method," then it is fair to test that assertion.
And if the assertion turns out to be false (as is the case for this article), then the claim that the article is somehow based on testable data, rather than being just another opinion piece, is also false.
In this case, the authors actually reject the scientific data they had previously cited, and then go on to change the entire basis of the discussion -- from one of "involuntary" actions, to a discussion of choices.
And they do so without announcing the shift.
All that can really be said about the argument set forth in this article, is that it just does not hold together.
I've showed you exactly where, and how the argument fails. It's a pretty glaring error -- caused either by a lack of objectivity caused by devotion to their opinions; or an outright prevarication. The former is more charitable, and more likely ... but the latter is possible, too.
You should be complaining to the authors of this piece of crap, rather than whining to me because I pointed out their errors.
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.