Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

Abiding Truth Ministries ^ | 2002 | Scott Douglas Lively

[JoshGray]

As I said, Bell & Weinberg went to great lengths to get a representative sample.

It doesn't matter if they surveyed every man, woman, child, and transgender in the area, their study is in no way, no how representative of anything outside the San Francisco metro area.

The research results I've posted on this thread run from the 1940s to 2001. They consistently show that throughout the period...

And yes, we're all politely ignoring every survey, and every portion of survey, that doesn't "consistently" match the Christian Right's chosen beliefs.

[rocknotsand]

And yes, we're all politely ignoring every survey, and every portion of survey, that doesn't "consistently" match the Christian Right's chosen beliefs.

And yes, you're all politely ignoring every survey, and every portion of survey, that doesn't "consistently" match your obsessive vice. Your human nature strangles your spiritual nature.

Sounds like neither of you have had a close partner or friend pass away from your risky obsession. Ask the dead whose study proves or disproves that SSAD is a pathology. Dig 'em up and autopsy 'em. This thread could well be about smokers denying the link between nicotine and lung cancer. Vice is vice. You can't take your propaganda with you, much less convince God his commands make you uncomfortable. Clean House.

You want DATA? (rainbow collection suggestion) Hospital disinfectant-deodorant is highly effective against TB and HIV-1 (AIDS virus). Tuberculocidal, virucidal, fungicidal, bactericidal. Minimizes concern over the spread of germs in public facilities....

[Bryan]

The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators' samples as well as of our own precludes any generalization ...

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Bell & Weinberg went to great lengths to obtain a representative sample. This quotation that you've taken out of context discounts their own efforts.

Remind me... is it "Kinsey good" or "Kinsey bad?"

As I have repeatedly pointed out, much of Kinsey's work was deeply flawed methodologically. However, Gebhard & Johnson carefully reviewed his data, separated the wheat from the chaff, and republished the data that was obtained using methodologically sound procedures. It is Gebhard & Johnson's republication that I relied upon.

So the answer is: yes, in this limited context, "Kinsey good."

Your "sexual contacts with children" data is distorted by your convenience definition of "homosexuals."

It's not a "convenience" definition. A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia reveals the truth: (1) 30% of the offenders studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and (2) 91% of molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. In other words, their sexual orientation was clearly homosexual. (Marshall WL et al. "Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1991, 6: 323-336.)

(By the way, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence is a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. And the author wasn't named Cameron.)

In fact, the greatest sexually predatory risk to children (male and female) is from heterosexually identified molesters. (Both actually and proportionally.)

Got a source for that claim? I still haven't seen you cite even one peer-reviewed scientific journal.

And your "norm" is taken from... what... San Francisco in the 1970s? Guess what... your "norm" is already dead.

Thanks for acknowledging that homosexual adults from the 1970s are already dead. This is an implicit acknowledgement that homosexuals have a substantially shorter lifespan. I was an adult in the 1970s, and I am still very much alive and healthy. One of the factors that has attributed to my long life and good health is that I am a monogamous heterosexual.

Now then, since the norm in the 1970s included 91% of white homosexual men who had 25 or more sexual partners, 75% who had 100 or more sexual partners, and 28% who had 1000 or more, I suggest that it is up to you to prove that at later times, or in other cities, homosexuals were less promiscuous (and, in fact, have sex lives that are as monogamous as their heterosexual counterparts).

I cannot believe that you actually said that out loud. That deserves emphasis and amplification: "... by a very large minority of homosexuals."

This is another example of your habit of editing little snippets out of context. The overwhelming majority of homosexual men were already shown to be exhibiting one type of pathology: extreme promiscuity. Other pathologies simply have a cumulative effect.

Hmmm... let me think about that. While I'm thinking... why don't you do the same analysis for heterosexuals... hmmm...?

Sure. A 1988-1990 General Social Survey found that 91% of men 25-29 years of age are heterosexually active. Nineteen percent of these men have had only one lifetime sex partner, 55% have had two to 19 lifetime partners, and 25% have had 20 or more lifetime partners. (Cited by Seidman SN & Rieder RO. ‘‘A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States.’’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 1994, 151: 335.)

(Once again, the American Journal of Psychiatry is a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. In fact, it's the official publication of the APA. And neither one of the authors was named Cameron.)

Now, let's review: 91% of homosexual men had 25 or more sexual partners, but only 25% of heterosexual men have had 20 or more partners. Since the incidences of sexual contacts with minors, emotional disorders such as depression and anxiety, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicidal tendencies etc. are significantly lower among heterosexual men, the cumulative effect of all these pathologies confirms that heterosexuality, in and of itself, is perfectly normal.

"UNIVERSAL" diagnosis. NOT "very large minority"... UNIVERSAL... That is what you claim... And that is what you must prove... if you can.

Here, let me spell it out for you. The Bell & Weinberg study indicated that 75% of the white homosexual men in their study had 100 or more sexual partners. This is an average of one new sexual partner every month for eight years. And many of them had far more than 100: for example, 60% had more than 250 sexual partners. This is one new sexual partner every week for five years.

No breaks. No vacations. No going back to a previous boyfriend. One new sexual partner every week for five years. Think about that. I suggest that this is an adequate definition of pathological promiscuity.

That leaves 40% that didn't exhibit any pathology ... you think? But wait! There's all those other pathologies that have been shown to disproportionately affect homosexuals: the anxiety and depression, the suicidal tendencies, the sexual contacts with children, etc., etc., etc.

We've already seen that 26.5% of them had sexual contacts with children aged 15 or younger while they were 18 or older. This is a felony. It's pathological. Let's do the math: 26.5% of 40% is roughly 10%. That leaves 30% who aren't technically "promiscuous" (although some of them have had over 200 sexual partners), and who aren't technically "pedophiles" (although some of them have had sexual relations with 16-year-olds while they were 18 years of age or older).

And we have barely started here. Already the so-called "normal" group of homosexual males has been cut down to 30%. Gebhard & Johnson, supra, indicated that 89% of homosexual men have indulged in oral/anal contact. This exposes them to a variety of serious diseases. Let's do the math: 89% of 30% is roughly 27%. That leaves roughly 3% who are so-called "normal" homosexual males.

And we're still just getting started here. There was that study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, finding that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders ... Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men had significantly higher 12-month and lifetime rates of mood and anxiety disorders ... homosexual women reported a substantially higher rate of substance use disorders than did heterosexual women ..."

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/ffull/yoa9456.html

(Oh, by the way: the Archives of General Psychiatry is another one of those respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals. And none of the authors was named Cameron.)

To get down to the numbers, 35.4% of homosexual men exhibited one or more diagnosed emotional pathologies or substance abuse problems according to the DSM-III-R. Let's do the math: 35.4% of 3% is roughly 1%. This leaves only 2% of homosexual men who are so-called "normal."

Do you see where we're going here? And we're still not done yet!

You seem to believe that somewhere, there must be at least one homosexual man who has never had sex with a minor, who has never been promiscuous, who has never exhibited an emotional disorder, who has never had a substance abuse problem, etc., etc., etc. And you seem to believe that the existence of such a man would prove that homosexuality is not pathological.

My argument is that if at least 98% of homosexual men exhibit some sort of behavior that the APA recognizes as pathological, then homosexuality is a pathology.

[Bryan]

It doesn't matter if they surveyed every man, woman, child, and transgender in the area, their study is in no way, no how representative of anything outside the San Francisco metro area. ... And yes, we're all politely ignoring every survey, and every portion of survey, that doesn't "consistently" match the Christian Right's chosen beliefs.

Well then. Like I said to madg, show me some research results from some other metropolitan area that prove homosexuals aren't any more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous, or to engage in substance abuse, or to engage in sexual relations with children under the age of 16, or to exhibit emotional disorders, etc., etc., etc.

Show me all those surveys that don't " 'consistently' match the Christian Right's chosen beliefs."

Go ahead. Make my day.

[JoshGray]

show me some research results from some other metropolitan area that prove homosexuals aren't any more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous, or to engage in substance abuse, or to engage in sexual relations with children under the age of 16, or to exhibit emotional disorders, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Research done in a single metropolitan area is not representative of anything outside that area, and that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter if you're researching homosexuals, Christians, or guys named Bob. The only disproving needed is that you have no proof.

Some compilations of surveys, ignored by the Christian Right, showing that there's very little consistency anywhere.

2000 Census -- percentage of same-sex couples by state ranging from .47%-5.14%

60 years counting queers: Gay population studies since Kinsey Information on various studies reporting a homosexual population of somewhere between 1-9%

How Many Lesbians and Gay Men Are There? an exploration of Gay demographics Same same.

Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources "...overview of standard social science data sources that now allow some systematic study of the gay and lesbian population in the United States..."

Oh, here's a fun one: Prevalence of Homosexuality Brief Summary of U.S. Studies (Compiled 6/99)

[Bryan]

You've listed compilations of studies that show the prevalence of homosexuality. As we have seen, even the definition of homosexuality isn't consistent from study to study. Therefore an expansive or restrictive definition of the term could expand or contract the percentage obtained as the result of such a study.

The only disproving needed is that you have no proof.

It's hard to ignore the mountain of proof, published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals by licensed mental health professionals. The results are not bull's eye consistent, but they all point in the same direction.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/ffull/yoa9456.html

"People with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders ... Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men had significantly higher 12-month and lifetime rates of mood and anxiety disorders ... homosexual women reported a substantially higher rate of substance use disorders than did heterosexual women ..." .

[JoshGray]

You've listed compilations of studies that show the prevalence of homosexuality.

I just popped "gay demographics" into Google and grabbed a few that came up. I didn't see a need to go any further because it proves the point. Which is...

As we have seen, even the definition of homosexuality isn't consistent from study to study. Therefore an expansive or restrictive definition of the term could expand or contract the percentage obtained as the result of such a study.

... that it's remarkable how consistant your chosen studies are, re: prevalence of homosexuality. Except for Gebhard & Johnson's re-evaluation of the Kinsey data -- they seem to be, according to you, pretty accurate in everything else they found, except that: their prevalence statistic seems to have been abit inconvenient.

The results are not bull's eye consistent, but they all point in the same direction.

One wouldn't know that from your essay. Or your follow-up arguments with madg,which seems to consist of "since 100% of squares are rectangles, therefore 100% of rectangles are squares" -- the presence or absence of pathological conditions in a population with a given characteristic is irrelevant to whether or not said given characteristic is in and of itself a pathological condition.

[Bryan]

So about 80% of heterosexually active men aged 25-29 (a remarkably short span there) in the study had as many as 19 lifetime partners (or more). That’s not “extreme promiscuity” to you?

No, it's not. The start of the "as many as 19" range is two lifetime sexual partners. For a 25- to 29-year-old man, two lifetime sexual partners is hardly promiscuous.

Even 19 lifetime sexual partners isn't so promiscuous as to cause alarm. For a 25-year-old, that's an average of one new partner every four months since his 18th birthday.

But it's interesting that you consider that threshold to define "extreme promiscuity." People who have had between two and 19 sexual partners are "extremely promiscuous"? That is extremely interesting, because the entire male homosexual sample in the Bell & Weinberg sample had more than two lifetime partners.

So there's your proof of 100% universal pathology. By your own definition.

The cumulative total of this scientific evidence is overwhelming. It's extremely difficult (and expensive) to collect a survey sample that is truly representative and random. I think that in light of the herculean efforts they made to collect such a sample, Bell & Weinberg are being far too modest.

The incarcerated samples I've mentioned here are both consistent with each other and indicative of an incidence of child molestation among homosexuals and bisexuals that is vastly disproportionate. Considering the number of these studies and their tremendous degree of disproportionality, they shouldn't be dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

What we are seeing here from the homosexual community is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. We don't need sonobuoys producing a detailed 3D rendering of it, in order to be able to tell that it is an iceberg, and that we should steer clear of it.

[Bryan]

... that it's remarkable how consistant your chosen studies are, re: prevalence of homosexuality. Except for Gebhard & Johnson's re-evaluation of the Kinsey data -- they seem to be, according to you, pretty accurate in everything else they found, except that: their prevalence statistic seems to have been abit inconvenient.

Josh, I've left out other Kinsey findings that were wildly inconsistent with the findings of other, more methodologically sound studies such as the Dutch NEMESIS study (published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in January 2001, and linked in my Post #370).

Kinsey didn't conduct just one survey. The second half of his entire adult life was devoted to one study after another. The first was very large and wildly inaccurate. But it's the source of that 10% figure that has been so comforting to so many homosexuals.

Reporting all of the studies done by Kinsey that were reviewed by Gebhard and Johnson, and found to be flawed methodologically, would do us about as much good as a detailed analysis of Cameron's lifespan studies based on obituaries. In other words, no good at all. I concentrated on that portion of the Kinsey data that is valid.

[JoshGray]

Bull.

You kept the numbers you want to believe, the ones that inflate the final ratios -- you've been posting those same numbers since long before that NEMESIS study, so don't pretend it had anything to do with it.

Speaking of which, NEMESIS only used one of many potential definitions, and one that isn't particularly accurate. For one, Maslow, which we've discussed, and for two, some people consider themselves homosexual even if they haven't had sex for a year or more.

Reporting all of the studies done by Kinsey that were reviewed by Gebhard and Johnson, and found to be flawed methodologically..

I'm sorry. Did I fail to mention that you're ignoring the prevalence findings of Gebhard & Johnson 1979, which I believe you cite for it's accuracy in other findings? We're not talking about a handful of reviews you aren't searching through -- we're talking about one you're already using.

[rocknotsand]

FR thread re HIV 'bugchaser' gays: 25%

madg/JoshGray prediction: "Move along, nothing to see there..."

madg/JoshGray prediction2: "25% is not universal! Proof! 75% of gays do not want the 'thrill' of being HIV!!! There it is in black and white.." or similar rose-colored/denial dismissal comment. Round and round they go... 'cause their steering is bent!

Please change your behavior, you are precious to God and to everyone. In prayer for your soul.

[Bryan]

More notably, we see how you are exercising a double standard. A heterosexual can have an "average of one new partner every four months since his 18th birthday," and it doesn't cause you "alarm," even though that rate will ultimately result in him having had 100 lifetime partners by age 60. Gee, when it's homosexuals reporting 100 lifetime partners, you give it red ink and proclaim it evidence of a pathology... but when it's straight guys doing exactly the same thing, it's "no cause for alarm."

I notice you're willing and eager to extrapolate when it suits you. However, as you may or may not be aware, there is this tendency among heterosexual men to be less sexually active as they grow older. Someone who had one new partner every four months at the age of 18 might settle down and get married at the age of 25, for example.

"Herculean?" I think you're being overly dramatic. Of course, that doesn't matter, because that study is from a single place (SF) at a certain time (long, long ago), and has no relevance to today.

Whoops ... there goes your inclination to extrapolate. I guess it doesn't suit you to apply the same logic to your chosen minority.

Your "incarcerated samples" tell us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the general population. NOTHING AT ALL. Understand? You cannot point to people in prison and say: "this is how EVERYONE acts and thinks." It's ABSURD.

It's clear that the implications are either way over your head, or you're having that problem with extrapolation again. Put very simply, gays make up 2-3% of the general population, but they make up roughly 30% of the population that's incarcerated for pedophilia. Doesn't this appear to be just a bit disproportionate to you?

It doesn’t matter how many little tidbits you dredge up, you are still referring to only a minority of the population, PLUS you are ignoring the fact that the exact same or similar behaviors are clearly evident in the non-gay community as well.

Yes, but in vastly smaller proportions. A significant distinction that also appears to be sailing right over your head. This is what baffles me about these gay apologists. You are clearly enamored with your own intellect, and you obviously touched all the bases during your jog around the public education circuit, but you completely fail to grasp any argument based on extrapolation and disproportionality.

What we are seeing is your ongoing failure to demonstrate the pathological nature of sexual orientation… a failure that is still not surprising considering that sexual orientation is NOT a pathology. Your own citations, outdated and selective as they may be, ALL demonstrate that non-pathological homosexuals exist, thereby disproving your assertion of universal pathology.

Here we address another aspect of the argument that you have completely failed to grasp: cumulative effect, or the "chipping away" effect that I mentioned in Post #358. We see multiple pathologies appearing at rates that vastly exceed the rates in which they occur in the heterosexual population.

Individually, all these little raindrops don't mean much but in the aggregate, they are a flood that destroys the levees that have been built by gay rights activists and their puppets in the APA. Either you're feigning ignorance, or you really have no reasoning skills.