Greenpeace, et alia, are not scientists. They do not conduct research, they do not publish, they do not submit to peer-review. They are just as likely to spin and falsify for their agendas as anyone else.
Besides, I am not at all convinced that you would accept anything said by an organization you consider to be “liberal” anyway.
And finally, please bear in mind that because one is not “conservative” one must be “liberal.” You seem to be assuming that I must support liberal causes simply becaus eI’m disgusted by your conservative one. This is not the case.
Um, there are cites, and there is propaganda. You can give your group a scientific name, and you can find data to support you preconceived ideas (ignoring other data, of course.)
From http://familyresearchinst.org/ (The Family Research Institute):
“Since homosexual parents tend to be deficient in character and more self-centered than most…”
If you want to be truly horrified, read through their other studies and pamphlets. They are not kidding.
Message to those that think a discussion ends with a citation:
[ul]
-You must understand the information and state it’s relevance
-You may not pick and choose data which supports only your stance, present it all and interpret it
-Recognize that some sources have more veracity than others
-Independent studies are preferable to those that are sponsored or carried out by those with a stake in the issue
-If there is conflicting data, search for corroboration
-Your cites should have cites, there should be a chain of fact back to original source material
-On open minded researcher will share their data, test methods, and results for peer review
[/ul]
Waverly, one more thing: Your statements only hold true when you’re listing stats for politically incorrect conclusions. If, on the other hand, you list stats concluding (for example) that minorities are being systematically discriminated against by lending intuitions, or women make $0.75 for every $1,00 a man makes – whatever – it will go unchallenged. I guarantee we would not be having this discussion if I provided stats “proving” the ozone layer is being depleted.
Crafter_Man:
Well, I listed my points for your convenience. Let’s first look at who is interpreting Kinsey for you: Paul Cameron is Chairman of the FRI. He’s not quite independent. Can we agree that he has an agenda?
The Kinsey report itself hasn’t stood the test of time (1948?), hasn’t been widely corroborated, and does not hold up well to peer review: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html
I could link to many pages critiquing the report, but I don’t thinks it’s necessary at this time. I don’t believe you are trying to be malicious here, but I do believe you made up your mind first, and sought data second.
I don’t notice any of the cites referenced makes any distinct correlation between a preference for sexually mature members of the same gender and a proclivity to molest children. I can see that FRI has tried to imply that the studies say this, but I don’t trust them to accurately convey the actual content of the surveys. They seem to consider anyone who molests children of the same gender a homosexual, regardless of whether they would generally be considered one.
According to FRI,
And I’m more inclined to believe the APA than FRI.
They also claim “In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many gay pride parades with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex.” I find this rather hard to believe, as NAMBLA seems to be reviled by the gay community. Anyone have any evidence one way or another on this?
Well, you guarantee it. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Doesn’t make it correct, though.
(in case you haven’t noticed, there are people of every social/economic/environmental/whatever view around here. Not only that, but plenty who will challenge crappy data, regardless of what side of an issue it supports)
Crafter, go do a search in GD or the Pit or even IMHO for that matter regarding any subject PC or no. You will see that no matter what, there will be SOMEONE asking for a peer reviewed citation. I guarantee it. The SDMB is not a politically correct site. We are a site that fights ignorance on both sides. I wouldn’t believe a stat from Animal Liberators.com, The Flat Earth Society or FRI unless I had an independent citation to back it up.
Re: one more thing:
Perhaps, but you will still find people more open-minded here than you expect. I haven’t even taken a position on the debate itself, I chimed in because I was appalled at the way the FRI site presented data to support an agenda. When I saw the original thread, I did some research (read: I googled) and never did find evidence that convinced me 100% one way or the other. I found the FRI site, and dismissed what they had to say because they fail my litmus test for veracity.
** waterj2**, You make a good point. The pedophile is molesting a child, they don’t display the same sexuality as an adult. Could the older studies actually define an offender as gay because the child was of the same sex? If so, is this a valid conclusion? It would be helpful if any of these studies defined what ‘gay’ was for the purpose of their research.
We agree. Believe me, I’m NOT a fan of any so-called “Family Value Institute.” But we must not dismiss a Kinsey report (or any other report) simply because the FRI chose to put a reference to it on their site. In other words, what you’re saying is, “The Kinsey report is not valid because the Family Research Council (or whatever) chose to print an exert from it on their web page.” I go back to what I was saying… we’re dismissing the message because we dislike the messenger. That is wrong, IMHO. What we SHOULD do is get a hold of those reports and see what they say instead of bashing RFI.
SO let’s see… white is bad/undesirable, middle class is bad/undesirable, and the 50’s were bad/undesirable. Sounds like bigotry is alive and well on the SDMB.
We’re not dismissing the Kinsey report just because of the site it was put up on. What we are dismissing is the site’s interpretation of the Kinsey report. All we have to go on about the report’s content is the excerpt given to us by the FRI, which was very likely “colored” by them in an attempt to fit the needs of their agenda. Also, let’s not forget that the report is 50 years old, conducted in a time where homosexuality was not as accurately represented as it is today.
And the comment about the family on the FRI homepage wasn’t meant to mean that “white=bad”. It’s just that the “ideal” family picture that the FRI is developing seems to be one of an all-white, heterosexual family. Because obviously that’s the only environment suitable for raising a child in. :rolleyes:
Yup. RickJay is appealing to one of the original sources. And as soon as I have the time form work, I will start hitting the literature to find out if any of the sources on your site have been peer-reviewed and confirmed by additional researchers, or if they are merely unverified, unduplicated spin.
What say you do the same, and we’ll compare notes?
The original Kinsey Institute report was several hundred pages long; the FRI’s reference to it constitutes 51 words, and is a paraphrase, not an exact quote.
The report was published 53 years ago, and relied largely on self-reporting, a notoriously inaccurate statistical technique. Its data collection methods have been widely criticized over the years as well. Much better data is available today.
A glance at FRI’s footnote for their Kinsey reference tells us that the figures they quote were not gathered by them from the report itself; they come from a publication called The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1939-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research, by PH Gebhard and AP Johnson, published in 1979. So what we may in fact be reading is an interpretation of an interpretation.
In fact, a look at their footnotes show that several of those figures are not quoted from original sources, but from secondhand sources and from newspaper reports.