[quote]
*Originally posted by Hastur *
**You really are a homophobe, december. **
*Originally posted by andygirl *
**Is the data of advocacy groups automatically wrong? **
No, but it’s a reason for doubt.
**I would argue that regardless of the number being a half million, two million, or however many, that homophobia in school still needs to be stopped.
**
I fully agree with you andygirl.
I never knew you were from Corvallis. I’ve been there, I had a girlfriend who lived in Albany, OR.
“Should” means nothing. If what should be is different than what is then you are wrong.
Not to mention the fact that your post didn’t exactly inspire confidence that you were less biased than the advocacy group. Maybe you could give a nonbiased cite that says something differently than Hasturs? I see alot more reason to doubt your post compared to his cite.
Try Kinsey “10%” Figure for Gays Doubtful http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
Some quotes:
Wow, a cite that quotes the AFA and Phylls Schlafly. Not biased at all. december, your agenda is obvious.
Hastur, I don’t think it’s necessary to nail December to the wall. It’s been fairly well established that “1 in 10” isn’t true, and at any rate it’s an impossible stat to arrive at.
While I doubt the 10% is true those statistics do seem to have at least as much bias as Hasturs. For example the 1.1% figure, it includes the word “active” in there. Instead of going for the highest number possible and possibly including other groups besides gays, those statistics go for the lowest number possible and tries to seperate gays into different groups to find a lower number.
That article is probably just as biased, if not more. I bet Hasturs cite included transgendered in their “gay” students. And by the same token none of Decembers cites try to actually provide a figure for gays. Just people who “have had homosexual sex since some date or another”
And of course, “have had homosexual sex since some date or another” entirely excludes those who are gay, but havn’t had sex (Either at all, or since whatever mentioned date). It sounds legitimate that the majority of people would see that to mean that any remaining percent must be heterosexual, yet it completely excludes a (Likely significant) portion of the population it’s looking to number. That right there makes the results biased, even if that wasn’t the intent.
Oh, hey… First post 
The point is, december has been citing or claiming cites he cannot provide which are slanted towards making gay people look like we are far less than we are, while at the same time, claiming we are getting special treatment.
His smug remarks and baseless cites annoy me.
Riiight! And the cite also quotes other “ultra-right-wing” sources:
– U.S. National Center for Health statistics,
– U.S. Centers for Disease Control,
– Newsweek Magazine,
– National Opinion Research Center (at my alma mater U of Chicago)
– Science magazine,
– the London Daily Mail.
Egad, the plot is more widespread than we feared!
So we’re supposed to take snippets of surveys on homosexuality, without even knowing the wording of the questions, and call it factual?
This from a site that has such lovely phrases as this:
“When some scientific evidence suggests a genetic predisposition for homosexual orientation, the case is not significantly different from evidence of predispositions toward other traits-for example, alcoholism or violence.”
I have to give them credit. They are very good at concealing their racist, sexist, and homophobic leanings. You actually have to have a decent grasp of english to read through the sugary coating of most of it. The far right has finally embraced subtlety.
DMC appears to be saying that a genetic basis for homosexulity is so well-established that questioning it is evidence of racism, sexism and homophobia.
DMC, do you have a cite demonstrating the certainty of the genetic basis?
Hastur, december, please chill. I like and respect both of you, and I think you are yelling about nuance when you agree on the substance.
hastur, ideologues of all stripes almost always play with statistics. Say you were back in school and were assigned to write a paper about some statistical aspect of homosexuality. Would you rely on statistics provided by HRC (which I deeply respect), or The Journal of the American Society of Sociologists?
This is a fight about a completely indefinable number. There are 31 million teens in this country, according to Teens Unlimited, a market research firm (I only have a real world cite for that - no links). To determine how many of them are homosexual/at risk of homophobic assault (not necessarily the same people), we would have to know:
-
What percentage of the overall population is homosexual - undefineable, so long a closeting is still a major cultural phenomena;
-
At what age the average person defines/realizes his/her sexual identity - undefineable - to give purely anecdotal evidence, I’ve personally known people to come out/come out to themselves at ages ranging from 12 to 27; and
-
How many gay teens are identified as such by their peers and therefore at risk, as well as how many straight teens are incorrectly identified as gay by their peers, and therefore also at risk - completely unidentifiable - it depends on closeting rates amongst teens, as well as defining what makes your average teenage gay-basher think someone is gay.
The primary issue here is whether gay-bashing amongst teenagers is a major problem. It is, and on that you and december agree.
december, you are taunting Hastur. It’s unseemly.
Sua
Nope, I never said that. Care to quote me in any post (in any thread, for that matter) where I said anything about the basis of homosexuality? I was demonstrating your source’s use of subtlety to convey homosexuality as a negative thing. Calling you on your cites (and their motives) is perfectly valid here. Feel free to return the favor.
They could have aligned it with any trait, but chose two negatives. Here’s an example of how that works:
“december is a adept public speaker, a talent that he shares with Adolph Hitler and Bill Clinton.”
Fair comment, BMC. I had missed your point.
Sua – you’re right; my sarcasm toward Hastur has been unseemly. Let me be straight. Hastur, you have accused me of homophobia three times on this and another thread. Please stop.
You have slurred gay people through your posts and a non-existant cite. I think the title fits you well. Your posts have a homophobic slant to them, or at least anti-gay.
You think that in Great Debates you can make remarks without having to defend them or defend them with disingenuous information, and then when called on it, ask for others to stop? Please.
DMC, are you fucking kidding me? That paragraph states that (if this genetic theory is true, which I believe it is [for some]) homosexualism, alcoholism and violence all spring from the same place or seem to, it doesn’t say that gays are violent drunks, that drunks like to get violent while in engaging in homosexual acitivy or that masochists will become gay to piss off their parents.
Are there gay violent drunks? Sure. Are there contortionists that like to engage in beastiality while watching the crocidille hunter? Yes. (Okay, maybe)
(I’m not trying to find a corilation between the two, before you jump all over me)
I just don’t see how anyone could read that sentence and think “They’re bashing gays”. I’m not saying that no one can and that my view is the view of all. I just find it to be going out on a limb.
Read DMC’s explanation again. They could have chosen any of millions of inheirited traits. The fact that they chose two unacceptable, pathological traits to compare to homosexuality was no accident. It wasn’t overt bashing, but it is clear that the writer was attempting to imply that homosexuality is bad and needs to be looked at in the same light as alcoholism and violence.
It is a subjective interpretation, to be sure. The author may not have attempted to imply that as all. But I think it is a reasonable way to read it.
Dr. Lao, you and DMC might be right. The writers may have been subtly slandering gays.
However, I was trying to think of other comparable traits. Not precisely “inherited traits,” but rather traits for which genetic causation has been discussed but not proved. Can you identify some?
(This is just an academic question. Whether or not there are other comparable traits, the writers’ choice of “comparable” pathologies may well indicate their bias.)