[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t know how to do a more effective study[/quote]
Bingo, which is why the conclusions of doctors and researchers who are trained in the scientific method should trump individual opinions, particularly when every major medical and mental health organization has drawn similar conclusions.
The policy is still active, as are the similar policies of the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Society of Social Workers, etc.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The fact that you have to go back thousands of years to come up with an example really says it all. Also, there were more bisexual spartans than homosexual Spartans. But, that is not relevant in 2009 anyway is it?[/quote]
So the entire Spartan army was bisexual, but “real men” today are hard core heterosexual and would find it impossible to have a sexual experience with another man? Even if you are right, isn’t that a reflection of cultural norms rather than biology?
Because he’s…drumroll…heterosexual. Why the hell would a straight guy have sex with another guy, when there are no social/religious pressures to do so? Outside of teens experimenting, that would be pretty unlikely. That doesn’t mean he would be incapable of doing so, if the social/religious pressures were in place (see the Spartan example above).
Gay men do have significant social/religious pressures to pose as heterosexuals, so it isn’t surprising that they try to do so.
Just because a Spartan had sex with other men doesn’t mean he was capable of having a loving, romantic, emotional relationship with another man. In the same vein, just because a gay man has sex with a woman doesn’t mean he is capable of having a loving, romantic, emotional relationship with a woman. Sexual orientation is as much about emotional connection as it is about the physical act of sex.
I don’t need to say it, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, etc. have said it for me based on 30 years of research.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
In truth we simply don’t know what the real answer to this issue is, but what has been commonly agreed upon is this: That Hellenic homosexuality more often then not took the form of pederasty, that is a relationship between a older man and a young boy (usually about 16). [/quote]
Which is exactly what was said in the Wiki reference I provided earlier.
Regardless of whether we’re talking about Thebes or Sparta, how can you rationalize your argument that “it is impossible for straight men to have sex with other men”? Obviously, history proves you wrong.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You and the other twisted freaks want to remake the US under your image and if you noticed by the recent elections it’s not happening. The people DO NOT want gay marriage and certainly DO NOT want two homo’s to adopt children…what a repulsive thought.
[/quote]
Did you forget to pay the cable bill this last week, and miss the legalization/recognition of gay marriage in Iowa, Vermont, and Washington D.C.?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t know how to do a more effective study
Bingo, which is why the conclusions of doctors and researchers who are trained in the scientific method should trump individual opinions, particularly when every major medical and mental health organization has drawn similar conclusions.
As side note, that policy is over 5 years old and no longer active.
The policy is still active, as are the similar policies of the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Society of Social Workers, etc. [/quote]
First, I am trained in the scientific method. Second, argument from respect for authority is a logical fallacy.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Way to be an anti-discrimination progressive there. But why pray tell to you only use stereotypes against Christians and conservatives then take offense to stereotypes of others?
…you will be unsuccesfull in finding such insulting and derogatory posts, like those from Mick28, written by me on this forum. Go ahead, try it…
“…don’t you know; only god fearin’, bible believin’ patriotic republicans are allowed to be insulting, confrontational, and be right assholes without impunity around these parts…”
…that’s it? One post out of app. 600 that’s moderately insulting means i’m really a nice guy (-:
[/quote]
I only looked back through 1 post, not 600, so you are 100% insulting from my approximation. =0)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First, I am trained in the scientific method. Second, argument from respect for authority is a logical fallacy.[/quote]
I’m trained in the scientific method too, but I would be a fool to ignore the consensual conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization based on 30 years of research.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
First, I am trained in the scientific method. Second, argument from respect for authority is a logical fallacy.
I’m trained in the scientific method too, but I would be a fool to ignore the consensual conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization based on 30 years of research.
[/quote]
Then show it. All You’ve shown is that one link on a policy that doesn’t in my reading seem to pertain to the discussion even remotely.
If you don’t think the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement was relevant, what is the particular issue you’d like to have more information on?
Okay, those are public policy statements. Not science. That?s like quoting congressional committees in a global warming debate. I?m not arguing with you if it?s harmful or not. I?m just asking for the science, the studies, the hard numbers. Show me the uniform undeniable proof that you claim.
Because from that one link you posted, the studies quoted did not seem to justify the sweeping generalizations of the policy statement. They were comparing development of kids with divorced parents.
Heck even looking through what I can of the references on that policy, a lot of them seem not even to be observational studies (which I think are dumb much of the time) but are surveys with 40 or 50 participants.
You even admit there isn?t a lot of data on the actual issue of children raised in a loving monogamous homosexual relationship without the issue of divorce. Most of the children that have been raised by homosexuals have had to go through a divorce.
Where do you think the policy statements come from, if not the underlying science upon which those conclusions are derived? Do you think all of these organizations are pulling policy statements out of their ass without backing them up with scientific facts?
If you have a scientific background, surely you understand that a comparison of children raised by gay parents with children raised by straight parents would need to control for divorce as a potential source of variance. If you didn’t do so, any noted differences could be due to the divorce itself.
But that is beside the point. The medical and mental health organizations are the scientific experts who know who to conduct responsible research, and draw valid conclusions based on that research. Their conclusions are not infallible, but they are more likely to be valid than the conclusions of an individual who is cherry picking a sample of studies in order to fit some preconceived notion of what homosexuality is or is not.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where do you think the policy statements come from, if not the underlying science upon which those conclusions are derived? Do you think all of these organizations are pulling policy statements out of their ass without backing them up with scientific facts?
[/quote]
Politics? Maybe?
Edit, you once again failed to show your undeniable evidence.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Way to be an anti-discrimination progressive there. But why pray tell to you only use stereotypes against Christians and conservatives then take offense to stereotypes of others?
…you will be unsuccesfull in finding such insulting and derogatory posts, like those from Mick28, written by me on this forum. Go ahead, try it…
“…don’t you know; only god fearin’, bible believin’ patriotic republicans are allowed to be insulting, confrontational, and be right assholes without impunity around these parts…”
…that’s it? One post out of app. 600 that’s moderately insulting means i’m really a nice guy (-:
I only looked back through 1 post, not 600, so you are 100% insulting from my approximation. =0)[/quote]
…and you’re supposed to be trained in the scientific method? Hmm… 
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Politics? Maybe?[/quote]
So your argument comes down to, “Every one of the major medical and mental health organizations, without exception, is so politically biased that their conclusions on homosexuality are worthless and should be ignored.” Gotcha.
You once again failed to answer my question. If the American Academy of Pediatrics statement didn’t address your issue, what is the specific issue you are wanting to address?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Politics? Maybe?
So your argument comes down to, “Every one of the major medical and mental health organizations, without exception, is so politically biased that their conclusions on homosexuality are worthless and should be ignored.” Gotcha.
Edit, you once again failed to show your undeniable evidence.
You once again failed to answer my question. If the American Academy of Pediatrics statement didn’t address your issue, what is the specific issue you are wanting to address? [/quote]
copied from above:
Okay, those are public policy statements. Not science. That?s like quoting congressional committees in a global warming debate. I?m not arguing with you if it?s harmful or not. I?m just asking for the science, the studies, the hard numbers. Show me the uniform undeniable proof that you claim.
I’m not asking for new information I’m asking for the information you keep claiming.
There was a list of scientific references in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. You tried to dismiss those references as not meeting scientific muster, but when I called you on it, you backed off. Are you now back to insisting that the American Academy of Pediatrics wasn’t basing its policy statement on real science?
I could provide similar statements, with their own set of supporting references, from other major medical and mental health organizations.
But before I go to the effort, you have to convince me that it would actually make a difference. All I’ve seen from you so far is a lame insinuation that these organizations are all politically biased, so their science based on 30 years of research should be disregarded.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Way to be an anti-discrimination progressive there. But why pray tell to you only use stereotypes against Christians and conservatives then take offense to stereotypes of others?
…you will be unsuccesfull in finding such insulting and derogatory posts, like those from Mick28, written by me on this forum. Go ahead, try it…
“…don’t you know; only god fearin’, bible believin’ patriotic republicans are allowed to be insulting, confrontational, and be right assholes without impunity around these parts…”
…that’s it? One post out of app. 600 that’s moderately insulting means i’m really a nice guy (-:
I only looked back through 1 post, not 600, so you are 100% insulting from my approximation. =0)
…and you’re supposed to be trained in the scientific method? Hmm…
[/quote]
Looking at the sample sizes of those studies, I’m just about right.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There was a list of scientific references in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement. You tried to dismiss those references as not meeting scientific muster, but when I called you on it, you backed off. Are you now back to insisting that the American Academy of Pediatrics wasn’t basing its policy statement on real science?
I could provide similar statements, with their own set of supporting references, from other major medical and mental health organizations.
But before I go to the effort, you have to convince me that it would actually make a difference. All I’ve seen from you so far is a lame insinuation that these organizations are all politically biased, so their science based on 30 years of research should be disregarded.[/quote]
First, at a number of the studies sited have sample sizes so small the standard error has to be obscene.
The linked studies in that report can?t be read, you can, at most, read the abstract. Most are observational, some are just surveys, and I personally cannot access any of the actual studies, data, methods or conclusions. All that you can apparently quote is a public policy statement issued by a committee 7 years ago.
Considering the politically charged atmosphere involved in these types of inquiries, I?d rather see the data myself. But where the hell is this scientific consensus of every major medical agency you keep talking about? The hell man, shut up about you?re studies, or link them so I can read them. Have you even read any of the actual studies yourself or seen the hard data. If so, why the hell won?t you post them? If not, you displaying a lot of faith.
I?m not arguing that homosexuals are or aren?t harmful, I?m just asking for the dad-gum science. Why do we have to go back and forth for 10 pages to get you to back up your claim? I am genuinely curious as to the question at hand and would like to read the studies.
I?ve already stated that I think loving homosexual parents are probably in the best interest of the child in some cases, but I?d like to see the data. Forgive me for not trusting your word or that of a 7 year old committee in the relation to unequivocal facts shown in data for some reason you won?t show me.
And right or wrong all organizations have to deal with the political atmosphere when things pertain to topics such as this. Further, I am not accusing you, but there is a large gay lobby out there pushing people and organizations for statements like the one linked. Even honest ones will be diplomatic when presenting public policy on these issues. I?m not interested in diplomacy or studies as interpreted by committees 7 years ago.
[quote]Forgive me for not trusting your word or that of a 7 year old committee in the relation to unequivocal facts shown in data for some reason you won?t show me.
[/quote]
I’ve limited my claims to the policy statements from the major medical and mental health organizations. I’ve never claimed to read the hundreds of studies upon which these statements are based. I wouldn’t presume to be such an expert that I could challenge these organizations on the validity of their research, since most of it isn’t even my field of study.
It is the job of the medical and mental health organizations to conduct responsible research, and draw valid conclusions based on that research.
If you choose not to respect the expertise of these organizations, you are free to do so.
I’m not asking for every single study, but I would think you’d read some in order to know the science so well.
Read that to see why you aren’t logically coherent.
But just for clarification, are some of these committees that you are saying you just have to trust in, the same ones you were knocking earlier in this thread for labeling homosexuality a defect? Why are you so determined to trust these same institutions that were so horribly and obviously wrong and were basing their conclusions off of bias. Now that they agree with you they are beyond question?