Do you see much cheek turning or neighbour loving(sounds bad,I know ,but you get my meaning)going on in the world at large?
I sure don’t.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
I’ve yet to see any research that lacks bias. I guess the gays are on the hook to produce some. You seem pretty interested in teh topic, why don’t you dig some up?
Just started. I tend to look for the larger professional bodies in the field, and try to stay away from (also the gay) activists. I’ve posted some above, APA etc. and lots before.
I must admit I’m a bit tired to go against that NARTH crap every 6 months - seriously, check my profile and look up in all the gay-related threads I’ve been posting in - I stand by my sources and I’ve called nitpickish with some other posters’.
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias 
), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
There is pretty much no objectivity in social or psychological studies (that’s what ticks me off mostly about the College’s statement above), but there is lots of peer-reviewed and methodologically sound research in the scientific communities. Once I find someone with a good and solid scientific argument on the topic, I’ll be thrilled - not much of that here in the last 4 years.
Makkun[/quote]
My guess is that one data set is going to be produced by conservatives to say one thing, and the data set produced by gay advocacy groups will make the exact opposite claim.
[quote]makkun wrote:
…
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
…
Makkun[/quote]
Wearing some looser fitting clothes might have us believing you.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
As Jesus said in Matthew 19, the “two shall become one flesh.”
Oh, well if Jesus said…
I know. Like all those pesky things like “Turn the other cheek,” and “love your neighbor.” You know, things Mohammed seemed to have a hard time with. [/quote]
You seem to struggle with them, too.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
makkun wrote:
…
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
…
Makkun
Wearing some looser fitting clothes might have us believing you.[/quote]
Haha, touche. Nothing camper than superheroes. Perhaps I should change the red to pink - and change from the Flash to the Flasher?
But wait, your avatar doesn’t even wear pants if I remember correctly…
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
I’ve yet to see any research that lacks bias. I guess the gays are on the hook to produce some. You seem pretty interested in teh topic, why don’t you dig some up?
Just started. I tend to look for the larger professional bodies in the field, and try to stay away from (also the gay) activists. I’ve posted some above, APA etc. and lots before.
I must admit I’m a bit tired to go against that NARTH crap every 6 months - seriously, check my profile and look up in all the gay-related threads I’ve been posting in - I stand by my sources and I’ve called nitpickish with some other posters’.
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
There is pretty much no objectivity in social or psychological studies (that’s what ticks me off mostly about the College’s statement above), but there is lots of peer-reviewed and methodologically sound research in the scientific communities. Once I find someone with a good and solid scientific argument on the topic, I’ll be thrilled - not much of that here in the last 4 years.
Makkun
My guess is that one data set is going to be produced by conservatives to say one thing, and the data set produced by gay advocacy groups will make the exact opposite claim.
[/quote]
That’s why I always look for scientific bodies and peer-reviewed sources rather than activist sites - not even the ones I may agree with. So, no Ex-Gay-Watch quotes from me.
Sorry, gotta go and photoshop my avatar picture…
Makkun
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
As Jesus said in Matthew 19, the “two shall become one flesh.”
Oh, well if Jesus said…
I know. Like all those pesky things like “Turn the other cheek,” and “love your neighbor.” You know, things Mohammed seemed to have a hard time with.
You seem to struggle with them, too.[/quote]
Good thing my behavior is not normative for everyone else, right? Good thing I haven’t tried to start a religion that tells everyone to do as I do.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
I’ve yet to see any research that lacks bias. I guess the gays are on the hook to produce some. You seem pretty interested in teh topic, why don’t you dig some up?
Just started. I tend to look for the larger professional bodies in the field, and try to stay away from (also the gay) activists. I’ve posted some above, APA etc. and lots before.
I must admit I’m a bit tired to go against that NARTH crap every 6 months - seriously, check my profile and look up in all the gay-related threads I’ve been posting in - I stand by my sources and I’ve called nitpickish with some other posters’.
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
There is pretty much no objectivity in social or psychological studies (that’s what ticks me off mostly about the College’s statement above), but there is lots of peer-reviewed and methodologically sound research in the scientific communities. Once I find someone with a good and solid scientific argument on the topic, I’ll be thrilled - not much of that here in the last 4 years.
Makkun
My guess is that one data set is going to be produced by conservatives to say one thing, and the data set produced by gay advocacy groups will make the exact opposite claim.
That’s why I always look for scientific bodies and peer-reviewed sources rather than activist sites - not even the ones I may agree with. So, no Ex-Gay-Watch quotes from me.
Sorry, gotta go and photoshop my avatar picture…
Makkun[/quote]
I think we’re going to have trouble coming up with unbiased data sets there as well. Science, despite its claims to the contrary, has makes a lot of biased claims depending on who’s paying for the research.
I think, in the end, we’ll all end up right where we started.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
makkun wrote:
…
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
…
Makkun
Wearing some looser fitting clothes might have us believing you.
Haha, touche. Nothing camper than superheroes. Perhaps I should change the red to pink - and change from the Flash to the Flasher?
But wait, your avatar doesn’t even wear pants if I remember correctly…
Makkun[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
I think we’re going to have trouble coming up with unbiased data sets there as well. Science, despite its claims to the contrary, has makes a lot of biased claims depending on who’s paying for the research.
I think, in the end, we’ll all end up right where we started.
[/quote]
NOt unbiased - social science doesn’t work that way, I agree - but transparent and peer-reviewed. This is where the NARTHs fall through and the ID movement gets into trouble: they stand outside the scientific consensus and rather than challenging it by applying proper methodology and opening up to peer review, they develop alternative pseudo-science realities in which they proclaim to be persecuted (just check out the ridiculous claim that the APA - and pretty much all other medical bodies have been taken over by the ‘gay agenda’).
But worse, NARTH and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (just read the above mentioned College’s source quotations and you’ll see what I mean) don’t only not follow scientific rules in their argument on this issue. Follow the sources, and you’ll find in many cases religious activists, hiding behind a scientific front. I’ve had a long debate with another poster here some time ago, when I was pretty much able to trace back any ‘scientific’ quotation lists as picked from religious fundamentalist anti-gay pages. That’s not a bias (not by the poster), that’s deception (by the publishers). From a scientific as well as from a moral (and religious) point of view, that’s very problematic.
My point here stands - get your work into a peer-reviewed magazine, argue your case at large professional scientific conventions, publish, accept and consider the criticism and you’ll be taken seriously. Working on the assumption just for a second that the sources quoted in favour of gay parenting etc. are ‘paid for’, they seem still to be executed by people who understand scientific reasoning better. That I find indicative.
Oh, and we’ll end up with the same convictions, because this just an Internet debate, and in six months someone else will post something from NARTH trying to make an ill-informed point.
Makkun
Zap,
while Zap Brannigan is certainly the hottest male in Futurama (how could he not - he’s mixture between Cpt. Kirk and William Shatner), I’ve always been more of a Leela man.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
while Zap Brannigan is certainly the hottest male in Futurama [/quote]
Nope. That’ll be Barbados Slim.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap,
while Zap Brannigan is certainly the hottest male in Futurama (how could he not - he’s mixture between Cpt. Kirk and William Shatner), I’ve always been more of a Leela man.
Makkun[/quote]
Zapp: Good morning, lover.
Leela: Uh, listen, Zapp.
Zapp: Now you’re officially my woman. Kudos! I can’t say I don’t envy you.
Leela: Zapp, last night was a mistake.
Zapp: A sexy mistake.
Leela: No, just a regular mistake. For a split second my common sense was overwhelmed by pity.
[Zapp laughs.]
Zapp: A split second is all it takes. That’s why sooner or later you’ll come crawling back to the Zapper.
Leela: The only kind of crawling I’m doing to you is away … from!
Zapp: Leela, you’re obviously confused and aroused.
ROFL
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
As Jesus said in Matthew 19, the “two shall become one flesh.”
Oh, well if Jesus said…
I know. Like all those pesky things like “Turn the other cheek,” and “love your neighbor.” You know, things Mohammed seemed to have a hard time with.
You seem to struggle with them, too.
Good thing my behavior is not normative for everyone else, right? Good thing I haven’t tried to start a religion that tells everyone to do as I do. [/quote]
No, you prefer religion based on the hypocrisy of people who never met Jesus (or any of his disciples, for that matter).
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
As Jesus said in Matthew 19, the “two shall become one flesh.”
Oh, well if Jesus said…
I know. Like all those pesky things like “Turn the other cheek,” and “love your neighbor.” You know, things Mohammed seemed to have a hard time with.
You seem to struggle with them, too.
Good thing my behavior is not normative for everyone else, right? Good thing I haven’t tried to start a religion that tells everyone to do as I do.
No, you prefer religion based on the hypocrisy of people who never met Jesus (or any of his disciples, for that matter).[/quote]
I don’t get it. What do you mean by that?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
No, you prefer religion based on the hypocrisy of people who never met Jesus (or any of his disciples, for that matter).
I don’t get it. What do you mean by that?
[/quote]
Luke 6 v. 39-42
EDIT: Also, pay particular attention to v. 46
[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
makkun wrote:
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that).
Siblings can get legally married in Sweden. And I actually don’t know of any state in Europe that forbids cousins tying the knot.
Gee, that’s a shock, because ordinarily Sweden is very moral and conservative:}
The country’s a helluva lot more moral than the the US. You see, it doesn’t go around bombing and invading other countries.[/quote]
What country got invaded and bombed? Say it, Lixy…say it…say it…say it…
No thread is complete w/o it.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
No, you prefer religion based on the hypocrisy of people who never met Jesus (or any of his disciples, for that matter).
I don’t get it. What do you mean by that?
Luke 6 v. 39-42
EDIT: Also, pay particular attention to v. 46[/quote]
Ah. So you’re point is, vis-a-vis Jesus sermon, is that I’m a hypocrite because my orthopraxy doesn’t match my orthodoxy. Fair enough. I readily admit that my keeping of the Law falls far short. Fortunately, Jesus kept it in my place, so my failures won’t be counted against me.
Since you’re now using Christian Scripture to point out my shortcomings, you’re essentially confirming the truth of it, aren’t you? If so, how are you with Luke 24 and its implications? If not, why bother using it?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
No, you prefer religion based on the hypocrisy of people who never met Jesus (or any of his disciples, for that matter).
I don’t get it. What do you mean by that?
Luke 6 v. 39-42
EDIT: Also, pay particular attention to v. 46
Ah. So you’re point is, vis-a-vis Jesus sermon, is that I’m a hypocrite because my orthopraxy doesn’t match my orthodoxy. Fair enough.[/quote]
Well, almost. But yes, let’s start there.
I can’t remember, where does Jesus say that?
Also, doesn’t this apply equally to homosexuals? Or do you get to decide which “shortcomings” are permissable, and which should be written into the law of the land?
[quote]
Since you’re now using Christian Scripture to point out my shortcomings, you’re essentially confirming the truth of it, aren’t you?[/quote]
No. That’s quite the leap of logic.
I do, however, have a great admiration for Jesus.
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”?
Or do you mean Luke 1:24?
“After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion.”
If so, I’m not following.