Another Letter From a Researcher Misquoted By Dobson
Wayne Besen's Truth Wins Out web site has been sent the third letter this week from a researcher who says her work has been distorted and misrepresented by Family Blah Blah Poobah James Dobson.
Professor Angela Phillips, author of a book called The Trouble With Boys, wrote:
The problem is that Dobson's flocks will never hear about any of this. He will continue to twist the facts to fit his message, and that's all they'll hear.
For some reason people like him think you can just say anything, claim any assertion to be true, and that's all there is to it. We see it from the White House all the way down to the CRC and into our comments section. It's like it doesn't occur to them that there are research methods, theoretical nuances, years of study, behind these people's writings. No, they treat it like some comic strip that you can read over breakfast, get the whole thing between bites of corn flakes, and tell people about later in the day. It won't matter if you forget the punchline, or tell it a little wrong. This shows a profound disrespect for erudition.
Professor Angela Phillips, author of a book called The Trouble With Boys, wrote:
Dear James Dobson:
It has come to my attention that my book "The Trouble with Boys" has been seriously mis-represented in writings by James Dobson.
Having read his newsletter; "How Boys Learn to Become Men" on the Focus on the Family web site I was incensed to find that I have been quoted as a source for suggesting that:
"The high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development."
I certainly agree that boys suffer from a lack of positive men in their lives but I am at pains to point out that positive men are often as much lacking in two parent households as they are in lone mother (or two mother) households. I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did). My concern is that boys without positive men around them are more likely to be violent, angry and lacking in self control. I have never heard that these are characteristics that are associated with homosexuality.
Dobson goes on to say: "One of the primary objectives of parents is to help boys identify their gender assignments and understand what it means to be a man.
My concern is that boys are currently learning, either from their fathers, or in the absence of fathers, from the women who rear them, and the men they encounter, that the most important thing about being a man is being: "not gay", "not gentle" and not "girlie". While adult men are afraid to demonstrate that it's okay to be gentle and caring how are boys to learn anything positive about what it means to be a man?
I would be grateful if you could publish this letter prominently on your website.
I look forward to a swift acknowledgement.
Yours sincerely
Angela Phillips
Author of The Trouble with Boys
Truth Won Out
The problem is that Dobson's flocks will never hear about any of this. He will continue to twist the facts to fit his message, and that's all they'll hear.
For some reason people like him think you can just say anything, claim any assertion to be true, and that's all there is to it. We see it from the White House all the way down to the CRC and into our comments section. It's like it doesn't occur to them that there are research methods, theoretical nuances, years of study, behind these people's writings. No, they treat it like some comic strip that you can read over breakfast, get the whole thing between bites of corn flakes, and tell people about later in the day. It won't matter if you forget the punchline, or tell it a little wrong. This shows a profound disrespect for erudition.
posted by JimK at 10:49 PM
47 Comments:
They aren't concerned with erudition, or with people, for that matter. They are driven by greed and lust for power. This technique is straight out of the Nazi bag of tricks - Tell a big lie and keep telling it. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
The people who listen to Dobson aren't educated, and are suspicious of those who are. If he says it, it's gospel. They'll never know about the objections of the researchers. They'll never read the books for themselves. They'll repeat the lies over and over in their families and churches and schools. They'll act as if it's true and if someone does happen to tell them it isn't, they'll write that person off as an instrument of Satan. Ask them for a retraction and you are oppressing them for being Christians.
It's a tidy little package, this circular reasoning. There's no way out for the "faithful" and no way in for the reasonable. These are people who never progressed to the latter stages of ethical development. They can't think in abstract terms. They've never moved past the level where they accept an external authority without question. We aren't having a struggle between the Right and the Left, we are having a struggle between Conventional and Post-Conventional reasoning. (Kohlberg) The idea of questioning "the word of "god"' scares them to death. I haven't figured out how you get an entire subculture of people to mature to higher stages of cognitive functioning, but that's the challenge we face.
Thank you for that, Morgaine, and I hope we hear from you again. I hate to think it's a pre- and post- thing, that we're moving into a new phase where people can't use their minds any more. (And it is interesting to insert Kohlberg's name into the discussion, esp where Gilligan is involved, thank you.) A lot of people had thought the Enlightenment had reached critical mass, but it turns out many believe it can be rolled back. And why would anyone want to do that? Ya got me there.
JimK
You're also dealing here with people who are well practice in the art of belief in the absence of evidence. As well as people who don't even know much about the bible they want to beat everyone else over the head with. They just believe whatever Dobson or other "ministers" tell them about it. That means they aren't practiced in critical thinking or reading texts for themselves...
Check out Carol Gilligan's response on this Youtube clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHdSVknB5Q
Well, this is the fourth attack on Dobson posted here uncritically in the last week.
Two researchers last week complained that he used their research in a column last week about the preferability of having both genders involved in the raising of a child. As far as I can see, the complaints were baseless and Dobson quoted them correctly.
Then, you posted the head lesbian in the U.S. with "evidence" that same gender couple parenting works out fine. An erudite reader of the blog then pointed out that one of the researchers cited has refused, under court order, to produce documentation of her results.
To verify this current complaint, one would have read the research and then Dobson's article. I see little point. A clear pattern has emerged here.
It seems if anyone wants to attack Dobson, that's good enough for TTF.
They'll take their word for it!
Anon, people attack Dobson every day of the week. These instances are significant because they are letters from researchers, mostly university professors with solid research careers, whose work has been taken by Dobson, misquoted, distorted, misrepresented, and used to support his bigoted cause.
It's good to see these people stand up for their reputations.
JimK
The three you posted didn't back up that claim.
Here's a travel opportunity for TTFers:
"IN THE NAME FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE, AND IN HARMONY WITH OUR GAY MUSLIM BROTHERS AND SISTERS, WE PROUDLY ANNOUNCE THE FIRST MARCH TO MECCA, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
Human Rights Watch, Moveon.org, ACT-UP, the Huffington Post and David Geffen are proud to present the March to Mecca, a celebration of peace that calls all gay brothers, sisters and people undergoing sex-reassignment to march to the holiest of holy cities, Mecca, the capital city of Saudi Arabia's Makkah province on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2007.
The march, a brainchild of activists and celebrities who acknowledge that more gays are dying from Islamic fundamentalism than from the policies of George W. Bush, will begin 12 noon sharp in Jeddah, the stunning night-life friendly Saudi Arabian city located on the coast of the Red Sea.
"Not marching in these countries, in this era of terror, seems cowardly," says event co-organizer
Sharon Stone. "I'm embarrassed to say at social gatherings I even blamed the United States for
everything. But I realized it's the radical Muslims - not the US - who want gays dead, and for that I am truly sorry."
Paris' gay Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, who was stabbed by an immigrant Muslim, is organizing the European contingency which features Limahl, Johnny Hallyday and Ciccolina. Whoopie Goldberg, along with Robin Williams will be hosting the kick off party at the Sheraton Riyadh. There will be refreshments and karaoke, hosted by David Hyde Pierce.
Beth Ditto, lead singer of the Gossip, who will perform with the newly reformed Yaz, thinks the march is overdue. "Forget right wing Christians. They don't hang gays for being gay. Islamofascists do. That's why were asking moderate, non-violent Muslims across the Western Province to join hands and embrace gay people everywhere.""
I would be afraid to march on Mecca. I don't think I'll ever go to a muslim-majority country. The US isn't all that bad a place.
rrjr
Hi, JimK -
Now that I've found this site, I'll definitely be checking in. I followed a link from Americablog.
I know Gilligan has some obections to Kohlberg, but I find the stages he defined are a good working model. I think what is happening is that as a culture we have bought into the Right Wing meme that "educated" equals "elitist." The irony is that it's a Conservative Elitist ploy that makes people suspicious of education. It's a literal conspiracy to keep us poor and stupid.
There's no group more elite or elitest than the Bush crew and their contemporaries. The vast majority of people will never be white enough, rich enough, go to the right schools, the right parties, know the right people to be part of that group, but they have successfully convinced working people that they're one lottery ticket from joining them. That's a key element to getting people to vote against their own self interest.
I do think we're dealing with levels of moral and ethical reasoning, and I believe that Bush's policies are designed to insure that people don't progress to the point that they begin to question authority. I've been trying to work this problem for a while. It's getting more important - have you heard about that new Left Behind video game for Christian kids that has them killing Muslims and Jews for points? The indoctrination process is becoming overt and I'm far more afraid of Christofascists than I am Islamofascists. I don't live next door to any Muslims, but I'm surrounded by radical Left Behind types.
On the subject of the March to Mecca, that's a great idea. It's a high-profile way to attack hate head-on and in large numbers. There's a basic entitlement common to all the followers of the "god of Abraham" that we have to get under and root out, and that's the entitlement to kill. We need to challenge the idea that any human has the right to kill for any reason. Throwing a bomb never solved a problem. Jesus certainly tried to put an end to the genocide encouraged in the Old Testament, and from the little I know about Mohammed, I think he did, too.
That sense of entitlement permeates our media - men killing women who leave them, killing for revenge, killing people because they're the wrong color, wrong sexual orientation, wrong religion, female, or in some way "different." We have to find a way to attach shame to killing. The way to stop "honor killings" is to teach that killing a woman is the ultimate act of cowardice. The way to stop hate crime is to convince people that it is the most unpatriotic act possible. Our media is telling people just the opposite right now.
Anonymous at December 19, 2006 9:35 AM
Anonymous, the EVIDENCE overwhelmingly shows that children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexuals. Dobson's rantings about 30 years of social science study refer to studies comparing two parent to single parent families. He is not refering to studies that compare gay parents with heterosexual parents. That he's been soundly rebuffed by the researchers he's quoted for claiming their work supports his bigotry when it doesn't says it all. As far as I can tell Dobson has yet to present any evidence that that the health and wellbeing of the children of gay parents is in any way deficient to those of heterosexual parents.
As to Patterson refusing to release her data in court, Jim already explained to you that its normal for a researcher to protect the confidentiality of her clients and the access to raw data.
I haven't had a chance to check closely for duplication but in addition to the list of 28 studies I posted earlier showing that children of gays do just as well as children of heterosexuals are the following:
2005 Lambert S. Family Journal: Counseling & Therapy for Couples & Families 13(1): 43-51. "Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here"
2004 Wainright J. Child Development 75(6): 1886-1898. "Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents"
2003 Golombok S. Developmental Psychology 39: 20-33. "Children with lesbian parents: A community study."
2003 Millbank J. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38: 541-600. "From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay families."
2002 Vanfraussen K. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 20: 237-252. "What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor insemination."
2002 Golombok S. British Medical Journal 234: 1407-1408. "Adoption by lesbian couples."
2002 Anderssen N. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43(4): 335-351. "Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000"
2002 Perrin E. Pediatrics 109: 341-344. "Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex partners."
2001 Stacey J. American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?"
2000 Patterson C. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1052-1069. "Family relationships of lesbians and gay men."
1999 Fitzgerald B. Marriage and Family Review 29(1): 57-75. "Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature"
1999 Tasker F. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 4(2): 153-166. "Children in lesbian-led families: A review"
1998 Binder R. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 26(2): 267-276. " American Psychiatric Association resource document on controversies in child custody: Gay and lesbian parenting, transracial adoptions, joint versus sole custody, and custody gender issues."
1998 McNeill K. Psychological Reports 82:59-62. " Families and parenting: A comparison of lesbian and heterosexual mothers"
1998 Parks C. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68(3): 376-389. "Lesbian parenthood: A review of the literature"
1997 Brewaeys A. Human Reproduction 12:1349-59
1997 Brewaeys A. J of
Psychosomatic Obs and Gyn 18:1-16
1997 Patterson C. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology 19:235-282. "Children of lesbian and gay parents"
1997 Tasker F. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 1997 28 (1-2) 183-202. "Young People's Attitudes toward Living in a Lesbian Family: A Longitudinal Study of Children Raised by Post-Divorce Lesbian Mothers"
1996 Allen M. J of Homosexuality 32(2):19-35. "Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research"
1996 Golombok S. Developmental Psychology 32 (1) p3-11. "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families."
1996 Patterson C. Journal of Social Issues 52(3): 29-50. "Lesbian and gay families with children: Implications of social science research for policy"
1995 Bailey J. Developmental Psychology 31(1): 124-129. "Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers."
1995 Flaks D. Developmental Psychology 31(1): 105-114. "Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children."
1995 Fowler G. Family and Conciliation Courts Review 33(3): 361-376."Homosexual parents: Implications for custody cases"
1995 Tasker F. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 65:203-15. "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families"
1995 van-Nijnatten C. Medicine and Law 14(5-6): 359-368. "Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law."
1995 Victor S. School Psychology Review 24(3): 456-479. " Lesbian mothers and the children: A review for school psychologists."
1994 McIntyre D. Mediation Quarterly 12(2), winter, 135-149. "Gay Parents and Child Custody: A Struggle under the Legal System"
1993 Patterson C. , Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development 33-62 "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents"
1992 Baggett C. Law and Psychology Review 16: 189-200. "Sexual orientation: Should it affect child custody rulings."
1987 Kirkpatrick M. J of Homosexuality 14:201-11. "Clinical Implications of Lesbian Mother Studies"
1986 Green R. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15:167-184. "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children"
1986 Kleber D. Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 14(1):81-87. "The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature"
1983 Golombok S. J of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 24:551-572. "Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal"
1982 Green R. Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 10:7-15. "The best interests of the child with a lesbian mother"
1981 Hoeffer B. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:536-44. "Children's acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families"
1981 Kirkpatrick M. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:545-551. "Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey"
1981 Miller J. J of Homosexuality 7(1):49-56. "The child's home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers: A neglected area of research"
1980 Lewis K. Social Work 25:198-203. "Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View"
Beth Ditto needs to finish her sentence "Forget right wing Christians. They don't hang gays for being gay." [YET] Seven Virginia parishes just voted to worship with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria where Archbishop Peter Akinola thinks gays should be imprisoned.
That's a telling announcement you posted there Anon. Wishful thinking on your part. It's pretty obvious Anon stands with the Islamofascists on this one.
MM, Morgaine, glad to have you with us.
JimK
"As to Patterson refusing to release her data in court, Jim already explained to you that its normal for a researcher to protect the confidentiality of her clients and the access to raw data."
And, if a judge can't be trusted, we have to just take the researcher word for it? Doesn't sound like a very tight system when you have the kind of peer pressure to produce a certain result that exist in this area. Remember the profession was pressured into their decision in 1973 without any integrity.
If we're going to base public policy on these researchers, they need to be accountable
"If we're going to base public policy on these researchers, they need to be accountable"
Do you mean like our energy policy? We don't even know who was consulted by the Veep to come up with that public policy let alone what research they had to back up their claims.
Do you really need accountability to do unto others as you would have others do unto you? If your beliefs are true, you will get an accounting...at the Pearly Gates. Watch that first step it's a doozy.
No one said the judge couldn't be trusted Anonymous, his goals were simply in conflict with the researcher's goals of confidentiality and the need to retain control over her raw data.
The evidence for the mental health of gays was well known when the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. I listed 14 pre-73 studies that showed this and all the studies since then have reached the same conclusion. Your religionist lies are bereft of any refutation of them - there are no studies supporting your bigotted viewpoint. Indeed there was never any science to support homosexuality's original classification in the DSM in the first place. If any decision was made simply because it was fashionable it was that one.
You need help. No normal healthy straight person is as obsessed with gays as you are. It seems likely you're just like Ted Haggard, obsessively anti-gay because you can't accept your own same sex attractions. You need to learn to positively accept your own natural god given feelings, you'll be much happier when you do, just look at Jim Mcgreevey. Don't waste your whole life fighting who you are.
"[YET] Seven Virginia parishes just voted to worship with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria where Archbishop Peter Akinola thinks gays should be imprisoned."
Not surprising. Until Lawrence v. Texas, being gay was punishable by 5 years in prison. Many of the "family" groups filed amicus briefs against that ruling. The republican majority, egged on by the Family Foundation in Virginia, refuses to take the Crimes Against Nature Act off the books in Virginia, despite Lawrence.
rrjr
"No one said the judge couldn't be trusted Anonymous, his goals were simply in conflict with the researcher's goals of confidentiality and the need to retain control over her raw data."
Oh, I see. And our goals of making sure what the researcher says is true apparently conflicts with that too.
So, I guess we really can't be expected to rely on this stuff.
"The evidence for the mental health of gays was well known when the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973."
Apparently not, since most experts at the time believed it was a mental problem.
"I listed 14 pre-73 studies that showed this and all the studies since then have reached the same conclusion."
Christine used to try to impress us with this "flood of studies" crap. So, I asked her once to pick out the best one and I'd look at it. I got it out and the conclusion of the study specifically said it didn't prove what all these TTFers said it did.
I also looked at all the studies produced by an AMA spokeman that came to a TTF function. There were problems with all the studies.
All a waste of time.
"there was never any science to support homosexuality's original classification in the DSM in the first place."
You are the ones saying these people can't control their feelings. Since the behavior is irrational and harmful and is associated with other mental illnesses, why isn't this lack of self-control support enough? How many other mental illnesses have studies proving they are mental illnesses? It's obvious.
"If any decision was made simply because it was fashionable it was that one."
You are subject to delusion.
"You need help. No normal healthy straight person is as obsessed with gays as you are. It seems likely you're just like Ted Haggard, obsessively anti-gay because you can't accept your own same sex attractions."
I see. Well, I also have argued obssesively in favor of the need to continue the war on terror. Am I secretly a pacifist? I've obssesively argued that global. warming is an overblown cause. Am I secretly a tree-hugger? I've defended abstinence programs. Do I secretly favor porn movies in high school? I'm positively obssessed with intelligent design. Am I secretly a Darwinist?
From your logic, I believe I should conclude you are really a fundamentalist.
"The republican majority, egged on by the Family Foundation in Virginia, refuses to take the Crimes Against Nature Act off the books in Virginia, despite Lawrence."
These laws are sometimes helpful to combat these guys who hook up in public bathrooms. Nobody ever has suggested going into private homes. Chill.
Anon,
Anyone who calls someone the "head lesbian in the US" must be a writer I can really respect. Tell me, do you also have the "head Jew" and the "head African-American" and the "head Latino".
Kind of like when you guys were calling Ted Haggard the head evangelical in the U.S..
It's so funny when TTF complains about its own behavior.
Anon, I have just sat here and read through ten comments in a row that you have made this afternoon. Every one of them is a baseless, usually offensive, assertion based on ignorance of the facts. It may be that at some point you start believing you have "won" the debate.
Please don't think that just because people have lost interest in your noise-making that you have out-argued them or scored any points. This is really a miserable performance, and all you do is reinforce our interest in making sure that people like you never ascend to power in our community.
JimK
Kind of like when you guys were calling Ted Haggard the head evangelical in the U.S..
It's so funny when TTF complains about its own behavior.
Anon's getting dizzy from too much spinning today.
"...After the allegations were made public, Haggard resigned as president of the influential National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing more than 45,000 churches with 30 million members..."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/
PTA
Jim
I was just giving everyone the courtesy of a response.
PTA
The "head lesbian" I referred to was the president of the "largest LBGT advocacy group in America" according to Time magazine.
She's not the head of the largest LGBT advocacy group in the US. That would be Joe Solmonses, head of HRC, who was a guy last time we talked.
But I'd certainly like to be considered in the running for "head bisexual" if I can't be "head Jew."
Clearly anonymous, any members of the APA in 73 who didn't agree with the decision weren't familiar with the studies and weren't experts on gays.
As to your claims that studies someone gave you didn't show what they claimed, I simply don't believe you, your rabid anti-gay bias and unsubstantiated assertions simply aren't credible, just like your baseless assertion that gay behavior is irrational, harmful and associated with other mental illnesses. You don't have a single bit of evidence to back that up of course because all the research that's been done shows being gay is not a mental illness.
While I've seen you post on one or two other topics, nothing approaches the day in and day out volume of your posts on gays, it truly is an obsession for you in a way thats incomparable to the other topics you mentioned. I suspect though that your interest in abstinence is also a cover for an obsession with sex - gay sex. You're just so much like Ted Haggard. At one time I was an anti-gay bigot myself. I also was suffering from internalized homophobia and trying to suppress my attractions to men by focusing anger on gays. Trust me, its a relief when you stop doing that.
At one time I was an anti-gay bigot myself.
Randi -- I gotta say, you made the vodka come out my nose on that one
Is this true? You were one of those?
JimK
I also was notably anti-gay, though I didn't direct this against other people, only against myself. It happens to a lot of people, though i suspect less though than in the past.
rrjr
Wow, I think that is interesting. I came to the conclusion a while ago that the main gay-bashers were probably actually gay themselves, but fighting it. It is fascinating to think of them as Randi and Robert at an earlier stage of their metamorphosis. You think they're going to stay straight-n-hateful forever, but maybe not.
Well, I'm glad you both mentioned this about yourselves.
JimK
"Clearly anonymous, any members of the APA in 73 who didn't agree with the decision weren't familiar with the studies and weren't experts on gays."
Well, clearly. If they don't agree with you, then, by definition, they can't be experts.
"As to your claims that studies someone gave you didn't show what they claimed, I simply don't believe you, your rabid anti-gay bias and unsubstantiated assertions simply aren't credible, just like your baseless assertion that gay behavior is irrational, harmful and associated with other mental illnesses."
You've said the same thing when I pointed to the poll conducted by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality and again when I quoted the Texas A & M researcher. Seems you're the one with the credibility problem. The study I mentioned was the pheronome study linking different biological responses in gays to stimuli (I think it was sweat) of same gender individuals. Look it up yourself. We discussed it ad nauseum here.
"You don't have a single bit of evidence to back that up of course because all the research that's been done shows being gay is not a mental illness."
You say that this desire is beyond control- there is no choice but to experience this desire. Yet when people have an irresistable desire to shoplift or play with fire, experts consider it a mental problem. You'll say then, it's offensive to compare the two (or three). Whether an uncontrollable desire is desirable, however, is partly a value judgment but also observable. What study can disprove it? It's not in the realm of science to make value judgments.
"While I've seen you post on one or two other topics, nothing approaches the day in and day out volume of your posts on gays, it truly is an obsession for you in a way thats incomparable to the other topics you mentioned."
Earth to Randi!
That's what most of the posts here are about. What else would I comment on?
"I suspect though that your interest in abstinence is also a cover for an obsession with sex - gay sex."
Well, believe what you want. Who cares?
"You're just so much like Ted Haggard. At one time I was an anti-gay bigot myself. I also was suffering from internalized homophobia and trying to suppress my attractions to men by focusing anger on gays. Trust me, its a relief when you stop doing that."
I'm not surprised like Jim. I think your definition of "anti-gay homophobia" is so distorted that, really, who knows what you mean.
Actually, I used to think this whole line- which is a common theme among lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups- was a mere rhetorical device. I still think the "focusing suppressed anger" thing is nonsense but something Jim said a few weeks ago did make some sense. He said that some who have struggled with this kind of temptation tend to have a resentment against those who simply indulge it. I think that's true for other sins so I don't know why it wouldn't be here. I don't know that it proves anything but it's a phenomena that probably does occur.
"Randi -- I gotta say, you made the vodka come out my nose on that one"
Switch to wine, Jim. It's much better for you.
Another study out just yesterday says 2-4 glasses a day for men brings maximum benefit.
Yes, Jim I was an anti-gay bigot for a time. I couldn't accept my attraction to men and I found that by focusing on anger and hatred towards gays I could keep my mind off my own attractions to men. On one occaision I even suggested to my friends we go to a gay bar and beat up some fags. Fortunately they just looked at me like there was something wrong with me and I dropped it. Eventually I couldn't hide reality from myself any longer and I accepted who I innately am.
Anonymous, I am well familiar with the pheremone study. It showed that gay men reacted the same way as straight women to male pheremones. The idea that this biological difference is caused by same sex sex sounds about as likely as the ratio of index to ring finger length differences being caused by same sex sex.
No one said same sex attractions, or opposite sex attractions for that matter, are uncontrollable and irresistable. We cannot help but experience the attractions. And if the inability to avoid experiencing same sex attractions means one is mentally ill, then heterosexuals are similarly mentally ill because they cannot help but experience their attractions either.
I don't know where you get this idea that science can't make value judgments. Science can judge whether or not a change in a car's mechanical system results in a valuable increase in gas mileage for example. Your definition of value judgement is so ambiguous I have no idea what you mean by it. Whether acting on a desire is okay depends on whether or not someone's getting hurt. If no one's getting hurt and in fact people are being helped, as in my wonderful relationship with my boyfriend, science can absolutely say that's valuable and desirable.
The only sin is hurting others. Loving monogamous same sex relationships help individuals and help society as a whole.
You attempt to justify your obsession with gays by saying "That's what most of the posts here are about. What else would I comment on?". Like you have no choice but to come here and comment, like its something you have to do because its there. Thats obviously not the case. Its not something a well adjusted heterosexual would do. There's no harm and no sin in you having a loving committed same sex relationship. Don't sacrifice your happiness to please ignorant bigots, self-loathing gays like Haggard, or an ancient, ignorant, and bigoted work of bronze age tribal fiction.
As to anti-gay homophobia, let me tell you what that's about. Many prominent mental health professionals from Freud to Jung to Kinsey and today believe that many, if not most of us are at least a bit bisexual. Anti-gay "exgay" proponent Warren Throckmorton says himself "most people have experienced a same sex attraction". Many, many self-identified heterosexuals are needlessly running in fear and anger from their own latent same sex attractions. Think about it - if heterosexual men weren't also at least a little turned on by men they wouldn't be buying porn that features both men and women, they'd be buying porn that's all female only. Stop in a porn store some time and compare the size of the all-girl section with the size of the male-girl section - there's no comparison.
"Like you have no choice but to come here and comment, like its something you have to do because its there. Thats obviously not the case. Its not something a well adjusted heterosexual would do."
I stumbled across this and I think the format is user-friendly and the participants are particularly amusing. The whole way that liberals try to misappropriate science to advance their agenda is also very fascinating and is more blatant in this area than any other.
I guess I'm also not very well adjusted. Ho-ho-ho!
"Many prominent mental health professionals from Freud to Jung to Kinsey"
I don't know how to break it to you, Randi, but the reputations of all three of these fine gentlemen is in steep decline.
"Many prominent mental health professionals from Freud to Jung to Kinsey and today believe that many, if not most of us are at least a bit bisexual. Anti-gay "exgay" proponent Warren Throckmorton says himself "most people have experienced a same sex attraction"."
So, you'd be in the camp that believes the whole thing is a choice. We decide whether or not to indulge these feelings in your estimation, then. Right?
Anonymous said "...liberals try to misapproriate science".
You're a laugh riot. You're the one ignoring the science, substituting your bronze age superstitions for the overwhelming evidence that being being gay is not a mental illness and that children of gay parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents.
The whole thing is not a choice. People don't choose their feelings although they can choose their behavior. Its no more reasonable to ask gays to go without a sex life or have sex with those they are not particularly attracted to than it is to ask heterosexuals to do the same. That's the trouble with people like you, your sick evil double-standards.
Dana,
I don't think you can be "Head Jew"- that is currently the mysterious leader of the ZOG. However, I will ask the Elders of Zion if they will consider you in the running.
Andrea
Thanks, Andrea, but you needn't go to the trouble if you can put me in the running for the "Head Bisexual" crown.
Randi,
There's really no point in engaging Anon re: science. The man is completely illiterate on the subject.
And, Anon, you might like to know that Dobson's anti-gay bile comes right out of Freud. He and Socarides before he died were a few of those left who put any creedence in this group of Freudian theories. Just another lucious irony from the lunatic right wing.
That's right Dana, I forgot that all this "distant father overprotective mother makes you gay" crap came straight from Freud.
"There's really no point in engaging Anon re: science. The man is completely illiterate on the subject."
Not literate like Dana, who not long ago was trying to convince us that science has proved something can't be cured (what?!) so that means it must not be a disease (what?!)
Or how about: science has proven that it's impossible to encourage kids not to do something (what?!)
Or how about: science has proven that the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups' definition of normality is accurate (what?!)
Or how about: science has proven that there is no way to resist perverted sexual attraction (what?!)
Funny how science always says what literate people like Dana want it too. You'd almost think science were a dream come true!
"People don't choose their feelings although they can choose their behavior."
Not if they are young teens. They have to have sex even if they've gone through an abstinence program.
Science proves it!
Anon, I should delete your last comment, which has no content. If you're going to twist what people have said, at least be clever or intelligent about it, please.
JimK
Poor Anonymous, he's so upet that science doesn't support his bigotry that he's got to make up absurd claims. Anonymous, the existence of gay people throughout history and across all societies in the same ratios proves its normal for a small percentage of people. Sorry to break your heart.
"Thanks, Andrea, but you needn't go to the trouble if you can put me in the running for the "Head Bisexual" crown."
Congratulations, Dana! You've been nominated as Montgomery County's "Top Pseudo-scientist".
"Anon, I should delete your last comment, which has no content. If you're going to twist what people have said, at least be clever or intelligent about it, please."
Jim,
You and your ilk have repeatedly claimed that scientists have proven that kids can't be persuaded to abstain from premarital sexual activity.
It is ridiculous but you guys are relentless in grasping at straws.
Anon, you're going to need to post a link to back that one up. It's true, we have reported on the studies that show that abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinence, and I have also posted links to the studies showing that STD rates among teens who have "pledged" to remain abstinent, and who claim to be abstinent, are the same as for those who didn't. We have reported the findings that teens who claim to be abstinent engage in anal sex as a way to keep their promise.
We have reported the studies that show that abstinence-only programs don't work. We would have reported the ones that showed that they do work, except ... there aren't any school sex-ed classes that provide that result.
But as far as claiming "that scientists have proven that kids can't be persuaded to abstain from premarital sexual activity," you're going to need to back that one up. Some readers might think you're lying.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home