Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Nope. And just to reiterate: THE STUDY WAS DONE BY THE CDC, NOT ME. People keep referring to the study as if I did it. The CDC has not revoked its findings, nor have they asked the people at Clinical Psychiatry News to revamp or withdraw citation from this:

That gay advocates would attempt to denigrate the findings of prestigious research organizations like the Mayo Clinic et al or the CDC shows you precisely how desperate they are to halt this illuminating conversation/debate in its tracks.

If you cannot trust the world's most prestigious scientific organizations as to accuracy about sexual orientation and its co-morbidities, then you have crossed into the realm of religious dogma. Gays are in fact engaged presently in a form of "burning at the stake" any "heretic" who dares to question their dogmatic platforms...even at the highest levels..like the CDC or Mayo Clinic. As evidenced right here in this thread.

And this is why I've urged gay advocates instead of doing what they're doing now, to instead apply for official recognition of an organized religion because let's face it, it has all the hallmarks of one..

 

The CDC and Mayo Clinic did not publish what you posted. The information you posted was a compilation by some group other that the CDC and Mayo clinic.

By compiling and not putting the entire research out there this organization can distort the findings as you have to their own means. It does not mean that the certain segments of what they printed were not part of the findings but what was the original context and the real conclusion?

You found an article that mentions prestigious groups and think because they are quoted they agree with this groups conclusion. That's not true. They may not even know this paper is out there.

You like the article because it gives you big names to quote that are supposed to intimidate and enhance your debate. Fact is your constant misinterpretation of what your link actually says makes you look even less reputable as a debater. It's your agenda. You have an agenda here.

 

I criticize you for your conclusions you draw from the source, not for the source itself. You can believe that drug abuse and depression are pervasive among gay men without believing it's caused by being gay. It is a troubling statistic, and needs to be examined, but your source does not draw any sort of conclusive indictment against homosexuality itself. It's you that draws that conclusion.

 

What conclusion was that? Would seem that merely revealing that "Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men", YOU interpret as an indictment of gays. Such things arent supposed to be mentioned in public. Might give the gays more mental hangups than they already have.

 

Well see what happens when you isolate the points I make and the citations out of context?

Let's look again:

CDC: I'm going to highlight important adjectives and adverbs here.

Now let's examine the Mayo Clinic's 2007 Special Article on pedophilia:

Here I will highlight nouns & verbs:

We have the CDC, world reknowned, respected, saying that if you're a gay man, the chances of your having been molested by a boy are pervasive and epidemic.

Then we have the Mayo Clinic, world reknowned, respected, two years later saying if you were molested as a child, you quite likely have an artificial sexual orientation that predisposes you to molest in the same way you were molested. The "abused-abuser" syndrome. It's a "phenomenon". In scientific terms that means it is noteworthy, documented [see the footnotes in the Mayo Clinic study], and reliable to occur again and again.

So for those not deeply commited to late-stage denial defense systems, or those who aren't mentally retarded, this means that if you meet a gay man somewhere, the chances are "pervasive" [excellent] that he was molested as a boy and that he has many mental co-morbid presentations of that crime done to him, [so he is deserving of your compassion] but also that he now has a propensity, a predisposition [abused-abuser phenomenon] to molest boys himself. [therfore also at the same time deserving of your waryness of him around children].

Not that he is guaranteed to have been molested, nor that he is guaranteed to molest boys himself, but that he most probably has been and will...

These aren't my conclusions alone. They are the conclusions of any person able to read the english language who aren't as I said, engaged in deep denial and the accompanying defense systems, or clinically retarded.



From now on when you talk about the CDC study or the Mayo Clinic Special Article, please do so together..so concepts don't "accidentally" get "lost" when things are taken out of context..

 

Who said gays have mental hangups? You've done exactly what you accuse JeffLV of doing. Substance abuse is pervasive among many groups. So why is it important to single out one group instead of all groups. With only a portion of the findings by the CDC and Mayo clinic available in the article it is slanted and meaningless as a statement of fact.

 

The article itself takes these things out of context as it is a summation of a certain research. The producers of the article picked over facts. You add your slant and really get off track. You seem to need those big names to make your assertion. Is this a word game for you. I know it's sometimes hard to see from your closet but why not get the facts correct.

 

Tell me how you don't see in those articles that

1. Having been molested as a boy is a PERVASIVE trait, EPIDEMIC of gay men?

2. Having been molested as a child, just generally speaking, predisposes you to molesting children yourself via the documented [see footnotes on Mayo's Special Article] phenomenon of the "abused-abuser" syndrome?

Please give specific details on how you don't see that. Don't hide behind calling me a closet-homo, don't belittle me for using the words "CDC and Mayo Clinic", don't try to change the subject. If you have a problem with these two studies rendering out those very clear conclusions to all but the mentally-imparted or those heavily invested in denial-defense, let us know.

Give the details. Debunk them systematically in a way that impresses. That's the best way. Go to it.

 

I'm still waiting for the study that shows children are more likely to abused in same-sex households...

 

I only counter one thing you say...

That it was never said that it is pervasive among gay men that they were molested themselves. They said it was an epidemic. The "pervasive" comment was about substance abuse among gay men.

As for your conclusion:

I accept your conclusion.

But with a few caveats. For one, your conclusion has no numerical backing to give us an idea of the risks involved. "pervasive" and "epidemic" are both relative terms... they don't mean 90%, 50%, 5% or even .0000005%. What they mean is "disproportional" or "more than expected". Your stats give us no idea of the scale.

What they also don't mean is that you can't necessarily put everyone in the same bucket.... a black man might be 10% more likely than a white man to be a crimial, but that doesn't mean I should deny him a teaching position with children. That's what background checks are for, to give us a closer look at the individual and not just judge them by their class.

Finally, causality is missed in your analysis. I.e. black men may be more likely to be criminals, which may give cause for us to be cautious around black men.... but it doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with being black that directly caused them to be criminal . Similarly, gay men may be more likely to be pedophiles, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's something directly wrong with being gay that directly causes them to be pedophiles.

Since you're so fond of the CDC, let's look at some more of their work:

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm

In conclusion: Homophobia and lack of social support causes gays to be depressed, use more drugs, and develop poor mental health. In other words, it's people like YOU that are contributing to the cause of these things that you profess against.

The exact causes of pedophilia are often debated, but I'd be willing to speculate that the poor mental and sexual development of stigmatized gay children is a considerable (if not the main) cause of those gays developing abnormal sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia, when they grow up.

So first you stigmatizes them, causing them to develop poor mental health, and then use that poor mental health as further reason to stigmatize them.

 

I liked this one too:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

This part is particularly important IMO:
"isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks."

The consequences of not being well developed in social networks and community structures, imo, is the leading cause of the destructive subculture many gay men find themselves in.

Consider also the normal sexual development of a child:

1: Boy hates girls
2: Boy things girls are icky.
3: Boy starts to find girls interesting. They smell good.
4: Boy gives girl a kiss
5: Boy gets rejected.
6: Boy tries again.
7: Boy eventually gets a girlfriend.
8: Boy is starts developing sexual feelings

I'll just stop there. I'm not an expert at the sexual development of children, but the theme I'm trying to show is the gradual increased interest and exposure to the opposite sex that the boy experiences as they age. They grow up with many role models and support in their life.

Contrast that with a gay man, who may not even directly have been stigmatized... but nevertheless are afraid of what could happen if they come out. This gay man, as a boy, misses out on most of the exposure and sexual development. They lack role models. Boy is afraid to ask boy out because he's afraid that boy will punch him, or worse, "out" him to everyone else. So boy hides his feelings and sexuality and never acts on them. Or if he does act on them, it's under a great deal of secrecy, with little guidance and support from peers, parents or other role models. This is a perfect scenario for risky behavior and poor sexual development, which evolves into the promiscuous behavior among gay men and may beven be the cause of pedophilia... the gay boy who never developed normally sexually instead acts out those feelings on other young boys at an older age.

All speculation of course, but I just wanted to highlight the possibilities and human side of things for those who might not have thought about the consequences of the stigmas against gay men.

 

None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, which is the court's finding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The discussion has wandered far afield, mainly because of the efforts to demonize gay people.

Exhibit A:

The point of the above qoute is to fatally derail the conversation, so that we're no longer discussing the topic (the court decision), and now bogged down with demands to debunk the obvious hatemongering being submitted. The clear goal is to paint such a negative picture of gay people that one is persuaded to take a position against marriage equality for same-sex couples based not on the merits of the case, but on a reaction to rhetoric that reinforces prejudices. There is no attempt made to understand why the gay population faces a disproportionate level of certain ills, and every attempt made to portray those ills as the product of homosexuality - in an exercise of denial and refusal to acknowledge the real culprits - societal rejection, systemic discrimination, and outright abuse from their detractors.

Cherrypicking the research doesn't give anyone a clear understanding of the issues - it's just being used here to reinforce prejudices and ignorance.

As such, the thread is probably beyond redemption - exactly what those arguing off-topic with this BS likely hoped to achieve. So long as this kind of behavior is allowed to continue, the quality of the discussions taking place in the forum will suffer decline.

So I urge those reading and posting here to think long and hard about whether or not they want to continue to participate in such a pointless war of words with people who have one goal: Make life as miserable as possible for those they so clearly despise. I see no compassion here, despite the frivoulous use of that word.

 

In a modest defense of Silhouette, I do appreciate their quote " [so he is deserving of your compassion]" with regard to giving compassion to gay men suffering from mental illness as a result of having been molested. Compassion is the first step in trying to understand and help them, and I believe it shows an open mind.

I believe Silhouette is guilty of being overprotective of children, which is an admirable quality. I'd almost rather the protection of children above the consideration of gay men. Of course her same rhetoric may also negatively impact gay children, leading them to their own mental disorders... and so may be self-defeating (hurts gay children), and self-confirming (the hurt gay children serve as examples to fuel her beliefs) at the same time.

Anyway, just don't want to quite accuse Silhouette of demonizing anyone... just misplaced priorities, at worst, and a true fear for the threat of gay pedophiles at best.

Now when dixon tells you to "slither away", that's demonizing without a cause .

Anyway, yay for the OP and sticking to the topic...

 

Within the population there are a good deal more than the 1.5% that are gay males who have been molested. The % is nearer to 20%. That leaves 18.5% that don't turn gay. Right at that point your theory goes all to hell. If you included females who are molested about 70% of the population would have to be gay to prove your silly numbers correct. Since gays represent a small minority of 3% of the total global population your wrong as are your numbers. Simple logic and math proves you entirely off base and your link as well.
That's all I need to state I have no desire to impress you.

 

No, you'll need to state more. You're trying though, which is good, but there are some factors you left out:

Namely: closeted homosexuals within the hetero ranks. They could easily account for the "lacking numbers" you cite. Add to that that most men will simply not discuss having been molested as a boy...until their closeted issues pop up in funny places...and they get caught. Then they wind up in therapy. But they'll receive no help there, only to "embrace their gayness".

Here's a little ditty about that, while we're on the topic:

 

Doesnt even contradict the theory. Obviously you havent yet even comprehended the theory.

 

Yes 67% of the heterosexual population are actually gay. Right. Okay what do you have for me next. You are saying that 70% of the world's population is gay. Do you even think before you type?

 

Actually, your source did have a little bit to say about this. A few lines below what you quoted:

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

So it doesn't have to be the case that closeted homosexuals who hav been abused themselves hide it until they end up in "funny places", then the truth about their own molesting comes out. The source that it could be fabricated by individuals that are motivated to get lesser sentences and sympathy.

Not saying one is true or the other, but I am saying you're jumping to conclusions when you simply believe the first scenario.

 

Pardon me, what the hell are you even talking about? You make zero sense. Maybe after you complete preschool you might want to try a debate.

 

Why the same thing you are talking about, of course.

You didnt even contradict the theory, let alone show it all goes to hell.

 

The story you lay out is plausible and I think worth consideration. Molestation can effect people in serious ways, and in the process of getting therapy for the molestation, I'd support the choices and desires of the individual for whatever sexuality they are choosing.

What I would not support is making them feel bad about the orientation or that it must change, that they are weird, unwanted, going to hell, disgusting creatures. I find this to be a more plausible cause for a child committing suicide than your own, since homosexuals can and do raise families despite their orientation.

I'll also just point out again that your sources (from what I saw) did not lay out the frequency of your given scenario. "epidemic" and "pervasive" are big sounding words, but they don't actually mean anything beyond "disproportional". Even if gay pedophiles are more likely to have been abused than hetero pedophiles, that could just means gays are more likely to become pedophiles when abused... it doesn't have to mean that their abuse actually caused them to be gay.

 

That's nice. But the gay lobby does not support choices and has laid out fascist guidelines to remove the license of any mental health practitioner who seeks to do so, even at the request/pleadings or even suicidal condition of his or her patient:

There are no disqualifications expressed or implied by this fascist mandate like "unless you client really wants reparative therapy" or "it might prevent his suicide" or "other reason your client really wants it".

There was no mention in the fascist mandate above about calling a patient derogatory names or coercion of any kind. It only addressed "reparative therapy" which is the practice of helping a person who doesn't want homosexual or other paraphilic-compulsions like necrophilia or beastiality etc. etc. [sky is literally the limit], be rid of those compulsions. The fact that that type of therapy is difficult or controversial doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting if a patient is desperate and on the point of suicide and wants no part even in "loving support of his condition". Especially if that condition arose from being molested. This would be like mandating that women victims of molestation experiencing compulsive sexual behaviors like prostitution, should be told to "embrace your behavior, it's perfectly natural"..

Here's the scenario again because its context is important in regards to discussion the pros and cons of attempting patient-requested reparative therapy:

That again is not just my "given scenario". It is the scenario of anyone who can easily put obvious and related facts together. They used to have exercises to so this in preschool, I remember. "What goes with what". Very young children could see the connection if they were able to have a vocabulary as we do. Also, the CDC chose the words "epidemic" and "pervasive" not by accident. If they had meant "disproportional" they surely would have said that instead. They conveyed exactly what they meant to say. And this bears even more weight when you consider how hotly-debated that topic was at the time of their publication of the results, even more hotly contested today and they STILL haven't even withdrawn the words "epidemic" and "pervasive" as described here:

Then you said this:

Yes, they are more likely to become pedophiles when abused. And having been sexually-abused as kids is a "pervasive" "epidemic" among gay men. So becoming or even being a pedophile is a predictable expectation of any gay man therefore. Not that every gay man you meet will have succombed or have been molested, just that most of them have. Hence the word "pervasive" instead of "disproportionate".

Yes, true, there are exceptions, strong-willed surviviors I suppose who have suffered child sexual abuse and haven't succombed to the abused-abuser phenomenon. Hat's off to them.

 

No amount of logic or reason will penetrate the self-reinforcing walls of prejudice that comprise the fortress of bigotry, ill will and wanton ignorance that some people construct for themselves. Attempts persuade them will only be met with more repetition, as if the act of repeating the distortions and bad extrapolations, mortared with BS to hold them together, will make the lies true.

 

You don't even make sense.

 

you really need to consult a dictionary and look up the meaning of epademic and pervasive. When they said the bird flu was an epidemic, did they mean that MOST people had it? no. If they meant "most people", the would have said something as such. Consult a dictionary.

In particular, look up epidemic, because that was the word used in your source to describe sexual abuse. Pervasive was used to describe substance abuse.