Goodness. I had a little idea I hope will help us cover cases like these. If you want to pursue the kind of Bible-y things Zevn, marioguy, and JDavidC have brought up, make use of this thread. I hope it works out okay, and you guys find it useful. =)
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century
- Thread starter CSolarstorm
- Start date
Goodness. I had a little idea I hope will help us cover cases like these. If you want to pursue the kind of Bible-y things Zevn, marioguy, and JDavidC have brought up, make use of this thread. I hope it works out okay, and you guys find it useful. =)
Oh, JDavidC, I know you mean very well to bring this type of thing to the debate but my poor nerves can only take so much.
I despise these arguments. All of them. Now, debating out of rage is probably the worst thing one can do when trying to support one's argument but my goodness, if I don't get this off my chest I think I just might explode. Now, I'm a simple minded individual so don't expect me to be one hundred percent on the ball here. Also, I'm well aware that debate is largely a Sisyphean task, it would be much easier if I just closed my laptop and climbed in bed and went to sleep knowing just how right I am, while my opponent does the same... Yes I mad, so I choose to forgo all eloquent language at this point.
Basically I want you to watch me flail as I try to reason with what I just read. Dr. Fitzgibbons has spent his life combating the evils of gayness, so obviously he's more knowledgeable in this field than I am and I'm sure he's heard every argument in the book and has a nice, logical rebuttal planned for anything that can be said... But here goes nothing.
I'll begin with my weakest argument. Yeah, okay buttsex is dirty (dooky comes from your bum, y'know) and facilitates the transmission of disease. Yeah, that part is true, no one can deny that the walls in your anus and colon tear easily, allowing for all sorts of evil nasties to get transmitted. Some see it as a pitiful substitution for good ol' fashioned American vaginal intercourse. But wait! Plenty of heterosexual couples d- Oh wait, Dr. Fitzgibbons already covered that in his article. Damn... It's disproportionately more common in gay guys. Game over, all gays spread these horrible diseases... Oh wait... Not all gay guys do buttsex? Lord, I know I'm one of those rare gays who hasn't! Now, I might be the exception to the rule here, but all of this seems like it could very well be an argument against anal sex more than anything. Yeah, we get it... Gay guys do it in the butt more often. But this is a problem that's not solely due to sexual orientation.
I don't think two guys expressing their love by kissing, experiencing mutual masturbation or using certain... erm... toys in lieu of an anal intercourse will be spreading any disease, really. Gay guys aren't inherently filthy just because they're gay.
Now he goes on to list all the depression, suicidal tendencies and other psychological impairments that are so very common among gay men are not in any way linked to homophobia (Tsk! Gay Agenda's makin' up words again, hoohoo) thanks to a study done in the Netherlands (they love gays more than any other country!) that shows that homosexual persons have a higher risk for these illness.
Well, although the Netherlands might be the land of humanitarian actions. Vocal discrimination against gay individuals (although not as common) do occur there... They have words that translate to "filthy homo" and "******" there. It's true that there's less homophobia in The Netherlands... But you can't just dismiss the fact that a person's depression or suicidal tendencies may not come from the feelings of rejection and self-hatred that come from homophobia... No, it doesn't work that way. Those who are gay still feel different, we're constantly reminded of it... I know this panders to emotion, which is a big faux pas in debate but seriously now...
We're in a society where we hear people say things like this on a daily basis. We hear it outside, we hear it on the internet, some of us heard it in our own homes growing up. It's depressing... It's very... VERY depressing. It's also depressing that folk say "that's gay" as an insult, I understand the linguist approach to this is that "word's meaning change over time!" But the fact of the matter is that insult stems from the fact many individuals think that "being gay is the worst. Possible. THING!" When a major part of who you are is used as an insult day in and day out, it can take its toll on a person's well being.
I'm not one to dismiss that a gay person's brain might be fundamentally different than a heterosexual's and therefore more attune to different psychological states but I wholly believe that being treated as a stain on society can make a person feel totally depressed...
I've read this man's work before. He's a man with an agenda clearly... And he believes the homosexual population has an agenda as well... It's all too pointless to try and argue, though... He'll use his final breath to further condemn the homosexual population. He believes homosexuality is caused by a lack of male confidence in one's self, he believes in the Freudian myth that lack of a good father-son bonding in early stages can cause homosexuality.
He believes gay men should evaluate themselves and let go of their emotional attachment to their homosexuality, he wants us to let go of our sexual identity to which we cling so vehemently. He wants us to admit that we've been wrong all along. He wants us to submit to the idea that our particular brand of love is flawed; that it was created by a life of abuse. We're spreading disease and we're all sick. We need treatment. We need the Lord.
And to think when I was young, my mom taught me that it was okay for men to be gay. I saw two men loving each other the same way I saw a man and a woman loving each other. Now I know that they're just sick, they will probably cheat on eachother (because all gay men are ****s) and spread type F hypochlamydial SuperGRIDS across the world. Oh hyperbole... I'm sorry.
This has been productive. I know in my writing style I come across as silly and maybe a tad flippant. But I'm actually gravely hurt when I read things like this. Perhaps this is proof enough that I should stay away from debate... But this sorrow doesn't come from a refusal to reflect upon myself and the "whys" of my homosexuality. I'm me, I live with myself I house all my thoughts and you better be certain that I think about this all the time... Yeah, I'm gay. Yeah I went through some **** as a kid, yeah I've been made fun of. Did these experience shape my mind into being broken and gay? I don't think so. Does my sadness come from being gay? I don't think so. Am I sad because there are individuals out there that force me to second-guess myself at every turn and fill my heart with self-doubt? You bet.
Last edited:
That link I gave was to someone's opinion, to let people have a look at something else, however, I am NOT using it as part of any of my own arguments, nor am I going to claim that I agree or disagree with it in any way (unless I decide to analyse it, which happens later). It would take a great deal of additional time to try to find varying opinions that do not have the slightest hint or shred of bias, along with opinions from experts... I would like to offer my sincerest apologies for linking to the article which caused you so much pain, however, I would like to add that I was not aware that something like this would happen. BTW, it's admirable how calm you remained despite being in a rage. Also:
I decided to have a look at that article I linked. There are some concerns I do have about what he says towards the end. Specifically, an 'us and them' mentality appears to pop up. Furthermore, he is arguing from religious viewpoints, but has he thought to SERIOUSLY question the applicability of said viewpoints for situations that crop up today? I really do not think so. He states opinions about not having a father or a mother as being detrimental (as opposed to a homosexual couple), but the only source he gives, if any, would be to a doctrine, which may not have been tested properly for the current conditions. I'm now going to go into personal opinion and intuition. I'm getting a strong feeling that this man is rather biased, and views alternatives to the norm as so awful that it influences what he believes, and how he behaves. I don't really have the time to go and take a look at some of the sources he did mention, so I am going to have to see what I can do with what he did say. I'm going to use a form of argument called 'ad hominem circumstantial', given that I am unable to analyse his argument fully on its own merits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial
As I am not a medical expert, the best I can do is an appeal to authority (medical experts), but this is more based on probabilities of statements being true, rather than logical black-and-white cases. Ad hominem arguments may be used when not dealing with black-and-white cases, if you know what you're doing (claims of bias for example). Based on my intuition, I'm going to use this argument to attack the bias I see, especially as he uses sources that are from people likely (IMO) to share the same bias. Furthermore, he mentions risks of being homosexual, but he does not go into possible causal links between orientation and some of the risks, e.g. ostracising leading to depression/suicides etc. He focuses too much on his own side of the argument, without giving the other side any serious consideration. Furthermore, it appears he is be a part of a group of Christians in the Roman Catholic Church ('Catholic Medical Association' gives it away, can't believe I missed that) that may not have analysed the Bible seriously enough, to test it for validity in today's situations. There is further discussion on that matter in the tangent topic that Profesco created. I think he's fallen into the same trap that so many Christians fall into, failure to critically analyse the teachings in the Bible, even though the Bible supports being critical (see my previous posts and the tangent topic). I don't feel like analysing his argument any further, and I'm going to ultimately reject it on the grounds of being too one-sided in focus, along with bias. To be more technical, the 'evidentiary weight' of the argument is horribly crippled by bias, so much so that I cannot accept it as being likely to be the truth.
I agree with this 100%. In the tangent topic, I was thinking of alternatives to homosexual sex, alternatives that take health risks and tear them apart utterly. I will say, however, that heterosexual people going into homosexual relationships is almost certainly a catastrophically bad idea.
I decided to have a look at that article I linked. There are some concerns I do have about what he says towards the end. Specifically, an 'us and them' mentality appears to pop up. Furthermore, he is arguing from religious viewpoints, but has he thought to SERIOUSLY question the applicability of said viewpoints for situations that crop up today? I really do not think so. He states opinions about not having a father or a mother as being detrimental (as opposed to a homosexual couple), but the only source he gives, if any, would be to a doctrine, which may not have been tested properly for the current conditions. I'm now going to go into personal opinion and intuition. I'm getting a strong feeling that this man is rather biased, and views alternatives to the norm as so awful that it influences what he believes, and how he behaves. I don't really have the time to go and take a look at some of the sources he did mention, so I am going to have to see what I can do with what he did say. I'm going to use a form of argument called 'ad hominem circumstantial', given that I am unable to analyse his argument fully on its own merits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial
As I am not a medical expert, the best I can do is an appeal to authority (medical experts), but this is more based on probabilities of statements being true, rather than logical black-and-white cases. Ad hominem arguments may be used when not dealing with black-and-white cases, if you know what you're doing (claims of bias for example). Based on my intuition, I'm going to use this argument to attack the bias I see, especially as he uses sources that are from people likely (IMO) to share the same bias. Furthermore, he mentions risks of being homosexual, but he does not go into possible causal links between orientation and some of the risks, e.g. ostracising leading to depression/suicides etc. He focuses too much on his own side of the argument, without giving the other side any serious consideration. Furthermore, it appears he is be a part of a group of Christians in the Roman Catholic Church ('Catholic Medical Association' gives it away, can't believe I missed that) that may not have analysed the Bible seriously enough, to test it for validity in today's situations. There is further discussion on that matter in the tangent topic that Profesco created. I think he's fallen into the same trap that so many Christians fall into, failure to critically analyse the teachings in the Bible, even though the Bible supports being critical (see my previous posts and the tangent topic). I don't feel like analysing his argument any further, and I'm going to ultimately reject it on the grounds of being too one-sided in focus, along with bias. To be more technical, the 'evidentiary weight' of the argument is horribly crippled by bias, so much so that I cannot accept it as being likely to be the truth.
Last edited:
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy.JDavidC said:
No, really. This is a Pokemon forum. If experts weren't valid sources of something, what the heck is?
I never said it was. I stated that I was doing it on the basis of not being in a black-and-white scenario, where I claim something is definitely true or false. If I was in a black-and-white scenario, using appeal to authority to state that their conclusion is definitely true would be a logical fallacy.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
That still depends on the subject/scenario in question.
Is there a consensus of experts that agree? Then it most definitely can be used for black-and-white scenarios. Is it a single person, single organization, and one-of-a-kind hypothesis or theory that is still being conducted in research? Then it wouldn't be good in the black-and-white scenario.
Is there a consensus of experts that agree? Then it most definitely can be used for black-and-white scenarios. Is it a single person, single organization, and one-of-a-kind hypothesis or theory that is still being conducted in research? Then it wouldn't be good in the black-and-white scenario.
*stops lurking*
The "being gay is wrong because they have a higher chance of mental disorders" argument almost makes me want to hurt someone. Gee, I wonder what will happen when they live their entire lives with people like Doctor Ihavethetitledoctorinfrontofmynamesoimustberight telling them they're unnatural abominations who deserve eternal hellfire! Couldn't at all be tied together. This is a problem the homophobes have created entirely on their own, and they have the unmitigated ****ing gall to use it as an argument against homosexuality? Imagine if this was at the height of the KKK and the argument was "black people are inferior to white people because they get lynched a lot" and you'll have an idea of how absolutely despicable I find this argument. At least he tries to cover his *** by pointing at the Netherlands. Would this doctor change his mind and argue for homosexuality if gay marriage was legalized in his state/country? Unless his answer is for some bizarre reason "yes", he's just shot down his own argument. Homophobia doesn't disappear from a country the instant gay marriage is legalized. That's not how bigotry works.
In short: The people who use the depression argument against gays are almost always the kind of people who caused the problem in the first damn place.
*returns to lurking*
7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
@Snare that study showed it was linked to homophobia, don't think that it doesn't happen here.
Now I found it really hard to make something from your post.
Now I found it really hard to make something from your post.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Let's remember why JDavidC came from that angle and not forget about the subject by dragging it into something else. He was trying to justify homosexuality being discouraged in the Bible not for being a sin in and of itself, but for being a health risk. Or to be more accurate, anal sex being a health risk. There is a way to calmly correct him, especially since he was trying to help in his own misguided way. Defending yourself =/= passionately debating the hell out of him for offending you.
In short: could someone provide an actual source explaining the correlation between homophobia and gay suicide to actually disprove JDavidC rather than deriding him with sarcasm and implying that 'his kind' is causing the suicide? Thank you.
I was going to correct him myself with some figures of higher suicide rates in minorities, but a search on Yahoo shows that out of ethnic groups, 'caucasions' seem to have the highest suicide rate. So it's difficult to find a precedent for claiming, via statistics at least, that the high rate of sucide among gay people is due to discrimination/marginalization. Would be nice if we could get a better explanation for this besides theory or anecdotal logic.
In short: could someone provide an actual source explaining the correlation between homophobia and gay suicide to actually disprove JDavidC rather than deriding him with sarcasm and implying that 'his kind' is causing the suicide? Thank you.
I was going to correct him myself with some figures of higher suicide rates in minorities, but a search on Yahoo shows that out of ethnic groups, 'caucasions' seem to have the highest suicide rate. So it's difficult to find a precedent for claiming, via statistics at least, that the high rate of sucide among gay people is due to discrimination/marginalization. Would be nice if we could get a better explanation for this besides theory or anecdotal logic.
Last edited:
Yes, I said that homophobia does indeed happen in The Netherlands. Dr. Fitzgibbons claimed otherwise.
I want to make it clear that I never lumped JDavidC and Fitzgibbons together. The opinions expressed by Dr. Fitzgibbons are NOT JDavidC's, we are NOT debating against JDavidC as he is doing a formidable job exposing the potential faults in the article he posted.
And I do apologize for the first bit my initial post being sarcastic. I changed tone half way through, though still rather emotional.
I remember a long time ago we had a member named Wordy in the homosexuality debate, his post were sometimes copied and pasted directly from Fitzgibbons. It breaks my heart that there might be someone out there who listens to this man. It would be futile to argue with him though, as he clearly has an ultimatum set: Homosexuals are ill and need to be cured.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Okay. A few of these articles have something. Several of them explore homophobia as a factor in LGBT suicide, calling internalized homophobia a definate factor, and one talked about post-traumatic stress disorder among the LGBT who suffered bullying. So it's definately a cause, but I don't know if homophobia and general rejection of LGBT rights is the singular cause.
Also I see at least one of these studies saying that African-Americans have a higher suicide rate than 'caucasions', and that directly contradicts the last search I did.
Kind of makes sense that it would be harder to discrimination toward your sexual orientation than your race. Sexual orienation is more than skin-deep.
This thread makes me feel horrible sometimes.
I remember Wordy. And I was surprised to see you around again too. No problem, just trying to contain things.
Last edited:
SunnyC said:
It won't be that easy, unfortunately. As was touched upon in my recent reply to TFP, the correlation between homosexuality and suicide in teens is just that: a correlation. There is huge room for an ample number of influencing factors, which is why NARTH can't actually be said to justify its operations with the conclusion that being gay causes suicidality or the dangerous lifestyle they think it does. There are almost definitely lurking variables that influence those kinds of statistics. Indeed, to quote from the abstract of one of the Google Scholar results matt posted, regarding the correlation between health/well-being states and stress/abuse placed on gay youths: "Although the causal link between these stressors and outcomes has not been scientifically established, there is suggestive evidence that these outcomes are consequences of verbal and physical harassment." The best kind of scientific explanations we can hope for are just supportive evidence pointing to some one string of proposed causation over some other. An experiment with more causatively significant results would be nigh on impossible for a number of reasons, like the kind of longitudinal design it would require, the Herculean observation methodology, and a far better understanding of decision-making factors than we currently have.
At least as far as trying to determine this issue scientifically, we have more reason to attribute suicidality in gay teens to social/emotional stressors placed on homosexual teens than to the mere homosexuality of the teens itself. We know that things like stress, isolation, lack of healthy emotional support, depression, and abuse all heavily factor in suicidality, and we know that many of these things are still prevalent cultural conditions for gay teens. We don't know, however, that whatever it is that 'makes' someone gay also 'makes' them suicidal, as though it were either some sort of neurological defect or environmental anomaly contributing to both digressions from the "norm." This latter conclusion is belied by a lack of supporting evidence compared to the former (as far as I and the world's professional psychological associations have seen).
Brief lecture:
Researchers set up two opposing hypotheses: the Null and the Experimental. The Null hypothesis (hereafter just "Null") is always the "baseline" hypothesis and goes something like "The independent variable did not cause the variation in the dependent variable," while the Experimental, then, is "The independent variable did cause the variation in the dependent variable." The way experiments work is that we have two possible conclusions: we can reject the Null or we can fail to reject the Null. This means we either show enough of a statistical difference due to the IV to say that the Null is incorrect, or we don't.
In terms of our current topic, the body of research into suicide and homosexuality apparently consistently fails to reject the Null; that is, it fails to show enough statistical difference to form evidence that the IV (homosexuality) causes the variation (increase, in this case) in the DV (suicidality).
In terms of our current topic, the body of research into suicide and homosexuality apparently consistently fails to reject the Null; that is, it fails to show enough statistical difference to form evidence that the IV (homosexuality) causes the variation (increase, in this case) in the DV (suicidality).
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
That twitter page is really depressing.
I miss wordy. We used to get along.
As for the debate about whether one makes the suicide rates go higher because of bullies, I think it is a mix of both. I feel that when you are a minority, you feel that difference that separates you. This is whether someone makes you feel bad, or you just lack self-cofindence/motivation. Also, I mentioned the sucides among white to my friend, and he believes that it is because caucasions(can't spell) usually separate into their own groups. They do this more so than minorities. So even though they are the majority in this country, they can be the minority among each other. Does this make sense?
Profesco, I am still wrapping my head around your lecture. It makes sense but, meh.
As for the twitter page, it really made me laugh. I know that some people would be depressed, but one has to realize that when you are dealing with ignorant people, it is best to just shrug it off. Real life scenario, I work part time at target. One women's card declined, and then wanted to act like it is my fault. A whole lot of yelling and name calling later, she wants to call coporate on my manger and I. (Over a declined card. OMFG) When she left, all of us just burst out laughing because we hadn't done anything. Sometimes it is good to laugh at the people who hate you for no reason. (The lady refuses to come to my register.)
Internalized Homophobia. It is kind of interesting that someone would be afraid of themselves.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
A description of internalized racism, as a reference.
Wikipedia on internalized homophobia. ('-phobia' takes a scientific meaning as general aversion to, not 'fear')
Have you ever felt trapped in an image that other people see you as? In order to understand internalized homophobia, replace the word 'homophobia' with any sort of general prejudice. For example, imagine you were a werewolf. One day someone finds out and tells everybody at your work and your family, and anyone else you happen throughout your day. Now before everyone knew, you were fine being a werewolf. You had everything under control, you could live your life, the only thing was you just couldn't tell a lot of people because society doesn't really understand werewolves yet. Now that everyone knows, people are probably going to be nervous of you. Parents will shoo their kids away from you. A few people would call you a murderous monster, and you could probably imagine others wanting to say it. With this massive issue in the open and virtually everyone being disturbed by it, eventually you'll start thinking to yourself, 'I am a monster, aren't I?' That's what it means to internalize bigotry, only with internalized homophobia, the statement is, 'I am a monster for being gay, aren't I?'
Regardless of whether you think this is unrealistic behavior for you, it happens to people all the time and for virtually any reason. Did you see the thread about the guy in Misc who felt insecure because a kid wanted to play with him, and then the kid's mother told the kid to get away and called the guy a creep? It only took that one incident for the guy to say he felt profiled for being an adult man.
I have a friend who is developmentally disabled, and so many people teased him for being obsessed with trains, that he often told me that he knew he was a monster. (Sorry for being repetative, but that's where I got the term.) He internalized all the teasing so that he actually believed it.
There are still places in the world where women barely have any rights. If women are half of the population, why don't they rise up and take their rights? With everyone around them telling them they are inferior from the time they are born, the women end up believing that women are inferior, and that they naturally have no rights. They internalize the misogyny and it opresses them psychologically.
I could go on with a lot more examples. A lot of people are proud of how they think positive and overcome the challenges given to them, like how you talk about your experience at your job, and then they look at other people who aren't as fortunate and think that if they tried a little harder to be happy and just shrug it off, they could solve all of their problems. It's a nice thought, but that's just not the case. Bigger problems have more complex solutions than just keeping your chin up.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Exactly. Reminds me of Wicked.
Last edited:
mechajesus
Member
This.
This passage is just a way for liberal christians to justify homosexuality, while they conveniently forget that it is forbidden in several places.
I guess this post seems a little anti-gay but to clear things up I am a bisexual and an atheist.