LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

The world renowned Mayo Clinic is anti-gay--right?

You dishonestly truncated my post in a silly attempt to avoid facing my actual argument.
Here is the full response again in hopes that you will not play the same game.

I have already shown the problem with the statistics in that paper. In particular, the fact they use simply t-tests with multiple comparisons as a first screen. This is a great way to create many false positives. It is why people in bioinformatics will often use corrections to avoid this type of error (for example, a bonferoni correction).
This is based upon the fact that I have actually read the regenerus paper. You still haven't read the original paper and only cite biased sources.




This is not supported by your evidence.
If you were not anti-gay, than you would advocate for gay marriage as it would clearly be a health benefit for the couples AND their children.
If you were not anti-gay, then you would not rely soley on biased/bigoted sources to find anti-gay propaganda and completely avoid reading the actual research sources.
If you were not anti-gay, you wouldn't selectively use arguments to argue against gay marriage that could equally (and even more appropriately) be applied to other groups (E.g., poor)

Perhaps you believe you aren't anti-gay. I would not be surprised by this. In the 50s, people who supported segregation often didn't believe they were racist. They simply thought that blacks were better off having their own "separate but equal" resources.

Importantly,
Not that I was responding to your reference to the regenerus paper, who is at UT Austin and not the mayo clinic. Why you even mention mayo clinic is beyond me. It doesn't support anything that you are attempting to claim.

 

[joobz]

I think there is some truth in what you say. I also think self-guilt is a factor.

Much like how a white girl with racist parents feels guilt when she falls in love with a black man?

 

[halleyscomet]

I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.

According to the Kinsey research, anal sex is more common among straight couples than gay male couples. Using anal sex to argue that homosexuality is more dangerous than being straight is based more on 1950's era misconceptions than reality.

 

[skyrider44]

You mean the very same precautions straight couples take? How exactly are they different?

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I will supply figures/sources in a separate post (out of time for now).

 

[skyrider44]

. . . You've provided a solution without a problem . . . .

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

You're premise doesn't match your conclusion.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

 

[skyrider44]

This sort of intellectual dishonesty shown by deliberate misusing sources is, IMO, the result of rationalising the need to accept Smith's frauds regarding the BoM and the BoA.
It's why accepting lies 'for the greater good' is so pernicious, in my view.

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

Surely you aren't serious.

 

[Loss Leader]

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men.

Your logic weaves from wrongly assigning individuals traits because they are sometimes observed in groups to wrongly assigning groups traits that are sometime observed in individuals. It's a gordian knot of poor reasoning.

In fact, the main reason the wife of a straight couple need not take the same precautions is because of monogamy. Once both partners commit to each other, no new sexually transmitted diseases can enter the equation. THE EXACT SAME is true of homosexual couples. They can't catch a sexually-transmitted disease that neither person has.

By that logic, you should be in favor of gay marriage. It encourages pair-bonding and monogamy. It discourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Of course, if you just consider gay people to be sinners who must be marginalized until they give up their ways and embrace the Mormon idea of God ... then none of these arguments really matter.

 

[bruto]

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

Nonetheless, the evidence that this practice is widespread among heterosexuals is never used as an argument to prevent heterosexual marriage from occurring, and that suggests that it should never be used as an argument to prevent any marriage from occurring. Since I have a sometimes unpopular habit of wanting to argue one thing at a time, I will add my usual caveat: this would be the case even if the allegation is true.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

I am not sure I much agree with the last sentence, but that matter of opinion aside, I must note that the answer, which rather unusually is entirely your own and in your own words, is also directly responsive to the issue. You should take a lesson from yourself!

 

[joobz]

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends.

not true AT ALL. Unless, of course, you believe the high rates of AIDS in africa aren't of heterosexual couples.
But then, I am sure you could find some anti-gay bigoted site making such a claim.

Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

Surely you aren't serious.

I wonder why,if you thinki that potential harm to children is the litmus test for being allowed the benefits and protections of civil marriage, you are not incensed about this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/suffer-the-children-faith-healing-horrors-idaho

Do notice that the victims were not, for instance, led to have gender issues, or subjected to hazing by their peers--they were killed. Do notice by whom they were killed...

 

[joobz]

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

You once again snipped out the entire point of the argument.
evidence is conclusive that being from low socioeconomic parents is a bad for child health.
You can't honestly say the same for gays parents.

This means that unless you advocate for preventing poor people from marrying (as you are advocating for gays), your position isn't rationally driven but prejudicial bigotry driven.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

No study has shown that married gay couples are bad for children. We cannot have such a study until we have gay marriage. So, by your own argument, society will have a problem until it permits this test to be made.

Given the clear indication that stable families are good for children, allowing gays to marry will provide gays an avenue to enhance family stability.

If your real intent is protection of children (And not pure bigotry), you should be advocating for gay marriage. Not against it.

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

Given the fact that you fail to read the papers and have intentionally omitted lines from papers that contradict your position, this is a classic case of projection.
The Regenerus study is the only one that even comes close to suggest that gay couples may correlate with worse child outcomes. And that study uses rather loose statistical approaches to make these claims. I'd be happy to debate this with you. There are some important things to learn from the study.

But I am willing to bet you will avoid this discussion.

 

[skyrider44]

Note: In Post 144, the site name should be "Gay Star News." I apologize for the error.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The world renowned Mayo Clinic is anti-gay--right?

Is this equivocation, or are you, in fact, being disingenuous?

The rabidly anti-homosexual group referred to is the soi dissant "American College of Pediatricians", a hate group who chose their name to foster confusion with the American Academy of Pediatricians. The ACP's primary claim to fame is their penchant for mischaracterization and misuse of legitimate research.

The same ACP that authored the screed at the link you provided:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

in which may be found among other unsupported howlers:

c. Human Waste

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.30 This practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of analgenital contact.

Note the implication that coprophilia is a prevalent, uniquely homosexual, activity--with no support of either claim. Even if it were, in fact, common, and were, in fact, limited to homosexuals (do NOT search "Two Girls One Cup"), you have yet to make the connection between the idea that some homosexual men do dangerous things, and the idea that, therefore, NO homosexual couple should be allowed the benefits and protections of civil marriage, and NO homosexual couple should be allowed to raise children.

This is particularly puzzling given your sect's support of post-divorce remarriage, and your sect's silence in the face of the problem of evangelicals killing their children through child-raising techniques said to be "based on" the bible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It appears you are unable to denigrate the integrity of the findings proper--findings backed by unbiased medical researchers and practitioners. That would seem to leave you with no recourse but to compare thosel medical professionals to the KKK. I don't find that to be a very compelling--not to mention fair--argument.

Obviously you failed to read the linked I provided.

In an amicus brief, the National Association of Social Workers described ACPeds as a "small and marginal group" which was "out of step with the research-based position of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities."

PFLAG identifies the American College of Pediatricians as an anti-equality organization, describing the group as a "small splinter group of medical professionals who do not support the mainstream view of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) that homosexuality is a normal aspect of human diversity."

Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, found his research being cited by ACPeds to argue that schools should deny support to gay teenagers. Remafedi complained that ACPeds had fundamentally mischaracterized his work, saying: "It's obvious that they didn't even read my research. I mean, they spelled my name wrong every time they cited it." Remafedi complained to ACPeds that his work was being misrepresented, but the organization refused to correct or retract its assertions, leading Remafedi to state that ACPeds had "deliberately distorted my research for malicious purposes."

Responding to claims by ACPeds that same-sex attraction could be "cured", Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, denounced ACPeds' use of his work, noting it was "disturbing" to see ACPeds use his scientific work in a "misleading and incorrect" way by taking work from one of his books out of context to "support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encouraged prejudice" against school children.

Warren Throckmorton, a therapist who specializes in sexual orientation issues, similarly complained that his research had been misused, saying of ACPeds: "They say they're impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they're affiliated with and how they're using the research, that's just obviously not true."

Facts About Youth was challenged as not acknowledging the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Given that you have posted or linked to a number of sources that actually contradict your arguments, obviously having not read them fully, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to read the links that others post, either.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

Is it OK to have sex with the lights on?

 

[Brainache]

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

Surely you aren't serious.

It certainly predisposes them to ignore facts in favour of ideology.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So, accepting the BoM and BA predisposes Latter-day Saints to accept certain research that shows children are harmed by being raised by same-sex parents.

Surely you aren't serious.

I'm sure pakeha is being very serious. You've already demonstrated that you will ignore glaringly obvious evidence regarding the founder of your religion, why should we expect you to acknowledge scientific institutions that say that homosexuality is a normal aspect of human behavior?

 

[RandFan]

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . You are saying that all gays have mental problems.

I have said no such thing. The Mayo Clinic listed mental problems as one of the areas about which homosexuals should be vigilant.

Divest yourself of this notion.

I can't because I never had "this notion" in the first place.

Are some of the mental problems suffered by heterosexuals the result of non self-imposed guilt? What about bisexuals? Do they suffer from self-imposed and non self-imposed guilt on alternate days?

I don't know.

 

[skyrider44]

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

Again, I haven't said anything about the number of children gays and lesbians can have. What is your point?