Posted on 08/02/2018 2:58:40 PM PDT by Blue House Sue
On paper, everything was going well for Seth Owen. A valedictorian of a high school in Jacksonville, Florida, with a 4.16 grade-point average, the 18-year-old had been accepted to Georgetown University as part of its Class of 2022.
But he had left his parents’ house in February after they had given him an ultimatum to attend their church, after years of disagreements related to his sexuality - Owen is gay - or move out, he told NBC News. And Georgetown’s financial aid package for him had been calculated based on what his family was expected to contribute, leaving him with a $20,000 gap to pay the tuition for his first year.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Not at all. The lack is irrelevant to whether homosexuality is harmful—it is, and given the prevalence of fatal STDs; it can be logically extrapolated that male homosexuality decreases that cohort’s lifespan. It’s only a matter of degree that cannot be determined.
Your argument is literally like saying since we cannot determine the exact number of heroin addicts killed by fentanyl; then we shouldn’t advance any argument against heroin use.
What sense does that make? The issue is never the issue, and the argument is never the argument. The perfect is always the enemy of good.
The report, and the priciple “study” represent some apples vs oranges comparisons.
The principle study, from “Psychological Reports”, used obituary information from a “gay” newspaper. Scientfically it is anecdotal and self-reported, with no conclusions that can be drawn as to what portion of the “gay” population is even reported thus (most people’s deaths do not wind up with a printed obituary anywhere).
From that obituary data it was dissected as to which obituaries self-reported as due to aids/HIV, versus those that did not indicate aids/HIV. How many deaths did not report any cause of death was not identified. They then attempted in their study to correlate those “gay” newspaper obituaries with another study.
The other study is very scientific, but what exactly does it report. It reports, among other things, rates of death, by age, for persons with an HIV infection. NOT for “gay” people in general. Just PERSONS WITH AN HIV INFECTION.
And, does the second report (is it able) to tie that to a definite portion of the “gay” population altogether? No it does not.
So the final report abuses both studies. The initial one it cited and the more scientific report that study cited. (I have read them both.)
The “Psychological Reports” study only concluded a correlation between a sample of reported obituaries and causes of death (did it look for “gay” identifications” in deaths reported in other sources? No. Did it determine the rate of use of the “gay” community in reporting obituaries in the “gay” paper? No). That is why it could not conclude - it did not have the data - what portion of “gay” deaths in the survey are representative of the “gay” population in general. They could not even look to reliable data of deaths reported in newpaper published obituaries vs deaths not reported that way - “gay” or straight”. There is no examination of data that finds newpaper reported obituaries represent what % of all deaths. Those are just some of the principal study’s omissions. How represntative of the “gay” community were the obituaries it used? No conclusions could be drawn.
It - the principle study - then made an erroneous apples vs oranges correlation with conclusions, from another study, that were limited to one segment of one demographic - HIV infected persons. And they used that as if it was related to all “gay” persons; it wasn’t; it had no means to.
So they did not have obituary data that could be accurately representative of the entire “gay” community in the survey area, and then they matched that with data, and mortality strictly limited to HIV infected persons alone, and put the two together as if the principle subjects were the same.
They erred because scientifically, the mortality of HIV infected persons, even “gay” HIV infected persons, cannot be assumed to be the mortality rate of all “gay” persons.
That abuse is common in many reports and studies. One conclusion of limited nature is claimed to be applicable to a broader category that was not part of the data, or the study that produced the earlier conclusion.
Put simply, HIV infected persons cannot be used as a stand-in, demographicaly or statistically for all “gay” persons.
Yes, “gay” persons have much higher rates of HIV infection, and persons with HIV infections do have higher mortality rates, but that rate of mortality, specifically for HIV infected “gay” persons is also not a stand in for mortality for ALL “gay” persons. But that is what many erroneous studies and comparisons try to do.
A very large scientific survey of all “peer reviewed” studies in a large number of academic and scientific journals found that a majority were scientificially flawed.
The biggest error, across all politically biases, were the high rate of “studies” that merely reached for the conclusions they sought to begin with, and abused science to get there.
Again, this is not a moral argument about “gays”.
It is an argument that folks, even “Conservative” folks, should not accept “scientific” reports only because they fit their existing perceptions.
“Your argument is literally like saying since we cannot determine the exact number of heroin addicts killed by fentanyl; then we shouldn’t advance any argument against heroin use.”
No. I am saying arguments that try to put a number on it cannot be conclusive at all and shculd not be reported as facts. Yes, the death rate for all “gays” is most certainly lower due to the rate of deaths for HIV. But what is that lower rate, accuratately? There is none. So when someone says its X, and that X is a “fact” I know that is not proven true.
When deaths get reported as “gay” or “straight” accurate conclusions can be made as to “gay” mortality. Until then it is speculative, and should be spoken of as speculative, not as “fact”.
You seem to think your position is redeemable by positing “depravity” as subjective.
It is not.
We never had to make laws against sacrificing infants to Molock, either. That doesn’t me such activity isn’t universally recognized as “depraved.” (even by those practicing it)
Moreover, if you have to make laws protecting those who practice such activities, in an otherwise “live and let live” society, that’s a pretty good indicator your defending the indefensible.
No - you’re using lies, damned lies and statistics argument and slicing down conditions and details until you get the results you want.
As a self-proclaimed actuarial you’re well aware that the assumptions from those studies do, in fact, reflect the funding and coverage actions of those groups.
Or are you going to call all the lgbt groups that decry that suicide is higher and more prevalent in their community liars? Or that there’s been concerted efforts by the gay community to study their own health conditions they’re afflicted with (this study that Pooh Pooh as apples and oranges)
Using your own ill conceived scientism we could come up with a study that fits your credentials and you’d still decry it because it only applies to one country or one sub group and wasn’t indicative of worldwide Gaye’s
Then we’d do a study of world wide gays and you’d say that’s apples and oranges and only gay people of that one period of study and not a representation of gay people in general.
See, I can play this game too.
We will have to disagree. My only subject was “freedom” not whether anything is depraved.
Bright queer dims as he is forced from his house
The problem is "freedom" as you misconceive it, ALWAYS ends up subjugating its opposition...as can be easily demonstrated with how a relatively accepted homosexual community now seeks to injure those who opposed it on religious grounds.
The "freedom" you advocate for is the freedom of the Soviet Union.
We agree on that point. That is the lefty tactic. I do stop at an agenda where no longer is it freedom for thee and me, but tyranny for me and freedom for thee. We need to recognize it and call them on it.
How do we "call them on it" with those like you advocating for them from our side?
Do you deny the ascendant homosexual faction seeks to punish those who will not embrace their "choice?"
We are simply not gong to agree on the part you’re slapping me with. I agree there is a gay agenda that is now punishing the religious the way they themselves did not wish to be treated. So let’s end on that note of agreement.
There is one giant error in it all, that you keep ignoring.
It is not a question that “gay” men are more likley to engage in behavior risky to their health. For sure. Nor is it a question that “gay” men acquire HIV at a higher rate than others. Nor is it a question that persons with HIV have an shorter than average lifespan.
The error is how so many so-called “studies” attempt to attribute some identifiable shorter than average life span for “gay” men, and the conflate that same degree of a shorter life span to ALL “gay” men. Then, with those errors in hand the claim as “fact” an expectant lifespan for all “gay” men.
Conflating mortality for those with HIV to all “gay” men is an error. And there is no known, actuarially accepted, tally of deaths broken down as “gay” and “straight”, so their is no professional actuarially accepted average life span for all “gay” men.
THAT is not saying it is most likely lower than for straight men. It most likely is. All it says is that there is no reputable number for it. And when people try say a certain number representing a life span for all “gay” men is a fact, we know it is not a fact.
Didn’t read a word I said, did you?
We can end it, but we are NOT on a note of agreement.
YOU simply do not want to risk pursuing conclusions you know you won’t like.
YOU simply do not want to risk pursuing conclusions you know you won’t like.
To document, and hopefully reverse your lack of intellectual integrity; the same reason I start any argument.
“This place makes me feel so bad sometimes. A lot of you agree with getting rid of your child who might be gay.”
Children are not free to do as they please. The fact that the unacceptable behavior is the current fad has no bearing on the matter. Those who pay the bills set the rules—they can draw the line at heterosexual or homosexual activity, drugs, violence or simple disrespect.
An adult living under your roof is free to abide by the rules or leave—being able to leave is being free. If the parents forced the “child” (who is a legal adult) to stay, then they could be accused of not allowing their child freedom.
Too many today conflate freedom with license. Freedom is being responsible for yourself; doing whatever you please is licentiousness.
The same goes for the abuse of the word “love.” Love is not an emotion; it is an ongoing commitment to act in the best interest of another—often in contradiction to emotion. It’s not love to enable a drudge-addict; it’s not love to support self mutilation; it’s not love to physically/sexually/emotionally abuse another—even when one or both parties “enjoy” it. To even suggest such behaviors are acceptable is as far from love as possible.
It’s quite ironic that those yelling the loudest about freedom and democracy can’t understand the basic principles of reciprocity and responsibility. You’re free to act in accordance with the law, but I’m free to disagree with your actions and not be subjugated by a “democratic” totalitarianism (AKA: mob rule).
Intellectual integrity. Not sure I’m smart enough to understand that. Again, a win for you. But my logic is intact. I was only referring the the fact that freedom for all means different choices for different people. You brought up objective morality which was off topic.
Then why were you handing out moral judgements in your post #42? If you don't want to be judged, don't judge.
"Don't even see it," INDEED!
Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.