Posted on 12/29/2002 8:59:44 AM PST by scripter
a biblical case can be built that any sexual activity other than heterosexual intercourse is immoral. A case can be built that any sexual activity other than heterosexual intercourse is biologically wrong. ( A man was designed to 'fit' into only one place on a woman. Only that place is designed with the proper characteristics to recieve a man). Therefore these same acts can be called unnatural.
I agree.
But my point was that natural and normal sexual intercourse which is by God's design and completely moral does not necesssarily always produce offspring.
Therefore the argument that homosexuality is wrong simply because it is not procreative, is not by itself enough of a reason to call it immoral.
We need to add that homosexuality is wrong because it violates both God's biological design and His created intent for sexuality.
How about "sodomy is inherently unsanitary and spreads disease that jeopardizes the survival of our species. It is a public health hazzard."
We need to add that homosexuality is wrong because it violates both God's biological design and His created intent for sexuality.
Agreed. But when discussing with the godless libertines a biblically based argument doesn't hold too much weight. They quickly revert to sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you" so I try to keep to biological/physiological arguments when I can.
I know the truth, you know the truth, everyone deep down knows the truth, but some people refuse to let go of their sin long enough to accept that what they know deep down may actually be true. Why do those who practice homosexuality loathe themselves? because they know it's wrong.
GSA(P)
PS: Ever talked to or glanced at a whore without a fleeting thought of what she/he does every night? Have you caught yourself telling yourself not to think about it, not to be revolted, but to be adult and ignore the behavior 'visuals' and to distract yourself and talk/think about any subject except that, the physical reality, the physical behavior? Do you turn your inner face away and to put on a 'adult' face as if it doesn't bother you in the slightest? What ever the sin, there's no slinking away from the acts you commit. Its why criminals have such a hard time of it. You can't kill off your conscience.
I am turning broadside here to the scorned and labelled ignorant for sure with my psycho babble cal fot a 'reality check', but its a clumsy attempt to be new fashioned like you and talk learned and adult. I certainly have to catch myself being revolted by the behavior, the vice, and I think most people do it too, especially around gays and lesbians. Anyone back me up?
Maybe all the people outside America like me, in our millions and billions, in our non-West-Hollywood-backwater-hick-nations, see Queer As Folk or Will & Grace as sick/twisted, not cool. I wonder if they watch those TV shows in the AIDS hospice wards or just Philadelphia weepers? Wouldn't that stuff and worse, like gay porn, be classed as 'inappropriate' in shrink-speak? I expect so but I've never seen one of those SSAD places.
BTW, some trivia. Is 'adult' a contraction of 'adulterated'?
This is due to the fact that you refuse to accept any evidence as legitimate. For example, you claim that the evidence is "archaic" when the most frequently-cited source was published in 1978, and two of the more frequently-cited sources (the Dutch study and the Oxford longevity study) were published in 2001.
I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of Kinsey. There is a lot of his work that's next to useless. But later in his career, after he learned the proper methodology (his formal training was in zoology, after all), he produced very reliable results. As I've already pointed out at least twice, Gebhard & Johnson carefully sifted through all of Kinsey's work, separated the wheat from the chaff, and re-published the portion that was methodologically sound.
If you disagree with Cameron's interpretation of all these research results, then by all means, explain to us where he went astray. I went looking for the sources he cited during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend two years ago. I found about 70% of Cameron's sources, including Bell & Weinberg, Jay & Young, Gebhard & Johnson, and the International Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Interpersonal Violence and Pediatrics.
All of Cameron's interpretations of the data appeared to be perfectly legitimate to me. But if you can prove that he is distorting the research findings of others in the works I've cited, then thrall me with your acumen, Clarisse.
The removal from the diagnostic manuals was illegitimate because it resulted from political pressure, harassment and deception, not research. The issue is the improper removal of homosexuality from the list of emotional disorders.
May I recommend a candid discussion with your physician regarding whether he considers anal sex to be "natural" and the medical consequences of a lifetime of anal sex. If I may be so bold, that thing was never intended to go in there. It's too large and it's at the wrong angle.
Compared to the vaginal wall, the rectal lining is extremely thin, fragile and absorptive. It is easily ruptured; and even when it isn't, it is easily infected by whatever viruses and bacteria might accompany an ejaculation. (Yes, Virginia, a 50% condom failure rate during anal sex is very relevant.)
It should be pointed out that reaching any consensus about the exact number of homosexual men or women exhibiting this or that characteristic is not the aim of our study. The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators' samples as well as of our own precludes any generalizations about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted."Bell AP & Weinberg MS, Homosexualities, page 22
If this was not the aim of their study, since you have a copy of Bell & Weinberg's study at your fingertips, would you care to share with us what was the aim of their study?
Bell & Weinberg posted meticulous, detailed results on a wide array of issues relating to homosexuality. The very same foreword you've cited explains their vigorous efforts to obtain a more representative sample. What was the point?
And is it possible to obtain a representative sample and conduct research from which conclusions may be extrapolated to the entire homosexual and bisexual population? If it's not poossible, why bother to study them at all?
If no one can draw any conclusions from any of their research work, Bell & Weinberg have created an exercise in futility.
I've heard some generalized complaints about Cameron's early work, and of course seen madg's comprehensive complaint about his reliability, based on an old accusation of bad methodology freely indulged in, 20 years ago or something.
What I would like to know is whether the Bird Man of Alcatraz could be rehabilitated in ways that Paul Cameron can't be, and whether Cameron's compilation is as bad as his research was supposed to be. A specific example or two would help.
Of course, this claim of yours doesn't change the fact that a universal diagnosis of homosexuality as a pathology was removed from the DSM in response to political pressure, in the complete absence of any new, peer-reviewed research, and therefore it belongs back in the DSM as an emotional disorder.
I've got a copy of Bell & Weinberg's study checked out from our local public library. What would you like to know?
And is it possible to obtain a representative sample and conduct research from which conclusions may be extrapolated to the entire homosexual and bisexual population? If it's not poossible, why bother to study them at all?
Without knowing what the entire population of homosexuals and bisexuals is, I don't believe it is possible. That's why I've been harping on your to provide a definition of what a "homosexual" is -- you spent an entire section telling us Kinsey was wrong because only 1-3% of the population identifies as "homosexual", and then the rest of the essay relying on data for people who have behaved homosexually. (To the best of my knowledge, Kinsey studied behavior, not identity.)
Surely you know that there's more people who behave homosexually than identify with it, and if you want to include "bisexuals", identified and/or behavioral, there's another whole set of numbers to confuse things.
Why study them? Because those studies are generally accurate for the circumstances under which they were taken.
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.