Replies

“How about this: Homosexuality can be a path that allows horribly abused people to work, love, and hope. “

”We can discuss income before and after homosexual relationships, prozac or other antidepressant use before and after homosexual relationships. “

”Ok, take hope out of it. I don't know how to quantify hope.”

Let me attempt to clarify for debate purposes and my own understanding your proposal:

I presume that you are proposing for debate purposes that your referenced “path’s” statistically significant existence would qualify as a “useful purpose” for homosexuality.

Unfortunately, I am confused as to several of your terms and their clarity as well as their potential purpose in a debate.

For example, one such term is “horribly abused people.” Presumably, you are referring to sexual abuse. However, as people can be “horribly abused” with physical and mental torture having nothing to do with sex, it is an important definitional distinction to establish. Without such distinction, one could posit in counter to your proposal that most, if not all, of the survivors of Saddam Hussein’s tortures are capable of work without resorting to homosexual behavior.

Similarly, it is important to establish the abuse victim’s circumstances during the abuse, i.e., pedophilia versus adult rape or sexual battery, etc. Again, it can be reasonably posited that most adult female rape survivors return to work without resorting to homosexual behavior.

Another equally important issue is your proposed exclusion (by omission in your terms) of homosexual behavior practitioners who have not been abused. According to my research, significant percentages of homosexual behavior practitioners, engage in this activity with no history of any “horrible abuse.” Excluding this group is statistically inappropriate to drawing any inferences and would skew any conclusions to the point of uselessness.

Unfortunately, I am also unclear on your proposed metrics for verifying the statistically significant existence of your proposed “path” that could allegedly qualify as a “useful purpose of homosexuality.”

Concerning “horribly abused people” and work: Is your proposal to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of “horribly abused people” who do not engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one as a measure to attempt a proof of existence and usefulness of this “path?” Alternately, are you proposing only to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job versus the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and do not have a job as a measure to attempt a proof of existence and usefulness of this “path?” Alternately (again), are you proposing to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of non-abused homosexual behavior practitioners who have a job or lack one? Alternately (yet again), are you proposing to use the number of “horribly abused people” who engage in homosexual behavior and have a job or lack one versus the number of heterosexual behavior practitioners who have a job or lack one?

Concerning “horribly abused people” and income as a measure: Your proposed basis of comparison is equally unclear. As some homosexual behavior practitioners begin at an age where neither they nor their heterosexual peers have any significant income, you would have to be more specific and exclusive if this measure is be a valid comparison of any sort. Additionally, the mere existence of a correlation, should one even exist, does not establish causality. You would need to establish a rigorous “control group” methodology to even begin to infer an element of causality.

Concerning “horribly abused people” and prozac or other medications as a measure: Your proposed basis of comparison is also unclear. As homosexual behavior practitioners may have other aliments (and sources for those ailments other than abuse) that these medications treat, you would have to be more specific and exclusive if this measure is be a valid comparison of any sort. Additionally, as with the income example above, the mere existence of a correlation, should one even exist, does not establish causality. You would, again, need to establish a rigorous “control group” methodology to even begin to infer an element of causality.

Concerning “horribly abused people” and “love” as a measure: While you conceivably could measure this dimension (and hope, for that matter) using psychometric survey techniques, there are other problems. Are you measuring “brotherly” love (phileo), “sexual” love (eros), “compassionate” love (agape), parental love (filial), love of money (philaguria), etc? I am afraid that this proposed metric is too problematic for inclusion in debate.

Finally there is perhaps the most important issue lacking in your proposed terms. That issue is the potential “costs” (I am using the term “costs” in all senses, not just financial) or detriments in contrast to benefits of your proposed “path,” if it exists in a statistically significant manner, at all. Mere existence does not, in, and of, itself, establish this “path’s” usefulness as a purpose for homosexual behavior. Generally speaking, something is “useful” only if its “costs” or detriments are exceeded by its benefits. Without including potential “costs” or detriments of your proposed useful purpose, it is equivalent to advocating that a mugger slashing a victim’s carotid artery serves the “useful purpose” of alleviating a victim’s hypertension without considering that the treatment “costs” the victim his life. It also ignores that diet, exercise and perhaps, medications do so at a much greater benefit and lower “cost” to the victim.

Please refine your definitions and add some for “homosexuality,” and “useful purpose.”