Ex-Lesbian Against Sexual Orientation Policy

As an ardent blogger, I often “blog-walk” and find links to great posts and articles from other writers. Cheryl linked this article on her blog and my curiosity got the better of me. I was very surprised at what I found.

Concerned Women for America is a website I have not visited before today. In fact, I spend so much time reading the articles of my Watch Blog friends, as well as the Republican National Committee, Independent Women’s Forum and Right Wing Nuthouse websites that I was oblivious to this Conservative Women’s group. I apologize; I don’t want to become an ignorant Democrat in denial. (Oh, now that is catchy, Democrats In Denial! Story at 6 o’clock!)

Julie Flanagan, who considers herself an ex-lesbian, wrote the article asking that residents of Fairfax County, Virginia vote against the school board’s proposal to add a “sexual orientation” (homosexuality) clause to its nondiscrimination code. Her belief is that this policy will open the doors to negative influences on young children. By promoting a sexual orientation clause, adults may sway children into homosexuality, rather than discovering their true sexual nature.

First of all, I question how and why this proposal came about to begin with. (Unfortunately, the link to the school board has been removed from the CWA article.) Why does a child need to learn about their sexual nature before they even begin puberty? Why are we accepting sexual education taught by teachers rather than parents?

Today’s schools are teaching sex education earlier now than when I was in elementary school. I learned about reproduction in fifth grade. I was eleven years old. Sexual intercourse didn't even cross my mind as an innocent child, let alone homosexuality! Gay, Lesbian and Transgender were words I didn't know. I didn't learn about any of these terms until junior high and at that time I wasn’t comfortable with them. I didn’t understand. It didn’t make sense.

In the mid 1980s, the AIDS epidemic forever changed sex education. In 1986, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued a report calling for comprehensive AIDS and sexuality education in public schools, beginning as early as the third grade. Third grade! Children in third grade are eight or nine years old. When I was eight years old, I still thought babies arrived by the stork. Please explain to me why an elementary school child should learn about homosexuality?

Many politicians and school board officials will beseech that it’s an education required to teach children tolerance. I can understand this point. Yes, children should be aware that Susie has two daddies and Tommy has two mommies.

As a Catholic, I am torn between my religion and society’s opinion. While I was raised to believe homosexuality is wrong, I cannot condemn a person for choosing to be gay or lesbian. I can only hope that God is in their lives to guide them through the difficult life they may lead.

I agree with Julie Flanagan, educating a child too early about homosexuality may have detrimental effects on their emotional well-being. Children are vulnerable and impressionable. I believe it is my own responsibility to educate my children about homosexuality according to our faith and beliefs. I cannot entrust this important education to a school. It is my responsibility to teach my son to be tolerant of others, even if their lifestyle is not condoned in our Catholic faith. It’s no one’s business but mine about the knowledge I teach my children about sexuality.

I know not all children have parents who will sit down with them and discuss reproduction, sexual education or sexual orientation and therefore the burden is put upon our educators. I understand that some children learn about sex from their peers, and so often the things they are told are completely wrong. What I don't know, what I don't understand, is why I'm expected to accept that a school should be able to teach homosexuality, but the school doesn't have to accept my reasoning against it.

Ms. Flanagan wrote that her broken relationship with her mother is the reason she chose to be gay. She claims that many homosexuals crave a healthy, loving relationship with the parent of the same gender when they are children and adolescents, and when that relationship is jeopardized or not created to begin with; the individual may develop homosexual tendencies.

Ms. Flanagan writes, “I fantasized daily about being cared for by a kind and loving soul, someone compassionate, someone with whom it would be safe to be vulnerable. Then, quite naturally, sexual awareness began to emerge in my life and I made a huge mistake. I connected my deep longings for motherly nurturing with sexual intimacy.”

As a Catholic, I’ve often contemplated whether a person is born homosexual, chooses to live the homosexual lifestyle, or both. Reading this article, I can make sense of the information Ms. Flanagan explains. She wanted so badly to be nurtured by her mother and when she wasn’t, confusion, depression, anger and other emotions altered the way she grew up. If she had a loving relationship with her mother, would she not have been gay? I don’t have that answer and we may never know.

She states, “Today, because of the kindness, patience and tolerance of my loving Father in heaven and because of many compassionate sisters and brothers in Christ, I’m growing in the good of healthy same-sex friendships. God’s Spirit has spoken to my heart revealing my real needs and showing me how he will meet them by his presence, his Word and his family.”

I’m proud of Julie Flanagan for taking the steps in the right direction for her own life. Her article has given one example of how faith in God has helped her become who she intended to be. God is still important in many people’s lives in this great country.


UPDATED: While the policy in question is mainly aimed at nondiscrimination of homosexual teachers, I took the topic into another level regarding education about homosexuality all together. I don't really agree that a teacher should be required to disclose their sexual orientation nor should a teacher impose his or her lifestyle upon our children. Meaning: If my child has a gay teacher, I can accept it. What I cannot accept is if that teacher decided to impose his or her lifestyle upon my child or educating my child about homosexuality. I feel that crosses a boundary and is not something I will tolerate.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at October 14, 2006 11:46 AM
Comments
Comment #188123

Dana, I believe your premise is flawed. After reading the article you linked to, I find the discussion not about teaching sex-ed, but a woman who is personally opposed to gay teachers. As I read this, the policy the board was going to adopt was to remove discrimination concerning sexual orientation.

Ms. Flanagan makes a big leap from allowing gays to teach to assuming they would be prosletyzing about sexual orientation. Would a gay math teacher do this? Would a gay chemistry teacher? I’m 47 years old and in high school had a science teacher whom everyone suspected of being gay. It turned out he was. However, everyone I ever met who knew this man never heard him utter one word of his sexual orientation to his students.

I personally believe you are born with your sexual orientation. Ms. Flanagan seems to think it was environmental influences that convinced her she was gay. What’s the real answer to this? Who knows? The question remains unanswered and only opinions are offered. I would say that until definitive proof is discovered one must assume sexual orientation is “nature vs. nurture”.

Posted by: Dennis at October 14, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #188133
However, everyone I ever met who knew this man never heard him utter one word of his sexual orientation to his students.

Kinda like “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Let’s keep it that way.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 14, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #188135

Dennis, you are probably right. I tried to find the school board proposal to find the specifics of it and had no luck.

Regardless of Ms. Flanagan’s opinion, why should should it matter if a teacher is gay? So much so that we need to tell our children that his or her teacher is gay?

We shouldn’t be discriminating against a gay or lesbian to begin with, regardless of what we believe.

I just find it disturbing that Julie Flanagan is a “former lesbian” and against the sexual orientation policy, but also I understand that she is using her personal experience to educate others.

“As I read this, the policy the board was going to adopt was to remove discrimination concerning sexual orientation.”

Meaning? They won’t allow gay teachers to teach? They’ll be required to disclose their orientation (do straight teachers disclose their orientation)?

I’m looking forward to your enlightening comments.

Posted by: Dana at October 14, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #188137

Also, I wanted to note:

It doesn’t matter whether the proposal was to disclose the sexual orientation of the teachers or if they are adding homosexual education to the classroom. My belief is still the same. We shouldn’t be educating our children about this in the classroom. This is the responsibility of the parent or guardian.

Posted by: Dana at October 14, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #188146

It doesn’t matter whether the proposal was to disclose the sexual orientation of the teachers or if they are adding homosexual education to the classroom. My belief is still the same. We shouldn’t be educating our children about this in the classroom. This is the responsibility of the parent or guardian.
—————————————-
I agree. I think discussions of STDs, pregnancy, reproduction, etc. have a place in education, but believe the child should be a bit older (6th grade perhaps) before this is discussed in class.

I think matters of sexual orientation, sexual activity, etc. are the territory of the parents. If parents would only discuss this with their kids. I’m a father of three teenagers and we’ve had these discussions since they were 12 or so. What I find surprising is that they tell me their friend’s parents by and large don’t discuss this. WTF? Everyone my age (late forties) grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. Sex was pretty much a wide open subject then. I don’t understand why parents can’t discuss it with their kids.

Posted by: Dennis at October 14, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #188153

WAKE UP - THIS ISN’T ABOUT DISCUSSING SEXUALITY IN ANY WAY WITH CHILDREN. THIS IS JUST ABOUT NOT ASKING SOMEONE WHAT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS (ARE YOU GAY OR NOT???) BEFORE YOU HIRE THEM.

Your kids probably already have plenty of gay teachers, you just don’t know it.

Posted by: Max at October 14, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #188166

I have read quite a few ridiculous articles on homosexuals, even here, but this is a new low.

Although, I have to admit that this was pretty hilarious, “Julie Flanagan, who considers herself an ex-lesbian,” what kind of a moron considers themselves an ex-lesbian?

Posted by: Zeek at October 14, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #188173

Why are republicans so scared of gay people? Are you not so sure of your on sexuality. I just don’t get it I don’t kmow many gay people but the ones I do are very good people.

Posted by: Jeff at October 14, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #188196

Personal beliefs and feelings are nice. However, when there is such a large body of scientific researches (as is the case in issues surrounding sexuality education and sexual orientation), would it not be better to work from objective data? In short, there is no evidence that sexual orientation is a choice. It is largely, in fact, a matter of genetics — it’s the beauty of twins studies.

Ms Flanagan is entitled to her opinion however baseless it is; however, she is not entitled to foist her misguided opinion on either her children or the children of others in lieu of facts. Finally, Ms Flanagan’s self-description as an “ex-lesbian” and her rather convoluted “self-analysis” suggests she has yet not received qualified professional help.

As for sexuality education, parents tend to pass on the same misinformation that they were taught… a very vicious and self-defeating cycle of ignorance. Research demonstrates that parent-child sex talk subjects are addressed between 2 to 3 years after the child has already acquired the information/misinformation.

The interesting thing about children is they will disregard for the time-being what they do not understand or is not relevant to them at the time. However, when they are ready for the information, they will integrate that information into their fund of knowledge. This bit of knowledge was one of the great contributions that Jean Piaget made to our understanding of childhood learning.

I hate to pop anyone’s bubble, however: Research has also demonstrated that a majority of children are aware of sexual orientation by age 6.

It is certainly preferable that children be given objective, science-based sex information than no information or misinformation—their well-being and lives depend upon it.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 14, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #188206

My Name Is Roger:

DANA J. TUSZKE

Dana… If God were in their lives [THEY WOULD NOT BE HOMOSEXUAL].

As far as educating our children about homosexual life style, we should be teaching them that it is a sin condemned by God as a perversion.

In the Bible — the book of Romans — chapter 1 it is called {VILE AFFECTIONS} {AGAINST NATURE} {UNSEEMLY} {HAVING A REPROBATE MINE}.

All throughout the Bible it is condemmed as a sin, not a anternet lifestyle, a sin.

Homosexuality is condemned by God in the Bible

Genesis 19 - Leviticus 18 - I Corinthians 6 Galations 5 - Ephesians 5

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 14, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #188208

Roger,

I beg to differ. I know several gays who are devout christians. Excuse me, but the Bishop of the Anglican church here in the United States is gay. I think before deciding you know what God thinks or believes you should ask yourself why people are gay. Really, when most people have an understanding of their sexuality before they are a teenager do you honestly believe they CHOOSE to be gay?

Assuming you are straight, did you make a conscious decision to CHOOSE to be straight?

Please, the Bible sanctions a host of perversions and decries acts that are typically seen as normal. Had bacon for breakfast lately?
Worn clothing made from different types of cloth? Every worked on the Sabbath?

Consider going back and reading the whole lot of items considered against “God’s” law in Leviticus and Deutoronomy. I think you’ll be surprised at what you find.

Posted by: Dennis at October 14, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #188209

Great debate, but some of the assumptions (i.e., by Zeek and Dana) are amazing. Like it or not, there are thousands of ex-gays like Ms. Flanagan. They may be the one group that is probably more persecuted than any other. The media and gay advocacy groups don’t want us to even acknowledge their existence. Don’t believe they exist? Check out the “I DO EXIST” video on www.drthrockmorton.com/idoexist.asp

Dennis says we cannot know if it’s nature or nurture, but then offers no reason why we should jump with him to assume that nature alone is the cause. The first part makes sense. None of us knows. Perhpas the reasons are more complex than either extrene wants to admit. But it is time we bury the notion that Nature or Nurture is the sole reason until facts, not opinion, drive the debate.

Posted by: fullback at October 14, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #188216

Dennis says we cannot know if it’s nature or nurture, but then offers no reason why we should jump with him to assume that nature alone is the cause. The first part makes sense. None of us knows. Perhpas the reasons are more complex than either extrene wants to admit. But it is time we bury the notion that Nature or Nurture is the sole reason until facts, not opinion, drive the debate.

Posted by: fullback at October 14, 2006 07:26 PM
——————————
Fullback, I make no suggestion that anyone come over to my opinion about nature versus nuture. Indeed, I agree with you that the matter is very complex. It is my opinion that nature drives this, but I most certainly could be wrong. My apologies if you thought I was trying to sell you on my belief.

As to those who “used” to be gay. I’m not sure about this. I of the belief that you could be gay, straight or bi-sexual, but I’m not sure you can switch it on or off without an incredible amount of effort. Personally, I think if someone makes a decision to change their sexual orientation or decide to be celibate, if that’s ultimately what makes them happy then more power to them.

Posted by: dennis at October 14, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #188219

Allow me to clarify, fullback.

I am not saying ex-homosexuals do not exist. I am saying they are morons.

Posted by: Zeek at October 14, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #188222

roger,
What your book says does not mean squat to me and it has nothing to do with the laws of this nation
—Savage
by the way — eatting shell fish is a sin of the same degree — do you eat shell fish?

Posted by: TheSavage at October 14, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #188225

Pretty much all research on the subject of human sexuality shows that sexual tendencies develop out of factors (whether “nature” or “nurture”, who can say?) very, very early in life, and that it’s an extremely complicated process. So I’m pretty skeptical of anybody who claims to have “changed their sexual orientation” with nothing more than willpower.

Considering other things going on their lives, it looks a lot like these are people who “out of the closet” deciding to go back into the closet when social pressures become too much for them.

Consider something like alcholism, a condition that arises out of far less complicated factors. You can stop drinking, but that doesn’t mean that your weakness for drink can ever really go away. And sexuality, unlike alcholism (in most cases) is something that starts in early childhood and becomes inseparably linked to every facet of a personality.

You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to be gay or straight any more than you can just decide to have any other sexual desires, such as a foot-fetish. If it’s there, you can’t get rid of it. If it’s not, you can’t just wish it into existence. As if you would!

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 14, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #188226

Dana,

I agree with much of what Dr. Poshek said. Your ex-lesbian is most likely bi-sexual or suffering from inhibitions that are causing her to twist herself out of shape to fit societal norms. In any case that is her life and it is her business.

In a secular society, why should any subject of scientific interest by off limits for teaching to our children - next you will want to burn books and ban cartoons - teletubbies are a bunch of fags.

I do not agree with Dr Poshek that homosexuality is genetic. It may have a genetic component, I believe that it has a learned component as well. We don’t really know the cause. My reason for believing that it has a learned component is that: There is a tribe in South America that is predominately homosexual. Based on their religion, heterosexual sex is taboo more than 200 days out of the year. Homosexual sexual sex is OK any time. The tribe does not produce enough babies to maintain itself. It maintains itself by raiding neighboring heterosexual tribes and stealing babies. The males are taught that receive their lifetime supply of semen from injections. Regular ceremonies are held for older males to inject younger males. Younger males are encouraged to get injected as often as possible so that they will have plenty of semen when they grow up. You can judge this tribe if you want, but their life style helps to limit population growth and keeps population in harmony with nature. The point here is that they are getting babies from heterosexual tribes, raising them to be homosexual and all, or almost all of them become homosexual.

So that tells me that there is probably a learned component to homosexuality at least in some cases. There is probably a genetic component as well. There is probably an environmental component as well. Many of the environment toxins that we are exposed to act like estrogen in our body. If a child is exposed at a key developmental stage - who knows? There are probably different causes for different people. That is the point. Who knows what the cause is? More importantly who cares? Who cares what causes homosexuality? If someone is homosexual - they are homosexual - period.

Dana, I assume that you are a man. When you walk into a room tomorrow make yourself covet a man’s ass. If you can do that, then I would suggest that you are bi-sexual or gay. If you cannot do that then I would ask: How do you expect a gay man to walk into a room and to make himself covet a women’s ass. Sexual orientation is deeply ingrained in who we are. Who gives a rat’s poop chute how it got there? A gay man who thinks homosexuality is a sin certainly has the right to live as a frustrated heterosexual or remain celibate. But expecting people to deny or change something that is ingrained in their very core essence is unrealistic and bigoted.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Black people have a choice about being black - they can get a skin transplant - yet we do not discriminate against them based on skin color. What would you transplant in order to make yourself gay? What would you transplant in order to make a gay person straight? Sexual orientation is more deeply ingrained than skin color. To discriminate against someone on the basis of skin color is bigoted - pure, plain, and simple. It is even more bigoted to discriminate against someone based on the very core essense of who they are. Children need to be taught about sexual orientation in school from a young age so that children who are having “different” feelings will understand that it is OK to be different.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 14, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #188232

Random thought: Assume that homosexuality is not a choice, that a person is born that way. Assume that it is a birth defect. Then, shouldn’t we find a cure?

Random thought 2: Assume that homosexualtiy is a choice, that a person is not born that way. Assume that it is a response to disturbing factors in the environment. Then, shouldn’t we call it a mental disorder and prescribe drugs and therapy?

Random thought 3: Assume that homosexuality is merely an alternate lifestyle. Assume that people engage in this lifestyle because they like it. Then, don’t ask and don’t tell.

I like #3 best. Leave it out of schools.

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #188234

My Name Is Roger:

I DID NOT WRIGHT THE BIBLE !

But I did tell you what the Bible says.

You can choose to believe it or not, but that does not change the fact that God says that Homosexuality is a sin.

QUESTION: Did you ever consider that God in His loved revealed this to us so that we could know, so that we would turn from it, so that we would repent of it, and seek His forgiveness?

QUESTION: If it is not a sin, WHY WOULD GOD, who cannot lie, lie to us and tell us it is a sin?

QUESTION: Why would God condem us for something that we had no control over? Why would God tell us that it is not natural, if for some people it were natural?

I am a sinner, I have received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, and He has forgiven me of my sins. When God in His love shows me that something is sin, I except it as being true because GOD said it was, and aske Him to help me turn from that sin.

If you are living a homosexual life style,God says you are sinning, and has reveiled this to you because of His love for you.

If you turn from your sin, and received Jesus Christ as you Lord and Saviour and aske God to forgive you… He will forgive you.


Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 14, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #188235

Don, replace “homosexuality” with “heterosexuality” where they occur on your list.

Should we find a cure for being heterosexual if it’s determined that people are born that way? Call it a mental disorder and prescribe drugs if it’s mere conditioning? Not talk about it if it’s a choice?

I can agree with you, actually, about not talking about it in public schools. Not out of prudishness about sex, but because that’s a parent’s job, and our schools should focus elsewhere.

Considering our culture today, sex ed outside of biology class is an anachronism and a waste of time. Your average 12 year old has pretty much heard it all already, and the idea of teenagers brought up on MTV music videos and the internet sitting around putting condoms on bananas when they can’t read or write is ridiculous.

The idea of teachers “swaying” children to homosexuality is absurd. Teachers can barely make their students do homework in today’s broken-down education system, much less get them to change their sexual identities.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 14, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #188236

I love the way this thread has developed. For myself, I am certain that this woman sought relief from a church. I would bet that she was told her “lifestyle choice” was a sin, and that she needed to “revert” to a “normal” (heterosexual) lifestyle. This is just a guess, but I would be very surprised if this were wrong.

Pilsner,
I’m very impressed with your thoughts on the matter of homosexuality. Your ideas on the social pressures that can influence people ring true with my own experiences.

I once went to an evangelical church for a couple of months. The services were wonderful, GREAT singing. Lots of young, attractive,well educated people.

The pastor told me I had a “problem with God” when I disagreed with his translation of Jesus’ saying “suffer the children…”. He thought it meant absolute, childlike obedience to every word in the bible. I thought it meant that children are the closest to God. NO tolerance for my opinion. No tolerance for anything at all outside of what they all believed, and, in particular, the WAY they believed it.

It’s a sad thing to me that some would use their belief that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” to prevent hard working, otherwise very productive members of our free country from, say, serving in our military. One of the reasons I have heard offered up is that homosexuals are more likely to be subject to blackmail about their sexuality. But it is only the mindset that feels homosexuality is wrong that causes this to be a liability at all.

I might add that, while God is a great treatment for alcoholism, I don’t think that God would cure someone of the sexuality He gave them in the first place.

BTW, an alcoholic who lives a spiritual life becomes “safe and protected” from the ravages of alcohol for just as long as they maintain that spiritual life. They do lose the weakness, through God.

Alcoholism is a primarily spiritual disease (once the drink has been put down) while homosexuality is not a sickness at all.

Also BTW, the A.A. literature tells the alcoholic that alcohol is just a symptom of the disease, and asks him/her to go back through their entire life to see where emotional trauma may have skewed their outlook and caused them to drink.

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 14, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #188237

My Name Is Roger:

Just one last thought.

I read some of the post, and I have found out that almost nothing gets people as angrey as to point out that the Bible says that a homosexual life style is a sin.

If you say that murder is a sin, people say yes we know that, and we agree.

If you say that sex before marrage is a sin, people say yes we know that, and we agree.

If you say thjat sex outside of you marrage partner is a sin people say yes we know that, and we agree.

And I could go and and say rape or stealing or lieing, or cheating or almost any other sin in the Bible and people will say yes we know that, and we agree.

But when you say that a homosexual life style is a sin…. well you can count on people coming back with all kinds of angrey comments.

The same God who said the others are sin, also says that a homosexual life style is a sin.

QUESTION: Why is it… that, when that one sin… is presented as being sinful, it causes so much anger?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 14, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #188238

Does it occur to anyone that sex ed is more open now because children are more exposed to all lifestyles now. Why shield them from the truth? Homosexuality is as much a part of sexuality as heterosexuality is. Kids these days are already more educated and more tolerant than we were. Why hide it?

Posted by: Shelly at October 14, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #188239

Roger,
Do you suggest that we discriminate against those who cheat on their spouses or have sex before marriage?

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 14, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #188240

ROGER,

You quote the Bible and then say God says this and God says that. That is your faith, your belief, fine for you, means nothing, and has no persuasive affect on those of us who believe otherwise. It is just stating your belief, your faith. It is not engaging in a rational debate. Making a rational logical argument why the Bible must be the undisputed, unperverted, undistorted word of God and why your particular interpretation of it must be correct would be engaging in a rational debate. It seems to me that all that you are doing is preaching. Fellow believers don’t need it and you are wasting your breath on the rest of us.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 14, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #188241

Roger, I respect your beliefs, but not all straight Christian conservatives (myself included) agree.

I don’t want to go all through your remarks, but here are just a few.

I have read the Bible front to back, and I don’t see the condemnation of homosexuality in there as being as clear cut as you do. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah, for example, is about men who see some beautiful male angels and try to rape them. This is widely viewed as condemning homosexuality, but does it? Isn’t it also about rape and showing disrespect to the messengers of God?

Other passages alluding to homosexuality talk about people who are depraved and do a variety of sick things including but not restricted to homosexual behavior. So yes, it does condemn homosexuality when it’s part of a package of debased sensuality. No doubt.

The Bible definitely condemns giving yourself over to a life of irresponsible sensuality, whether that involves straight or gay sex. But I see nothing in the Bible that would condemn, for instance, a monogonomous and committed homosexual relationship.

There are many such passages which refer to depraved heterosexual behaviors, however, and it’s not just the sex that is at issue.

Also, the Bible teaches that man’s nature is inherently sinful. You can’t say, “Well, why would god create people with homosexual desires then?” Doesn’t he also create straight people who are tempted to cheat on their spouses?

So where does that leave us? I don’t actually know, despite what I read in the Bible, exactly what God thinks of homosexuality. Maybe it’s true that he doesn’t dislike it, but as a Christian I’ll leave that as an issue to be sorted out between people and God.

It’s not my business to speak for God. There is a lot of sin in the world and everybody is a sinner.

If it really is a sin, though, there are a LOT of worse sins out there to be worry over than a couple of guys who like to spend a lot of time together and aren’t hurting anybody else but themselves, if they really are hurting themselves.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 14, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #188247

Most people think of sexuality as an either/or proposition, an on/off switch for hetero- and homosexuals poositions, with perhaps an intermediate onr for bisexuals. (insert joke here- jokes only, please!). But could it be that sexuality ranges across a continuum? That sexual orientation is not an absolute, but a matter of degree?

There seems to be a strong argument for attributing sexual orientation to genetics. However, as mentioned earlier in the thread, a historical review of sexual practices in various past societies (what would we do without the internet!) suggests cultural expectations play an important role. To me, this supports the idea that sexual orientation may be more complicated than we thought, and that orientation covers a range, rather than a mere handful of possibilities.

If true, what do we do we that, in terms of society and politics?

“If you want to help others, practice compassion. If you want to help yourself, practice compassion.”

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #188248
My Name Is Roger:

I DID NOT WRIGHT THE BIBLE !

My name is JayJay:

GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE EITHER! Man did.

QUESTION: Did God create man, or did man create God? If God created man, then why didn’t he write his own book? (Answer: He did. He wrote his book on our hearts, not the pages of some ancient book. Which, BTW, answers your question about why people agree on some sins being wrong but become emotional about “sins” that exist mearly to create “inferior” minority groups.)

QUESTION: Have you ever considered how many people over the last 2000+ years have contributed to the book we have today? From the original writers to the early church father editors, to the hundreds of scribes who made copies of copies of copies. find me the original manuscript and then we will talk about what the Bible says. Until then we are mearly discussing one of hundreds of thousands of variations between the copies of copies of copies, not the original work. (and don’t give me this BS about God protecting the words of the Bible. If that were true, then we wouldn’t have over 400,000 variations between the 4,000 surviving ancient copies and fragments.)

JayJay A Liberal Gnostic Christian Libertarian :’)

Posted by: JayJay at October 15, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #188250

Oh, and don’t forget about the traslators, who don’t mearly translate but also interpret.

Posted by: JayJay at October 15, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #188253

Neo-con

“Don, replace ‘homosexuality’ with ‘heterosexuality’ where they occur on your list.”

There’s a slight problem with your thought here…(no, actually more than one problem)… 1) procreation just doesn’t happen in all sexual relations. Therefore, one type of sexual relationship “is normal and natural” and the other isn’t 2) Normal and natural is based upon what nature tells us is natural and normal. Nature says that heterosexuality is much more normal and natural since it is preferred in nature (choose your percentage here) (10-1), (20-1), (9-1), (99-1).

I don’t think the two “choices” are interchangable. I seriously doubt that anyone else thinks so, either.

BTW - my first “random thought” was presented because I have never heard anyone else suggest it.

My second “random thought” has, of course, been discussed and studied. I believe that the whole concept that homosexuals “do not choose” homosexuality came as an argument against this theory.

My third “random thought” is my real point. It doesn’t matter whether that choice is heterosexual or homosexual. Leave it out of school.

Posted by: Don at October 15, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #188255

JayJay -
“…find me the original manuscript and then we will talk about what the Bible says. Until then we are mearly discussing one of hundreds of thousands of variations between the copies of copies of copies, not the original work.”

I tried this argument on my Prof when discussing the Illiad. It didn’t work then either.

Posted by: Don at October 15, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #188258

1) Who decided that public schools should teach about sexuality in the first place?

2) Have the public schools done a satisfactory job of teaching in this area? They can’t even teach 30% of the students to read a book.

3) Is there someone more qualified to teach this than publically educated teachers, many of whom cannot even write in complete sentences?

Posted by: Don at October 15, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #188262

Don, there are all kinds of heterosexual behaviors and unions which have nothing to do with procreation either, and what might lead to offspring is not a standard we need to bother with. Nature can take of itself quite nicely.

A post-menopausal woman who marries a man or a barren couple remaining married is not “unnatural.” If it was, by definition people wouldn’t feel the urge to do it.

More importantly, there’s a case to be made that nature looks at the big picture instead of just the small picture.

It’s actually very valuable to the development of the species for some people not to procreate and to instead put their energies into things other than child-rearing. Raising kids is hard work, and all who’ve done it know that without children, other activities would be possible (not that we’d ever trade them for that chance). Even from an evolutionary point of view, there is a pretty good explanation for the existence of homosexuals, solitary bachelors, old maids and the like.

Many of us, and our children, enjoy the benefits of science and art that was produced by those who didn’t put all their energies into raising kids. Many of these accomplishments and discoveries make the survival of those who do procreate (and their offspring) more likely. Nature, god, whatever force you can think of, could very well be behind this—it works.

But I’ve already agreed that sex ed is better left out of school.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 15, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #188266

I think that it is more than a little hypocritical to see people attacking Roger and his faith. People expecting him to prove that the Bible is inerrant. Yet the very premise of their own argument about homosexuality is based on their feelings instead of facts. Show us just one FACT that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. You can’t, because there is no proof. It sounds a little too familiar, kinda like a version of the evolution argument. There is no proof for that either, as a matter of fact there is ALOT of evidence against evolution. My understanding of a school is that it is a place of learning, so why bother teaching things that have NO evidence to support them???? Like evolution and homosexuality as being genetic. If you dedicated as much time to researcing the Bible as you do other causes then you would see a vast amount of evidence that supports the Bible.
I would also like to know how homosexuality fits into the mold of evolution. If it was genetic wouldn’t survival of the fittest have weeded it out long ago???? Or is there some way in which homosexuals can reproduce that I’m not aware of????? And if the argument is going to be to accept homosexuality because it’s “natural” then answer me just one question. Since genes are passed down from parent to child, and homosexuals cannnot reproduce with one another, then that means that they would die out unless they attempted to fit in with heterosexuals in order to have children. Then isn’t it “natural” to consider them parasites???

Posted by: dennis at October 15, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #188270

Dennis: Perhaps you should stick with what you know—apparently, nothing.

Show us just one FACT that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice.

There are over 1300 research articles detailing a genetic component in the determination of sexual orientation… all published within the past 20 years.

It sounds a little too familiar, kinda like a version of the evolution argument. There is no proof for that either, as a matter of fact there is ALOT of evidence against evolution.

No scientific data exits which does not demonstrate the validity of biological evolutionary theory. The only questions remaining are those regarding the description of how some mechanisms of evolution work. There is no scientific evidence against the efficacy of evolution.

If you dedicated as much time to researcing the Bible as you do other causes then you would see a vast amount of evidence that supports the Bible.

There is no scientific evidence which supports anything in the Bible. In fact, the Bible makes no scientific pronouncements. The Bible is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of cultural mythologies on a par with Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. In addition, Vatican II stated unequivocably that the Bible does not speak to scientific matters. And as the great theologian, Thomas Quinas, stated 600 years ago: What is true in science is true in God and what is true in God is true in science for the reason God cannot contradict himself. If your beliefs are contradicted by science, your beliefs are not of God.

I would also like to know how homosexuality fits into the mold of evolution. If it was genetic wouldn’t survival of the fittest have weeded it out long ago???? Or is there some way in which homosexuals can reproduce that I’m not aware of????? And if the argument is going to be to accept homosexuality because it’s “natural” then answer me just one question. Since genes are passed down from parent to child, and homosexuals cannnot reproduce with one another, then that means that they would die out unless they attempted to fit in with heterosexuals in order to have children. Then isn’t it “natural” to consider them parasites???

Again, you demonstrate an absolute lack of scientific knowledge. The role of indirect and direct genetic inheritability and the function of evolution on the member and group levels of a species has long been understood. Characteristics which are adaptive (enhance survivability) for a species continue generationally. Characteristics what are maladaptive (diminish survivability) for a species are eventually lost. Homosexuality is an adaptive characteristic which benefits the well-being of the human species as well as in all other high-order animal species. Fundamental fact: Procreation presupposes survivability (i.e., if you are dead you can’t f&#k). That is scientific fact.

Your theologically-questable assertions may be stated as religious beliefs. That is all they are: beliefs. They are not facts. They are not scientifically defensible.

In a world where survivability increasingly depends upon scientfic knowledge and know-how, we cannot, as a species, to teach mythology in our science classrooms. Nor, can we morally foist fiction upon our children and call it science.


Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 15, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #188271

The last paragraph of my post, above, should read:

In a world where survivability increasingly depends upon scientfic knowledge and know-how, we cannot, as a species, afford to teach mythology in our science classrooms. It is a matter of life and death. Nor, can we morally foist fiction upon our children and call it science.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 15, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #188272

I’ve seen quite a bit of debate about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a genetic trait. I tend to think of it as a genetic trait. I’m heterosexual and never woke up one day and decided to be that way, it just happened. Further, why would anyone choose such a lifestyle that subjects them to so much grief?

That being said, within the context of Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, whether or not being attracted to someone of the same sex is a choice or by nature is largely irrelevant. Unless one is a victim of rape, actually having sex IS A CHOICE, and one that we are free to make for ourselves. I’m Roman Catholic, so not all Protestants may agree with this, but I think it speaks of a common sense approach to morality on the subject.

We all have sexual desires. Judeo-Christian morality and ethics says that these desires are best expressed within the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, it is sinful to engage in premarital or extramarital sex as a heterosexual. If I never love someone to the point of living with them in a state of matrimony, then I am called to be celibate for my life.

With regards to homosexuality, feeling an attraction to a person of the same sex is not necessarily in and of itself sinful. In the same way as I sin if I think and nurture lustful thoughts about a woman as a man, so in the same manner does a homosexual sin if the nurture lustful thoughts about a person of the same sex. If a person cannot love someone else in a manner suitable for marriage within the Judeo-Christian context, than they should remain celibate as well. I will grant that in the world we live in that’s not particularly realistic, but it does seem fair.

As I am not homosexual myself, I don’t know if the urge is stronger, weaker, or the same as my own sexual urges. However, all people are held to the same standard. God also says to call to Him for help in resisting temptation. Yet the idea of resisting temptation in our society seems as taboo as clubbing a baby seal. It doesn’t help that we are exposed to temptation so much more often nowadays. It seems that one cannot turn on the TV and watch it for more than a few minutes at best without being bombarded with sex, violence, drug use, and a variety of anti-social behaviors. I find it particularly amusing that the same group of Hollywood hypocrites who want to cut cigarette smoking from TV and movies for the fact that it influences kids to smoke by making it look cool can’t make the leap of logic to think that maybe the sex and violence in our media, which is often displayed as being without consequence, can do the same.

Meanwhile, I think many Christians are focusing their energy in the wrong place. The state of marriage for heterosexuals is in a sad state. Few go to the altar as virgins, we have a divorce rate that is shameful, and spousal and child abuse continue to bedevil our society. I have a cousin who is gay, and he and his partner, who have been together for over 20 years now, are far better examples of a positive and loving, if a bit different, relationship than I have seen from many of my heterosexual peers. We should be far more concerned about the state of affairs in the heterosexual community than about a very small number of people, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the population, who want to live together in peace.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 15, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #188275

ALCON:

Sorry about double posting, there was a delay apparently caused by some illiterates who can’t read the Rules for Participation, which are clearly linked below the comments box. Anyways, sorry, I’ll counsel myself in writing and have it on my desk tomorrow firt thing.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 15, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #188277

Interesting discussion. From past research, I know that the predominance of evidence suggests a stronger genetic than environmental component. In addition, we know that homosexual behavior has been demonstrated in many different species. But to me the whole argument is irrelevant. Who am I to tell anyone else how to live?

I find compelling the notion that the very binary (hetero- or homosexual) is artificial. The Greeks and Romans, for example, apparently did not make this distinction. Foucault’s three-volume The History of Sexuality has much to say here.

From my own reading of the Bible, I think it does in places condemn homosexual behavior. I’ve read the counter arguments, and they strike me as attempts to preserve the text. The writings in the Bible come from the pens of specific people or groups of people writing in specific times. Of course there is much we don’t find relevant today, no matter how strong adherents think their beliefs are. Someone already mentioned the condemnation against wearing clothes made of different fabrics. You can add many over prohibitions we don’t observe today: we eat seafood that doesn’t contain fins and scales, we don’t grant debt forgiveness every seven years, we think slavery is wrong so we have no need to set free slaves after seven years of service, etc., etc. Anyway, the Bible as a whole is a recursive text — later writers constantly re-interpreted past writers. It also contains various contradictory theological strands. Retribution theology, for example, is dominant in many books, yet in others, such as in Job, it is challenged or problematized. The Bible is recursive. Jesus’ comments about the difficulty of the rich to get to heaven is itself a challenge of Retribution theology.

At any rate, a message of the Gospels is that we are all sinners. We are also told not to judge lest we be judged. There is also something there about the spirit and the letter.

I think much of this controversy has to do with fear. Be secure in your own sexuality and that fear tends to fade away, unless, of course, you live in a culture that persecutes homosexuality.

Posted by: Trent at October 15, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #188289

The undertone of this suggests that homosexuality is a political agenda and lifestyle choice. It isn’t for most.

I grew up next door to a family of four children. Two girls and Two boys. I lost contact with them in my adult years until I was contacted by one of the boys who was my age. We are now nearing 50 years old. As we talked about old times and became aquianted again he conveyed to me that though he was married, his marriage was troubled because of his “problems”. He confessed he was bi-sexual. He also told me his sister lived with a partner of the same sex. The other brother and sister were married with children and settled in their lives.

I had been this man’s best friend and suspetted , his homosexuality from early childhood. There were incidents and moments that alerted me, but the subject was taboo, and there was never any outward signs to anyone else. When I told my sister about our phone conversation, she was surprised that she now could say she knew some homosexuals. We both remembered a time in my teens when I told her that my friend was gay, but she didn’t believe me. She thought back to when the girl told her that she didn’t like the dolls she got for Christmas one year, she prefered sports and “boys” toys.

Christianity may speak against homosexuality and there is a great deal of ignorance about the nature of it, but science is relatively clear that it occurs in animal populations of all kinds including human. It clearly wasn’t a choice and didn’t spread in this family or mine. Talking about it won’t make it worse and stopping discrimination won’t spread it. Homosexuals are not pedophiles any more than heterosexuals.
Fear can cause a great deal of harm in the world when coupled with ignorance, whether it is racism, sexism or homophobia.

Posted by: gergle at October 15, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #188290

Dr. Poshek you should stick to what you know or at least present the facts in an unbiased matter. Homosexuality being caused by genetic factors is a theory. It is a theory because there is no direct evidence to prove it as a fact. Maybe you should learn the difference between causation and correlation.

—There are over 1300 research articles detailing a genetic component in the determination of sexual orientation… all published within the past 20 years.

In your 1300 articles over 20 years, there is not one single FACT showing homosexuality to be determined genetically. When you are dealing with theories instead of facts it is easy to make the the mistake of misreading evidence to fit the mold you want it to fit. That however does not make it true. Nor does the acceptance by society make it a fact. For example, there is a correlation between poverty and crime, but poverty does not cause crime nor does crime cause poverty. That is a FACT because because not all people in poverty are criminals and not all criminals are poor. When dealing with the human Genome we do not have enough scientific evidence to say FACTUALLY what each one does or even which factors are caused by genetics rather than environment or choice.

Also in refrence to your 1300 articles, there are just as many studies that have been done that claim homosexuality is a choice. So if you want to quote scientific evidence be sure to provide ALL of the evidence available. I would much rather have “a lack of scientific knowledge” than to base my knowledge on only the evidence that supports my theory. As with most people who wish to support the “genetic homosexuality THEORY” you present a completly biased opinion of only the evidence that supports you and totally ignore any evidence that does not.

At least you are consistant though. With your argument for evolution you once again present completely biased evidence. All of the example that you quote are for microevolution, which are changes within a species. Microevolution is not disputed and we have evidence for it. Macroevolution, changes from one species into another, has NO FACTS TO SUPPORT IT. There is no evidence in either living creatures or the fossil record to support macroevolution. Maybe we should refer back to what Charles Darwin himself had to say on the subject. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” So when you look at the complexity of a single celled organism and the mathmatical laws of probability are so minute that they are impossible regardless of how many billions of years you allow, the entire theory of evolution unravels. Then apply that to something vastly more complex like the human brain and you would require much more faith to believe that theory than to believe in a supreme being. Irreducable complexity exists in many organs. Those organs do not function unless they are 100% fully developed which means that they could not have evolved but had to start off complex. Ask youself this question, if intelligent people cannot recreate the human brain than how are we supposed to believe that that nonintelligent natural laws were able to randomly do so? When was the last time a tornado went through an area and left a fully functioning space shuttle created by it from the materials it hit? I don’t ever recall it happening but it is mathmatically easier than the probability of a single RNA strand being formed at random.

In addition the whole point of this argument began with the teaching of the THEORY of genitic homosexuality in schools. I do not ask for anyone to teach religion in schools. However I would like the same in return. I do not want my children taught THEORIES that have NO SCIENTIFIC basis by biased advocates such as Dr. Poshek.
-In a world where survivability increasingly depends upon scientfic knowledge and know-how, we cannot, as a species, afford to teach mythology in our science classrooms. It is a matter of life and death. Nor, can we morally foist fiction upon our children and call it science.

Dr. Poshek, your comment holds no ground as your entire theory of genitic homosexuality is not science but is itself a myth. So by your own statement it would not be moral to foist the fiction you believe upon our children and call it science.

Posted by: dennis at October 15, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #188293

Dennis: Thank you for confirming my first proposition, ante. Nothing more need be said.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 15, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #188298

Dennis,

You crack me up. A heterosexual (I assume) male pretending to be an expert on homosexuality. Sorry, that doesn’t work. Unless you have been there, you have no bussiness judging anyone else. Homosexuality may be a theory to some heterosexuals, but to homosexuals the facts are self evident.

BTW: you are right about one thing, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There is also no evidence that intersexuality is genetic either. Yet we know for a FACT that intersexuality happens, we can see it, yet there is no genetic marker for it. Why? Because the latest research on intersexuality is showing that the condition is caused by hormone levels present in the womb during gestation. It is also being shown by the new research that a similar hormone imbalance in the womb causes homosexuality.

It is very possible that science will never find a genetic marker for homosexuality, it may not exist. However as this latest research shows, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t caused by nature. BTW, this research also explains why the gene doesn’t “die out” and how homosexuality is passed down. Not from one homosexual to another, but from mother to child.

Posted by: JayJay at October 15, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #188301

Im an ex-straight and applaud ms. flanagans’ epiphany! I hope she celebrates mine as well.

Posted by: syl at October 15, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #188304
The Greeks and Romans, for example, apparently did not make this distinction.

The Greeks and Romans also did not make the modern day distinction between castrated eunuchs and men who were eunuchs because they lacked sexual desire to women (homosexuals?) The Bible talks often about eunuchs. They were often harem gaurds or chamberlines, because they were trusted not to have sex with the women of the harem. The interesting thing about castrated men is that they do not lose their sexual desire if castration happens after puberty. The most common form of castration at the time was crushing the testicles, leaving the penis intact. It is believed that women of the time actually prefered to have sex with castrated males because they could not get them pregnant. Therefore castrated males would not make ideal Chamberlines. Homosexuals, however, would.

    Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” ~Matthew 19:12 [em mine]

Reference: Thesis: Eunuchs are Gay Men

Posted by: JayJay at October 15, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #188306
I think that it is more than a little hypocritical to see people attacking Roger and his faith. People expecting him to prove that the Bible is inerrant. Yet the very premise of their own argument about homosexuality is based on their feelings instead of facts.

No dennis, I’m not being hypocritical at all. I am gay. That is not based on my feelings that is a fact of my life.

Posted by: JayJay at October 15, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #188308

dennis,

Macroevolution, changes from one species into another, has NO FACTS TO SUPPORT IT.

This is completely untrue. Here is a listing of more than 29 observed instances of macroevolution.

There is no evidence in either living creatures or the fossil record to support macroevolution.

This is absolutely untrue. Macroevolution has been observed in living creatures, as described above, and the fossil record strongly supports macroevolution.

Maybe we should refer back to what Charles Darwin himself had to say on the subject. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Nice quote-mining. You fail, however, to note that Darwin followed that remark with a discussion of a proposed mechanism for the evolution of the eye. He wasn’t saying that he was wrong; he was rhetorically setting up part of the argument that supported him. So far from discrediting evolution, what you bring up here is an example of the reason that Evolution is science and ID/Creation is not: It is possible (and has been done thousands of times) to propose means by which we could disprove evolution. However, evolution has survived the challenges and has not been disproved. In contrast, ID/Creationism is inherently neither provable nor disprovable, meaning it’s philosophy and religion, not science.

So when you look at the complexity of a single celled organism and the mathmatical laws of probability are so minute that they are impossible regardless of how many billions of years you allow, the entire theory of evolution unravels.

That’s not true. Mechanisms have been proposed for many of the transitions that were orginally seen as too improbable. You discount the effects of billions of years, but those billions of years mean even unlikely things can happen.

The idea you support here is central to ID, that something unlikely must be impossible. That’s a notion that has no support in either math or science. In fact, the “laws of probability” you quote say that unlikely things can happen, not the opposite, which you claim.

Then apply that to something vastly more complex like the human brain and you would require much more faith to believe that theory than to believe in a supreme being.

It takes no faith to understand the mechanisms involved. The only thing in science that takes faith is the belief that we can solve the problems that we haven’t yet solved. That’s the basic nature of science, and it has served us well for centuries. In contrast, if ID were the prevailing appraoch to inquiry, we wouldn’t have the progress we have. ID says that hard problems are just too hard to solve, so we should give up. ID is an idea that would end scientific progress and thought. ID is not science, and it has nothing to support it.

Irreducable complexity exists in many organs.
No, what exist are unsolved problems and the premature readiness of people to give up trying to solve them.
Those organs do not function unless they are 100% fully developed which means that they could not have evolved but had to start off complex.

Nope. Those organs do not function in the current way until they are 100% completed. However, they serve other purposes and provide other benefits while the evolution is happening. Here’s a quick and effective rebuttal of this weak and common claim.

Ask youself this question, if intelligent people cannot recreate the human brain than how are we supposed to believe that that nonintelligent natural laws were able to randomly do so? When was the last time a tornado went through an area and left a fully functioning space shuttle created by it from the materials it hit? I don’t ever recall it happening but it is mathmatically easier than the probability of a single RNA strand being formed at random.

The analogy to a “tornado in a junkyard” is irrelevant. Since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.

I do not want my children taught THEORIES that have NO SCIENTIFIC basis by biased advocates such as Dr. Poshek.

I think you need to spend a lot of time learning what a theory is. In science, a theory is not just a tentative, unsupported idea (the meaning often given in normal speech). In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. The theory of evolution is not just a pie-in-the-sky idea. It’s a complicated explanation that has grown over decades based on millions of pieces evidence and facts from thousands of scientific disciplines. The Theory of Evolution is the only idea proposed so far that is consistent with the evidence we have.

People like the people you have been listening to intentionally confuse these two meanings to imply that the Theory of Evolution is no more valid than the idea of ID. That is completely incorrect. The THEORY of evolution is the best possible explanation we have for the mechanism behind the FACT of evolution that is inescapable based on the evidence.

In contrast, ID is no more valid than the idea that the universe was created last Thursday in the imaginings of a surprisingly large housecat; neither can be proved or disproved. Neither is useful.

Evolution is a fact. It happened. It’s in the fossil record, it’s in the genetic record, it’s in every single part of modern biology. That you don’t want your children to learn the best information possible is something that you will have to apologize to your children for someday, and is something that will greatly harm American scientific and economic progress if allowed to become policy.

Dr. Poshek referred to 1300 studies. You claimed that “In your 1300 articles over 20 years, there is not one single FACT showing homosexuality to be determined genetically”. Did you read them? I highly doubt it. So where do you get your counter-claim from?

Just as you have shown a lack of understanding of the meaning of science and the foundations of modern biology, your claims about the weakness of the evidence for a genetic basis of sexuality should be treated with a grain of salt.

The science is not complete on the issues of the source of sexuality, but the evidence is getting stronger.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #188310
I do not want my children taught THEORIES that have NO SCIENTIFIC basis by biased advocates such as Dr. Poshek.

I was going to post another comment about this part, saying that this is a reasonable idea as long as you are actually restricting yourself to scientific theories that actually have no scientific basis, so you weren’t including Evolution.

Then I realized that the whole concept of a scientific theory that has no scientific basis is an impossibility, and this statement is yet another thing from dennis that shows that he truly doesn’t know what he’s talking about (as Dr. Poshek observed).

Scientific Theories cannot exist without a scientific basis. An idea is elevated to the level of theory only when the idea has been validated by much evidence and been used successfully to make predictions about future observations. That is, a scientific theory by definition has scientific basis.

In science, “Theory” is a high honor - it’s not a level lower than fact. It is not fact because they are different concepts; a fact is an atomic observed truth, a theory is a complicated explanation of many facts.

For example, it’s a fact that things fall and that the earth revolves around the Sun. It’s the theory of gravity that explains how the force of gravity is generated. There are unanswered questions in the study of gravity, but the theory is strongly supported by the facts.

It’s a fact that the earth shakes and some mountains explode, and that these things generally happen in the same ribbons around the world. It’s the theory of Plate Tectonics that explains how and why these phenomena occur. There are unanswered questions in the study of geothermal effects, but the theory is strongly supported by the facts.

It’s a fact that certain metals create heat and cause disease when changing into other metals. It’s the theory of the atom that explains how and why these phenomena occur. There are unanswered questions in the study of the atom, but the theory is strongly supported by the facts.

It’s a fact that gradual changes in species are observed in fossils, etc. It’s the theory of evolution that explains how and why these phenomena occur. There are unanswered questions in the study of the descent of man, but the theory is strongly supported by the facts.

Further, the theory of Evolution has successfully predicted future observations. Evolutionary theory predicted that there must be some way that an individual’s information is passed from parent to child, and that prediction led directly to the discovery of DNA.

Another successful prediction happened in the last year when scientists in Canada used evolutionary ideas to predict that a new species might be found that was intermediate between two other known species, and that the species might be found on a specific island in the arctic that in prehistoric time was the home of the other two species. They looked, and they found the fossil.

Evolution is not without scientific basis. It’s the only explanation of our origins that has scientific basis.

To bring this back, I do not believe that the idea that homosexuality is genetic has yet risen to the level of Theory. It has scientific basis, but the evidence is not overwhelming in the way it is for Theories like Gravity and Evolution yet.

Maybe some day, it will be, because it’s on the right course.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #188317

For the evolutionsists
Explain why man has one less rib than woman.
The proof is in the Bible.

Until one has a relationship with Jesus Christ, that individual will not have the knowledge of sin and righteousness. When they have a relationship with Jesus Christ the answers will be there, whether it be on the subject of homosexuality, evolution, salvation, or whatever.
Until then mans thinking will continue to stinking.

Posted by: tomh at October 15, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #188319

What a ridiculous debate.

Nature! Nurture! Sinful! Not sinful! Genetic! Choice! Keep it out of schools! Keep it in schools!

I remember that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used to catagorize homosexuality as a treatable disorder. This was sometime prior to 1984 (the year I graduated from college). Sometime between then and now, psychiatrists and psychologists decided to redefine homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” that may (or may not) have some genetic component.

One could say that the change in orientation (no pun intended) came about as the result of new research that showed homosexuality to be less a condition to be treated than a lifestyle choice to be endured in a prudish society such as ours.

But one could also say that you tend to find what you look for. I remember watching a Discovery Channel-like documentary years ago that discussed some of the early evolutionary studies that were done in such a way to support the biases and prejudices of the times in which they were conducted. One such study involved comparing the cranial capacities of the various races of humans - caucasian, black, oriental, etc. This so-called study was conducted back in the early 1800’s, as I recall, and wound up supporting the prevailing prejudice of the time; namely, whites were the smartest people on the planet. The methodology consisted of pouring thousands of tiny mustard seeds into the skulls of representative samples of humans, organized by race. I can envision the researcher forcefully cramming mustard seeds into the cranium of a smallish caucasian skull and then gently sprinkling mustard seeds into the cranium of a large black skull.

Scientists are political creatures, just like the rest of us. Science does not make you immune to prejudice any more than faith in God can make you immune to lust or greed. I’d like to know the political leanings of the researchers who “discovered” that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. I’d also like to know the political leanings of the researchers who “discovered” that there may NOT be a genetic component to homosexuality.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. I honestly don’t care what causes a man to covet another man’s ass. I do care that there is a very vocal minority in this country who seem obsessed with sex in general and gay sex in particular.

I care that this very vocal minority has the support of the mainstream media and Hollywood, as is reflected by most movies, TV shows, and news items of the day.

I care that my children are awash in a sea of sexual imagery and double entendre dialogue that permeates their every waking moment. Sex seems to be more important than life itself.

I care that intellectual elites like the so-called “Dr. Poshek” here chastise and belittle the skeptics of science. I, for one, am very skeptical of scientific studies that become ammunition for one political faction or the other. Nazi science supported Nazi ideology. Communist science supports communist ideology. And liberal science is supported by liberal scientists who receive the fawning adoration of liberals everywhere.

The whole Nature vs. Nurture debate with regard to homosexuality is ridiculous. I don’t care what causes homosexuality. What really bothers me is the corrosive effect the militant homosexual movement is having on our society. That’s what concerns me. Ever hear of NAMBLA? Disgusting.

I am expected to celebrate homosexuality and believe the tripe that many homosexual men do not have a “thing” for teenage boys. Or maybe I’m supposed to think it’s ok for homosexual men to have a “thing” for teenage boys. Ancient Spartan men had a “thing” for young boys. Why not modern men? What was good for Foley may be good for the rest of us.

I am expected to believe that homosexuals are no different than anyone else. “You probably had homosexual teachers and didn’t even know about it.” In other words, I am the problem. If only I was more tolerant, there wouldn’t be a problem. This sounds suspiciously similar to the Policy of Appeasement vomited forth by congressional liberals with regard to Iraq, North Korea, and the rest of the Hate America First crowd. “If only we were more tolerant of (inserted disenfranchised group name HERE), there wouldn’t be a problem.”

Rubbish.


Posted by: Chris at October 15, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #188320
For the evolutionsists Explain why man has one less rib than woman. The proof is in the Bible.

tomh, no proof is necessary - it’s not true. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Humans (both male and female) have 24 ribs (12 sets). This was noted by the Flemish anatomist Vesalius in 1543 setting off a wave of controversy.

Until one has a relationship with a fact-based understanding of the world, that individual will not have the knowledge of reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #188321
I am expected to celebrate homosexuality and believe the tripe that many homosexual men do not have a “thing” for teenage boys.

97% of adults who sexually assault 12- to 17-year old children are male, and 90 percent of the victims are female. (from a 2000 Justice Department study, quoted in last week’s Newsweek)

Your arguments are, as you said,

Rubbish.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #188338
I’d like to know the political leanings of the researchers who “discovered” that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. I’d also like to know the political leanings of the researchers who “discovered” that there may NOT be a genetic component to homosexuality.

And I’d like to know why you think ad hominem attacks are valid logically or rhetorically. In fact, you betray only the weakness of your position.

I do care that there is a very vocal minority in this country who seem obsessed with sex in general and gay sex in particular.

Yes, there is a very vocal minority that thinks that it is their business what consenting same-sex adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I don’t know why they are obsessed with sex (particularly gay sex), but it’s strongly to the detriment of American society.

I think you were describing a different minority than you thought you were describing, weren’t you?

Anti-gay zealots like Fred Phelps focus on gay sex. Gay rights groups and their supporters defend families and adult relationships. It’s the homophobic crowd that you really should be disgusted with, based on your argument.

I care that intellectual elites like the so-called “Dr. Poshek” here chastise and belittle the skeptics of science. I, for one, am very skeptical of scientific studies that become ammunition for one political faction or the other. Nazi science supported Nazi ideology. Communist science supports communist ideology. And liberal science is supported by liberal scientists who receive the fawning adoration of liberals everywhere.

And I care that you think there are political points to be won by belittling science. “Nazi science” and “communist science” were not valid science because they formed their conclusions first and wrapped their evidence around the desired conclusions. The heirs of that legacy are those that twist decades-old misunderstandings, bad logic, bald lies, and religious desires to deny the conclusions of evidence-based science.

It’s not “liberal science” that supports evolution, global warming, and other discoveries. It’s just science, properly, correctly, and appropriately done.

It’s a sad era for America when denying the results of the scientific method is defended, and when defending the methods that have led to so much progress is derided as “chastising and belittling” by “intellectual elites”. It’s as though supporting knowledge was a bad thing.

I don’t care what causes homosexuality. What really bothers me is the corrosive effect the militant homosexual movement is having on our society. That’s what concerns me. Ever hear of NAMBLA? Disgusting.

Question: is this ridiculous non sequitur made intentionally or not? The gay rights movement supports the rights of consenting adults, and it strongly opposes child molestation. Connecting them here as you do is invalid and intellectually dishonest, but no more so Rubbish than the rest of your comment.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #188351

Isn’t ironic that those who reject science seem to have no problem enjoyings its benefits. It is science worked by the “intellectual elites” which has made it possible for them to post to this thread. If they had integrity (which they do not), they would foreswear all the benefits of science. Of course, this would mean few would even live to adulthood.

In reality, of course, they have no problem with science except when it exposes their ignorance. What is sad is their use of religion as an rationale for their ignorance. What a small, hateful, impotent god they worship. It is Einstein (another “intellectual elite”) who said that science gives us a glimpse into God’s mind. It is that glimpse of God I have found to be so infinitely marvelous and amazing beyond all words.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 15, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #188362

Dr. Poshek:

Who, exactly, is rejecting science? Not me! I do reject the notion that science is the solution to all of the world’s many problems. In fact, science is responsible for many of the problems we face today. Sure, there’s an upside to technology and science. No doubt about it. But it’s not all good, and proclaiming that science will ultimately solve all our problems is … well, ignorant. Science will do us all in unless we can become better people.

Your haughty and condescending tone speaks volumes. You completely ignored the valid points I raised and chose instead to paint me as “ignorant.” That’s not very tolerant of you, “Dr. Poshek.” Tsk, tsk, tsk.

But that’s liberalism for you.

Here’s another web site, chock full of references to studies showing a positive correlation between homosexuality and pediphilia:

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

But I’ll bet the studies cited were conducted by ignoramuses like me, eh? Or maybe the studies were conducted by politically conservative scientists, which would support one of my earlier points.

But back to the topic…

As a parent of children who attend public school, it makes me very uncomfortable to contemplate the prospect of my little boy alone in a room with a homosexual male teacher because:

1. Many homosexual men are attracted to boys.

2. Man-boy “love” is a theme that permeates gay literature.

3. Whereas homosexuals only comprise about 3% of the total population, they account for about 30% of the total number of child sex offenses.

Perhaps all of you would have no problem - none whatsoever - with the prospect of your 11 year-old son alone in a room with a homosexual male teacher.

Posted by: Chris at October 15, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #188363

Misspelled “pedophilia.” Sorry about that.

Posted by: Chris at October 15, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #188366

Hey Chris,

You completely ignored the valid points I raised and chose instead to paint me as “ignorant.” That’s not very tolerant of you, “Dr. Poshek.” Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Perhaps he did that because I had already dissected and rebutted your points. Why gang up on your points? If you had read my response, I’m not sure you’d be so confident about the validity of your points.

And tolerance in no way means putting up with bad logic and invalid assumptions in a debate.

But it’s not all good, and proclaiming that science will ultimately solve all our problems is … well, ignorant.

Well, congrats on dispelling that straw man. No one claims that science will solve all of humanity’s problems. The closest was my claim that real scientists actually try to solve hard scientific problems and have hope that they will some day be able to solve them, in contrast to IDers, who believe that tough problems are just to hard to try to solve.

I was talking about solving scientific problems, not all of humanity’s problems, but I suppose you enjoyed defeating that strawman.

But that’s liberalism for you.

Oh please. The idea that science should be the realm of scientific thought, and the idea that people who hope to dilute science are on the wrong side of history is a negative example of liberalism?

What does that say about you?

Perhaps all of you would have no problem - none whatsoever - with the prospect of your 11 year-old son alone in a room with a homosexual male teacher.

No more than I would have a problem with my 11 year-old niece being alone in a room with a heterosexual male teacher.

I read over parts of the page you link to, and there are big problems with it. For example, 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger is an eye-catching stat, but does that exclude experiences when the interviewees were themselves 16-19? If not, then it’s a meaningless number. After all, many heterosexual males have had sex with adolescent girls, but when they themselves were adolescents - probably higher than 73%. Without that clarification, it’s a meaningless stat. Further, sex with 19-year-olds isn’t illegal in any state.

The major problem with the page, though, is that it makes the flawed claim that men who molest young boys are attracted to adult men. Some researchers, like Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist Dr. Frederick Berlin, say that attaction to children is a separate orientation of its own. A study by Dr. A. Nicholas Groth found that nearly half of the child sex offenders in his small sample were exclusively attracted to children. The other half regressed to children after finding trouble in adult relationships. No one in his sample was primarily attracted to same-sex adults.

So, yes, I would be ok with my son having a gay teacher because adult homosexuality is a different orientation than same-sex pedophilia as much as adult heterosexuality is different than opposite-sex pedophilia.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #188367

Chris,

“1. Many homosexual men are attracted to boys.

2. Man-boy “love” is a theme that permeates gay literature.

3. Whereas homosexuals only comprise about 3% of the total population, they account for about 30% of the total number of child sex offenses.”

Since the site you link doesn’t supply the source of their statistics, and it seems that you only got the stats from their site, it makes me wonder about their validity.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

“Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that “the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls” – doesn’t hold up.”

I think I might trust the UC Davis Psychology Dept findings a bit more than your link.

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #188369

Chris,

You might want to look here as well;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8008535

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #188371

Rocky,

Wow. That UCDavis site is quite a rebuttal of the site Chris presented.

It obviously means that the people at Davis are liberal, just like you and me. After all, they are in California, so they are just flaky liberals. It has to be just “liberal science”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #188373

Lawnboy,

I just can’t see this bullshit being spread any further.

It’s time someone separated the facts from the fallacies.

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #188374

You should check out the National Institute of Health link as well.

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #188375

Another thing. Everything in the site you linked to is about gay men. What about lesbians? There’s nothing about them being predators. In fact, the discussion is all about whether gay men are equally are more predatory than straight men.

I think you’ve presented perfect evidence that lesbians should have every right to be teachers.

Right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #188377

LawnBoy, Dr. Poshek,

Thanks for taking these homophobic anti-scientific bigots on.

Chris,

You wrote:

Who, exactly, is rejecting science? Not me! I do reject the notion that science is the solution to all of the world’s many problems. In fact, science is responsible for many of the problems we face today.

This is so true Chris. Better living through chemistry / toxic chemicals - nuclear weapons and so on - all problems brought to us by science. Intelligence was also the problem when the first caveman got smart enough to pick up the first bone and bash Able’s head in. The solution would seem obvious to anyone intelligent. We should all just return to being stupid ape men drooling on ourselves - many less problems that way. People who reject the fact of evolution and the possibility that genetics may play a role in sexual orientation might have a head start on the rest of us.

If intellectually honest person is going to blame world’s problems on science then that open minded person most also look at religion. How many problems has that caused??? The Christian crusades to the “holy land?” We are still reeling from the consequences of that? People are still dying from the ancient hatreds that engendered. Give me a break, land is not holy. It is dirt. It is real estate.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 15, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #188378

Actually, Rocky, the NIH study is discussed in Chris’s page, in the 23rd footnote. The FRC finds it unreliable. However, as UC Davis points out,

other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 15, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #188379

I have known enough gay men and women in my life to conduct my own study.
I know a lesbian couple that run a day care for preschoolers. The children they care for are clean, happy, and recieve an education that will prepare them for attending school, and will help them be good students.

Being gay isn’t just about sex, though to hear it from some folks, that’s all it is.

Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #188382

1LT B,

You wrote:

Meanwhile, I think many Christians are focusing their energy in the wrong place. The state of marriage for heterosexuals is in a sad state. Few go to the altar as virgins, we have a divorce rate that is shameful, and spousal and child abuse continue to bedevil our society. I have a cousin who is gay, and he and his partner, who have been together for over 20 years now, are far better examples of a positive and loving, if a bit different, relationship than I have seen from many of my heterosexual peers. We should be far more concerned about the state of affairs in the heterosexual community than about a very small number of people, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the population, who want to live together in peace.

So very well said, I needed to repost it. People need to take several deep breaths and read that several times.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 16, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #188383

Chris: You are correct. I am intolerant. I am intolerant of ignorance. Nothing you have written in this thread suggests any knowledge of science, the scientific method, or any preference for objective thought.

As LawnBoy has observed, there is no need for me to repeat his excellent rebuttal. He has demolished every flawed assertion your have made in this thread. I could not have done better.

I pity your son for having a parent so controlled by irrational fears and incapable of living in reality. He will suffer for the rest of his life as a result of your dillusions. Homosexual teachers should be the least of your concerns for your son.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 16, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #188386

Chris,

To add on to what Dr.Poshek just said. In the first place the vast, vast majority of child sexual abuse happens in the home by family members, and friends. Teachers homosexual or heterosexual are not the problem. If you are concerned about the saftey of your child look closer to home.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 16, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #188390

Ray: You may find it of interest that my neighbors are a gay couple who have been together since 1959! The have raised 3 adopted sons. Each kid had been removed from abusive heterosexaul homes. One was nearly beaten to death by his father who said he didn’t want a faggot son. The kid wasn’t gay, he just wanted to play the piano. Those three guys are now well-adjusted, intelligent, heterosexual adults, each has earned advanced degrees, each is successful in his career, and each is married and has children.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 16, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #188395

No wonder Rove and Abramhoff thought the right wing christians were nut cases.

Posted by: gergle at October 16, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #188404

Ray Guest,

Thanks for the support. You’re about half right on your post to Chris. My brother was in the seminary to become a Catholic priest, and during the sex abuse scandal, looked up some research and discovered that a child was far more likely to be molested by a father, mother, aunt, uncle, or teacher than a priest and that the rate of sexual abuse by priests was far lower than that of almost every other segment of the population. I say that you’re half right because I think that teachers are a problem, regardless of their sexual orientation. Case after case after case comes up of teachers taking advantage of their students for sex. Even worse, what used to be confined largely to male teachers in becoming increasingly common amongst women as well. Not exactly on topic and perhaps a bit nitpicky of me, but I see teachers as requiring scrutiny.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 16, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #188413

1LT B: One should be concerned about all sexual abuse. I would note that media coverage of abuse by teachers is disproportionate to the actual frequency of such abuse. However, even one case of abuse by a teacher is one too many and teachers definitely deserve scrutiny — your point is well-taken.

Here’s a peer-reviewed research article which you might find interesting: http://www.kspope.com/therapistas/abuse1.php

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #188422

1LT B,

I agree that there are problems with authority figures exploiting children for sex. I would suggest that the rate of female sexual abuse of boys or male sexual abuse of boys was grossly under reported in the past. Male sexual abuse of boys would be and no doubt still is unreported because of even greater shame. Tom Foley is an example, the parents did not want to make waves, no doubt because they did not want to embarrass their son. Female sexual abuse of boys would be and no doubt still is unreported because it is often seen as the boy just getting lucky. The boy sees it that way himself - I would have sees it that way - it is still abuse.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 16, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #188438

“Whereas homosexuals only comprise about 3% of the total population, they account for about 30% of the total number of child sex offenses.”

Chris,

There are a few holes in this argument.

First, maybe there is only 3% of the gay population that is openly gay but I find it a bit obsurd to believe that that percentage is an accurate estimate. A more accurate estimate is probably at 10 - 12%.

Second, you’re not counting the openly bi-sexual population, which then adds about another 10 - 12%. Of course, once the amount of closet bi-sexuals is added it you’re probably looking at closer to 1/3 of the population.

Third, very few homosexual child sex offenses are commited by a homosexual. Most homosexual child sex offenses are caused by “strait” people. So while the act could be considered homosexual, it is usually a strait pervert that commited the crime, (Hence, a homosexual or bi-sexual that is not comfortable and open about their sexuality).

However, when looking at the figures of gay and bi-sexual the percentage adds up about equal to the number of offenses.

Posted by: Metacom at October 16, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #188444

Ray Guest,

I think you’re pretty much on target with your last post. One thing I find disturbing is the double standard that is applied in many of these cases. A male teacher who sexually exploits a young female student is looking at serious jail time if convicted. I’m not seeing the same thing with female teachers who take advantage of young boys. Most of the time, it looks like they get a slap on the wrist.

Regardless of age, I think a person in a position of authority over another should not be permitted to have sex with them. For example, I am an officer in the Army and I have female subordinates. If I were to have sex with any of them and get caught, I would be looking at at least a harsh written reprimand and could be sentenced to up to 5 years in military prison and given a dishonorable discharge for fraternization. On the civilian side, a professor who sleeps with a student will be fired whether or not he has tenure. Positions of leadership carry responsibility and I think it is wrong when sexual escapades intrude on these relationships.

Metacom,

Do you have any references for the numbers you quote? I find it difficult to believe that gay/bisexual people are anywhere near a third of the population.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 16, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #188446

1LT B,

The first major scientific study of this topic, the famed Kinsey Report of 1948, stated that “at least 13 percent of the male population” has a primary homosexual orientation. Thirty-seven percent was the Kinsey estimate of the combined homo- and bisexual population. All similar studies to date have by and large verified this data.

As for proof of a lack of homosexual child sex offenders, there was a study on 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as fixated, (preferring children to adults). 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, the study showed that the men engaged in an equal amount of sexual activity with both men and women, with showing no favor to one or the other. The test showed that no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males.

Posted by: Metacom at October 16, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #188512

Metacom,

I’m not quite convinced about Kinsey, I’ve read a lot of material that suggests his research is flawed, but I’m not an expert. I’ve also seen some research similiar to the one you cite suggesting that there is not a specific link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. While some aspects of man/boy love exist in parts of the homosexual community, for instance NAMBLA, any attacks against homosexuals exclusively for this is absolutely foolish. Anybody who has been on the internet for more than 30 seconds knows there are plenty of sites out there that pander to heterosexual abuse of children, often pointing out that the girls there are barely legal, dressed like schoolgirls etc. Unfortunately, we as a society seem more and more willing to tolerate child sexual predators.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 2:58 AM
Comment #188513

Kinsey’s work was in many ways cutting-edge at the time he did it. It was methodologically flawed by today’s standards. The largest problem being the self-selection of subjects (people) interviewed. The interview process he developed (sometimes called the “cascading interview”) is still used today with refinements in much social science research. Despite the flaws, subsequent research shows his findings were generally “in the ball park.” For example, while Kinsey found a 13% incidence of homosexual orientation, subsequent researches have shown the numbers to be in the 8 - 11% range.

Kinsey’s major contribution to the study of sexuality was his 7 point (0 - 6) “Kinsey Scale.” Prior to Kinsey, sexual orientation was measured dichotomously (heterosexual vs homosexual). Kinsey’s data showed that sexuality didn’t fit into neat black-&-white categories.

I had a statistics professor who was a graduate student at Indiana University when Kinsey was doing his research; she was interviewed by one of Kinsey’s people for the female sexuality study. She often referred to Kinsey’s work as examples of various common statistical and methodological challenges in social science research.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 17, 2006 3:43 AM
Comment #188530

Dr. Poshek,

Thanks for the info about Kinsey. I had heard that his research was further off and that he sampled from prisoners incarcerated for sexually related crimes, have you heard anything similar? I think that we still have a largely dichotomous way of looking at sexuality with bi-sexual tacked on to hetero or homosexual.

On that same subject, I read an interesting piece a while back linking the type of man a woman finds attractive to her menstral cycle. During the times women were least fertile, they tended to be more attracted to effeminate and sensitive men, but during more fertile parts of the cycle tended to be attracted more towards lumberjack types. Thus, even in straight women, there seems to be a sliding scale of what is attractive. This also explains, in my mind at least, how these wretched bile-inducing boy bands keep showing up.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 6:57 AM
Comment #188538

Funny how you pull out the devote Catholic spin when it the very doctine of celibacy of the Roman Catholic Church that has corrupted the priesthood and has made a whole disgusting image for the church in the 21st century.

Though the press harps on the abuse of boys by priests, there are far more cases of women being abused by far. The hypocracy of the Catholic heirarchy in condemning gay men and women, who have no choice in this matter, is overwhelming.

Look at Spain. 98% Catholic. However they have witnessed all to horribly what conservative doctrinare right wing Fascist church leaders can do to society. Read the horrors of Franco who was 100% supported by the Church against the democratically elected Republican government. The Spanish have come into the modern age and no longer let a celibate, corrupted priesthood dictate what they should do in bed, at home, on the streets, etc. And Spain has by far fewer murders, rapes, abortians, etc. than the US yet has accepted Gay marriage!

The bible says nothing about homosexuality. It is a bizarre interpretation of an old Testament text and a few missives of St. Paul that conservatives use. However it is in these same texts that say women are slaves to men! So why stop at gays? Why don’t we stone adulterers, chop off hands of theives, etc?

The demonizing of gays by Republicans is directly parallel to Hitlers use of the Jews. Gays pose no threat to any straight family. Over 80% of divorses are due to financial strains or substance abuse. Of course if I was working at Walmart earning minimum wage, had my kids on food stamps, couldn’t afford health care, I probably would retreat to the bottle. Doubt if I would retreat into the arms of my same sex!!

Posted by: Acetracy at October 17, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #188543

1LT B: Kinsey did interview incarcerated sex offenders. He, also, intereviewed everyone else. His sampling was amazingly representative demographically. However, his subjects were self-selecting and he did not statistically correct for this as we would today; hence, his “ball park” numbers are even more remarkable. He would interview anyone who would give him the time. He went to extraordinary lengths to interview people from all the various demograhic stratae. Also, note that some measurements in subsequent researches are different not because Kinsey was wrong but because Americans are continually changing… we are not, today, the same country we were 60 years ago.

You’ll find this interesting: the Kinsey finding that caused the greatest uproar among the American populace upon the studies’ publications was that virtually everyone masturbates. Masturbation (“self abuse”) became a hot topic from America’s pulpits for most of the 1950s! This is not only empirically documented: I was personally on the receiving end of these sermons in my childhood. And then, there was rock ‘n’ roll……….. oh, the memories!

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 17, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #188560

Acetracy,

Number one, its devout, not devote. Try a spell checker or pretend you could pass a fifth grade spelling test. Number two, how has a celibate priesthood ruined the Catholic Church? Do you have any numbers to back up what you say about priests abusing women? And what’s with this Franco nonsense? Oh wait, when I think brutality, I think Franco. What a load of crap.

The idea that the Bible says nothing about sexuality is as dumb as saying that Darwin said nothing of natural selection. The Bible makes several references to engaging in homosexual acts being sinful. If you disagree with that fine, but to try to argue that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality demonstrates that you are either a partisan hack of staggering proportions or illiterate, maybe both.

Instead of Catholic bashing, why don’t you make a reasoned argument? The Bible says that having sex outside of marriage is sinful, whether or not its straight or gay sex. If you’re not married, you shouldn’t be having sex and it applies to everybody. Is that hypocritical? I’ll grant its a bit unrealistic, but not hypocritical. Try making a reasoned argument rather than wasting photons.

Dr. Poshek,

Thanks again for the info, not a big Kinsey buff. I had heard that the self-abuse thing was a big deal back then and very controversial. Glad I didn’t have to put up with that.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #188582

I find all these arguments irrelevant as it was my understanding that she was only expressing her concern of bringing this up in school. Not whether the teachers were gay or whether we should allow gay teachers or whether this is a genetic or learned trait. You will all be talking until you are blue in the face and you will not change the others opinion. But unless I am wrong about the article she didn’t want these subjects brought up in school. Who cares what the sexual orientation of the teacher is, as long as they are a good teacher.

Posted by: patrick at October 17, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #188585

patrick,

But unless I am wrong about the article she didn’t want these subjects brought up in school. Who cares what the sexual orientation of the teacher is, as long as they are a good teacher.

Dana’s original post was about teaching about homosexuality in schools, but the article to which she linked was about adding sexual orientation to non-discrimination clauses. Essentially, it was about whether homosexual teachers should fear being fired for being gay.

You will all be talking until you are blue in the face and you will not change the others opinion.

You may be right, but isn’t it worthwhile to try? Otherwise, we might as well shut down the whole site.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 17, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #188598

Rocky-

Great link to the UC Davis psych dept. Very informative. For those who might try and marginalize it, let me say that I work at UC Davis. I am very familiar with the culture here. It is a very decentralized campus where freedom and experimentation are encouraged by the various departments. We are one of the best research-based colleges in the nation. Empirical methods are greatly valued. The community is very interactive as well, with peer review being extremely common. The result is that a lot of careful thought goes into the work done and people are held accountable for the work they do and the conclusions they draw.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #188607

My name is Kevin:

Why is it that all certain people seem to care much more about peoples’ sexuality and government regulation thereof than they do about the hundreds of imprtant issues that are actually pertinent to our daily life and the future of our nation?

Kevin A REAL Conservative Libertarian Republican

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #188617

Kevin23,

Thanks,

I have friends that live in that area, and I have always heard good things about UC Davis.

My only experience on the subject of gay teachers, is anecdotal except that I once had a gay friend that taught grade school in Los Angeles during the ’70s.
To look at or talk to him you wouldn’t know, as he had no outward appearance of gayness, but he definitely liked his men to be men.

I went to a Catholic grade school where the teachers were Nuns, and high school where the teachers were mostly Priests.
For the short time I was in public school, except for shop, Journalism, and PE, all my teachers were women, and in the ’50s and ’60s who could tell anyway?

I don’t have a problem with gays teaching children. Gays teachers are there to teach and not to cruise for sex partners.
Any school discussion about the dangers of STDs, including AIDS, should include the mention of homosexuality.

It would be criminal not to.

Posted by: Rocky at October 17, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #188636

Rocky-

“Gays teachers are there to teach and not to cruise for sex partners.
Any school discussion about the dangers of STDs, including AIDS, should include the mention of homosexuality.”

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I’ve always said that one should never make things more complicated than they need to be. Truth is easy to teach, easy to assimilate, and easy to remember. Any time you stray from that, things get needlessly complicated. Schools should never be in the business of perpetuating a false image of anything.

So can I just amend your last point to say:

Anytime a school teaches anything, they need to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may…It would be criminal not to.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #188780

I’d like to make a few observations.

I can clearly remember my first “education” about homosexuality. It was overhearing my brother and his classmates discussing how a policeman had beat a “queer” so badly as to require hospitalization and the rightness of him so doing.

Regarding the nurture/nature debate, I think some conclusions might be drawn from the animal world. I recall a study done by the Department of Agriculture having to do with sheep. If I recall correctly, they concluded that approximately 6% of male sheep were homosexual. I’ve heard some fundamentalists estimate that only 1% of the population are homosexual. At the other extreme, gay activists estimate the number to be in excess of 10%. Of course, one must recognize a problem with defining what a homosexual is, taking into account Kinsey’s 0-6 scale.

The Foley thing is all about politics. We have hypocrisy from the left and homophobia from the right. I frequently get e-mails that I don’t want to receive. I ignore and delete them. As far as instant messages, most chat rooms have a capability for ignoring messages from sources. Failing that, one simply does not respond to the message, and, sooner or later, the other person will stop sending messages. None of these actions require involvement by the Speaker of the House. Most likely scenario: These 16+-year old young men were communicating with someone they liked. However, their parent(s)did not like the communication, and decided to try and have it stopped. Maybe they were afraid that the communication would “convert” their son to homosexuality (the implicit threat in this whole issue).

Which brings up another issue. If a 16-year old murders his parents, the justice system usually wants to try him as an adult. If a 16-year old is in dialogue with an older gay may, he is referred to as a child. I find this illogical.

Posted by: John67 at October 18, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #188789

John67-

I cannot fault you for pointing out some obvious double standards. Whenever bright line rules are drawn (age of consent, voting age, etc.) there is always inconsistency and injustice. You make a great point about the fear from parents of potentially gay children. As a society, we’ve yet to really have honest dialogue about sex and sexuality. Until we become less afraid of upsetting the powers that be by simply speaking our mind, there will never be a good solution.

But I think the main thing about the Foley case, and about any old powerful man-young impressionable boy scenario is the extreme likelihood that this “relationship” will damage the young man. It begs the question of what is in it for the older party? What is to be gained by protecting this behavoir?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #188840

Kevin,

Is not a relationship its own excuse for being? Must there always be something more?

Are all your relationships limited to contemporarys or older people?

Actually, I’ve been in both situations. As a toddler-young child, I had a relationship with a late, middle-aged next door neighbor, who happened to be Jewish (I’m Christian). He was a wonderful person who taught me a lot. I treasure his memory to this day. Over the years, I have been a surrogate uncle to a number of both boys/young men and girls/young ladies. I have, upon occasion, half-apologized to their parents telling that I seemed to be enjoying their children more than they did. They, in turn, have responded by doing such things as asking to be in their weddings. Friends of mine have asked me to drop in on their children during the next 10 days that they will be out of town. I have a godson who is not related to me that I have known for the 20 years of his existence. We talk at least once a month. What do I get out of it? The relationships enrich my life.

I have not seen Foley’s instant messages, so I am unable to comment on them. However, I will observe that if the young men had not responded to his messages, the dialogue would not have happened—the young men must have been getting something from them.

By the time someone is 16-years old, there sexuality has probably been formed, according to some authorities, for 8-10 years. It is not going to be affected by some instant messages.

No one alleges that Foley actually had sexual contact with them.

Contrast what the Democrats are saying about Foley with what they said about Studds, who actually did have sex with a page. They lauded Studds for advancing homosexual rights and rewarded him with a chairmanship. Hence, the hypocrisy.

Oh, yeah, when are we going to find out where those instant messages have been since 2003? If someone was really concerned about the “welfare of the children” why did it take so long for the messages to surface?

However, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

Posted by: John67 at October 18, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #188847

John-

I put the word “relationship” in quotes solely because it is not a normal one like the ones you describe. Read the IM’s, they should be very easy to find online. Then you’ll see that this was not just a mentorship, or an unselfish give and take relationship. He knew he was doing something wrong. And I really don’t care about the political side of it, or who did what in the past. That kind of “relationship” is abnormally dangerous.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #188851

Kevin,

Please be more specific as to why it is “abnormally dangerous.”

Suggest a site for reading the IMs.

By the way, Studds is in the news tonight. He died recently, and his lifetime partner/spouse is being denied the same benefits a wife would be entitled to. Which is, in my opinion, not right.

Posted by: John67 at October 18, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #188998

Sorry John, but I’ve already posted enough on Foley to last me a lifetime. I’m cutting this one loose. You’ll have to do your own research. Want a great recommendation for where to find pretty much anything? www.google.com

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #189494

homosexuals were created by heterosexuals! Imagine that!!

We should be more worried about sexual offenders, rapist and mass murders, which by the way, are usually hetero.

I think I read somewhere in the bible that Jesus was gay? Or is that just what I want to read into it?

The bible will be death of us all…hetero’s included.


Posted by: Nicole at October 21, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #196940

I’m posting this in the hope that someone will have the courage to cut through all the hysteria of labels, political correctness and claims to speak directly from the heart of God. I hope that this will allow at least one person to look at themselves honestly. I believe that we have come under such great pressure to define ourselves that we are cornered, coersed and forced to declare a status to those around us in the hope that they will accept and understand us.
I may label myself a Christian ex-lesbian with a history of being victim to sexual and emotional abuse. But I am a human being; we each have feelings, experiences, needs, desires and stories to tell. BUT we were each made unique and each deal with what we have been given in different ways.
I am now in my forties; I have lived for 14 years with different partners of the same sex, I lived out the ‘Gay’ label. Yet for 15 years I’ve had partners of the opposite sex and I so wish that I had had the courage to speak the truth about my needs and feelings as a teenager. Now I am married to a totally accepting man and I truly feel released. There is a complexity and depth to this relationship that I didn’t believe could exist except in the fantasy world.
I grew up with a fairly ambivalent sexuality, I had a ‘childhood sweetheart’; a boy I’d have died for. But had sexual feelings towards my best (female) friend, my mum’s friends and just about any woman who took an interest in me. These feelings were fed as I turned 11 or 12 by the porn magazines which my parents had at home; just about every story had lesbien sex in it. This, I learned, was something people were attracted to.
I cultivated the idea, having boyfriends but encouraging them to ‘share’ me with another woman. I believed they would want me all the more for it.
The trouble with teenage is that everything is driven by feelings. I had a terrible relationship with my mother, my Dad gave me more understanding as long as I didn’t steal his boyfriends (he was Gay) and I just craved love and acceptance.
I eventualy found an outlet for these feelings and a way of feeding my cravings. I hit the Gay world, big time. I fell for an older woman, lots of money, jet stting, fast car etc. There I stayed, I risked rejection from my family and friends and I inwardly felt that I was being unfaithful to my true self yet my emotional needs seemed to outweigh all of the stigma. I wore the badge with pride!
14 years and several relationships later I hit rock bottom. I felt a failure in life and I had either to change my lifestyle radically or say goodbye. I had no sense of self worth, no love, no identity and no vision of a future.
I was a drunk and because of that, became pregnant, you see I had turned to one or two men for the emotional ‘fix’ that I no longer got from women.
Then my life changed radically; the biggest hurdle was to come out as straight to all my friends and family, no one trusted me. It has taken ten years or more for some to really begin to trust me again. Labels are obviously crucial to people.
It was then, as a single parent with a young baby, that I first found the courage to come into a church and to find God who I now know totally accepts me just as he made me and who completely understands how life hits each of us. Again, it is my hope that this encourages others to be true to themselves through being true to the life that God intends for them.

Posted by: Freddie at November 29, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #217547

I guess I don’t have as strong an opinion as you all. I read all of your coments and I can see some very good points in almost everything. Personally, I am torn. I don’t know a lot about these types of things, I lead a rather sheltered life in a backwater town in Michigan. I do, however, I do know what I believe. I believe that we are born heterosexual and we make a choice to be otherwise. I am a relatively conservative baptist woman. I believe God would not say something is sin if we are born that way. I am very pious but I am not as fanatic about my religion as some people on this site (i.e. Roger. we as Christians are to be tolerant; when we think something is wrong we go to the person and try to help them. We do not say “WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?” We try to help them. We PRAY for them. WE do not scream and shout at the sinners and accuse them of doing wrong, we go to them and tell them about Christ and tell them the correct lifestyle. I think that the fanatic religious people need more help than the homosexuals do.

Posted by: Erin Swallow at April 19, 2007 11:57 AM
Post a comment