Anti-Gay Research -- I know I'm weak right now....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 10:19 AM GMT
    I was watching EWTV (a Catholic channel) this morning after channel surfing for something on TV. The program at that time was a lecture from a catholic psychologist. Thomas Lickona Ph.D. was discussing the effects of the "sexual revolution" on children and our cultural perceptions of sex.

    Curious--and a bit stupid--I decided to look the boozo up on the internet. I found a bunch of fascinating websites from the Catholic Education Resource Center, Catholic Medical Association, and Corporate Resource Council (the latter I had never heard about).

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#03

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html#04

    I'm kind of depressed now.

    I'm not sure why... I know I'm weak right now. Emotionally/mentally. I know I'm susceptible to irrational thoughts when I'm feeling blue. And I also know everything I just read at those two sites is a load of biased rubbish. Religious nuts have some preconceived notion of morality, and then in a biasled manner, search for evidence to justify their views--kind of the opposite of the research (and scientific) method.

    It just hurts sometimes... more times than others and I had to vent to someone--even if know one responds.

    What bothers me the most is that those documents contain some elements of truth (or half-truths) and yet they twist it in order to demonize gay people.

    I'm an atheist and I have become immune to anti-gay rhetoric over the years to the point where I can read something utterly homophobic and biased from some radical republican and walk away completely unphased. I have no idea why this is bothering me right now.

    Does anyone else get discouraged now and then concerning this subject?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 10:35 AM GMT
    You get discouraged! Think about us older guys. This society isn't going to really change until these people die off. Well, I'm gonna die off with them. I'm never gonna see a world where being gay isn't stigmatized.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 1:09 PM GMT
    CA230_1Trever.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 2:35 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidCA230_1Trever.gif



    +10,000!

    -Doug


    PS stick to feeling sorry for them, conscienti1984, and to turn their own tables on them, love the sinner, not the sin (of passing judgment on gays like they are).

    ...and of course there is this they conveniently ignore:
    "Eze 16:49 Truly, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: pride, a full measure of food, and the comforts of wealth in peace, were seen in her and her daughters, and she gave no help to the poor or to those in need.
    Eze 16:50 They were full of pride and did what was disgusting to me: and so I took them away as you have seen.


    ...so much for sodomy = homosexuality, lol!



    GIANT reassuring hug -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    Just remember some of those ' elements of truth and half-truths' you mentioned have been forced by their 'morality' and twisted ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 6:49 PM GMT
    Caslon17000 saidYou get discouraged! Think about us older guys. This society isn't going to really change until these people die off. Well, I'm gonna die off with them. I'm never gonna see a world where being gay isn't stigmatized.


    I know. I don't know how you guys did it back then... seriously.

    I found a newspaper that my parents saved from the day I was born; even reading some of the articles back in 1984 seemed full of stereotypes, bias, and religious rhetoric. Jerry Falwell was mentioned like three times in different articles... along with the "Moral" Majority/ Christian Coalition.

    Though I do have many happy childhood memories from the 80's, I would not have wanted to be an adult during that time period--nor anytime before. Though I suppose the younglings of today will say the same of this decade some time in the distant future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 6:50 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidCA230_1Trever.gif


    One of my favorite cartoons. I thought of this today after reading those websites actually.

    Thanks for posting it! icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidCA230_1Trever.gif


    Whether someone believes in darwinistic evolution, creationism or theistic evolution, no one comes to the table free from predispositions. All theories are based on first contemplating the philosophical idea and then looking for evidence to support it.

    Darwin himself came up with the idea of evolution and then looked for evidence to support his ideas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    Mock, Darwin's voyage to the Galapagos came before he had his theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin%27s_theory#Transmutation
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 9:13 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]conscienti1984 said[/cite]
    Caslon17000 saidYou get discouraged! Think about us older guys. This society isn't going to really change until these people die off. Well, I'm gonna die off with them. I'm never gonna see a world where being gay isn't stigmatized.


    I know. I don't know how you guys did it back then... seriously.

    I found a newspaper that my parents saved from the day I was born; even reading some of the articles back in 1984 seemed full of stereotypes, bias, and religious rhetoric. Jerry Falwell was mentioned like three times in different articles... along with the "Moral" Majority/ Christian Coalition.

    Though I do have many happy childhood memories from the 80's, I would not have wanted to be an adult during that time period--nor anytime before. Though I suppose the younglings of today will say the same of this decade some time in the distant future.[/quote



    You should try doing some reading from the 50's and early 60's when Caslon and I were in our most formative years. There was no discussion, no open minded people to influence you out in blue collar land. Gay was being happy, Queers and perverts were the only known name for homosexuals,

    Sex between men and women wasn't even discussed let alone being open to homosexuality. That started changing in the bigger cities in the mid 60's and anyone starting to open their mind were just "hippies" to the blue coller folks.

    We've come a long way baby !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 9:41 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidMock, Darwin's voyage to the Galapagos came before he had his theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin%27s_theory#Transmutation


    Doesn't matter, he started conceiving how it might fit into some greater philosophical scheme that he conjured up in his mind -- scientifically valid or not.

    When he wrote his book the origin of the species there wasn't much for him to work with except for observations that are also embraced by people espousing creationism.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 17, 2011 9:42 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidI was watching EWTV (a Catholic channel) this morning after channel surfing for something on TV. The program at that time was a lecture from a catholic psychologist. Thomas Lickona Ph.D. was discussing the effects of the "sexual revolution" on children and our cultural perceptions of sex.

    Curious--and a bit stupid--I decided to look the boozo up on the internet. I found a bunch of fascinating websites from the Catholic Education Resource Center, Catholic Medical Association, and Corporate Resource Council (the latter I had never heard about).

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#03

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html#04

    I'm kind of depressed now.


    Does anyone else get discouraged now and then concerning this subject?


    Well its possible you dont know that much about scientic research and publication. The two cited on the catholic site are garbage. They dont appear to be published at all in any peer reviewed literature.

    I am not catholic, but I went to a catholic high school.

    The fact they have to even write a article says they have to go contrary to public thought on the matter.

    Gay relationships are not heterosexual relationships. But the author would want you to believe that is the problem.

    Take it to heart and next time you meet someone of this particular vintage with similar thoughts you can challenge them.

    The citations are from sources from the 90's and earlier.

    The catholic church has a real crisis on its hands, Its boxed itself in a corner with rigid teaching and hypocrisy. I wouldnt worry too much about them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 9:53 PM GMT
    conscienti198...--- Listen, F EM! Seriously, all their rhetoric is coming from stuff they learned from other fanatics and it just gets passed on from generation to generation. Fanatics are just that, they do not dictate your life or mine... thankfully. Gotta laugh at their bull. It's ignorance at it's best.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidMock, Darwin's voyage to the Galapagos came before he had his theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin%27s_theory#Transmutation


    Doesn't matter, he started conceiving how it might fit into some greater philosophical scheme that he conjured up in his mind -- scientifically valid or not.

    When he wrote his book the origin of the species there wasn't much for him to work with except for observations that are also embraced by people espousing creationism.


    Did you even read the link I supplied? The prevailing view in his time was "natural theology" which saw the "perfect" prevailing forms as archetypes imposed by Divine Will. After Gould pointed out that the Galapagos birds were actually completely new species, Darwin started to speculate that transmutation depends on the environment, and that there is not necessarily a "perfect" form to which all species are destined to mutate into. His mentor, the great geologist Lyell, thought this was heresy:
    same quote
    By mid-March [1837], Darwin was speculating in his Red Notebook on the possibility that "one species does change into another" to explain the geographical distribution of living species such as the rheas, and extinct ones such as Macrauchenia which resembled a giant version of the modern guanacos that Darwin had hunted in the same area of Patagonia.[17] Darwin speculated as to why the territories of the rheas overlapped without intermediate species, wondering if mutations (known then as "monsters" or "freaks") "present an analogy to production of species". His Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick had described those promoting similar ideas as "infidel naturalists..[adopting] false theories". Even for Lyell, this was a heresy which implied ape ancestry, destroying mankind's "high estate".


    Now, did Darwin have the mechanism of natural selection when he had his hypothesis? No. That still doesn't change the fact that he
    1. FIRST looked at the evidence collected from the Beagle voyage
    2. AND THEN came up with a hypothesis to explain them, in contradistinction to prevailing views of speciation.

    The science wasn't there (because that needed Mendel and DNA), but this is still essentially the scientific method, i.e. facts first, then hypothesis.

    And hypotheses are subject to change, unlike divine writ. I refer again to the nutcase at Conservapedia. He's even opposed to things like math because some math shows "liberal" bias! Math doesn't even need the scientific method, but he can sure apply his preconceived notions to it.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics

    Somebody please explain to Mock what I'm trying to do, but am too lazy to do so in detail. Maybe a real scientist like TigerTim?