GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[Diogenes]

Defined by whom? With enough tailoring, you can slice the definition it into as small of a sliver as you wish. Homosexuality is itself just a subsection of a larger group of deviant sexual behavior, and there are many sub categories of homosexuality as well. (of which "Butch" and Femme" are merely two examples.)

Of course you can lump as many, or as few, things together as you like in retrospect. But that is not what your goal is. Your goal is to say that being gay is a predictor. So, you are committing equivocation yet again.

You are quite free with that "Lying" accusation. I generally assume someone is misinformed or delusional before I get to the "you are willfully lying" accusation.

You are defining your statistic in retrospect, and then claim it can be applied as a predictor. Here is the problem. AFTER a man has molested a boy you can classify them "gay" in hindsight if you wish to. However, that's not what you're after. You're after a predictor. Something you can know before a pedophile strikes. The key issue here, and which studies have shown, is BEFORE they do it they could be classified as either gay or straight.

Nonsense. For centuries homosexuals have denied being homosexuals to everyone and themselves included. To rely on what people TELL you is to build a fault right into the analysis from the beginning.

If you are going to argue this methodology, a better approach would be to test subject's involuntary responses by hooking them up to equipment and showing them homoerotic images. Believing what they TELL you is just stupid. The problem with actual testing? It's not feasible.



I personally think that seeing who acts on an impulse is a pretty good way to establish the facts. (or as close as we are feasibly able to get to them.)

The only way to show a correlation the way you wish to (to show that being gay is itself a predictor to child molestation) is to sample the gay population BEFORE anyone molests anyone. However, when people do that they don't find the correlation you seem to be looking for. But of course, you already knew that. You just don't like those studies.

I am aware that there is a large contingent of researchers out there intent on establishing that "gay" is harmless and a variation on normal. (it's a current modern fad.) As a result of this, one cannot simply accept anything presented on this issue as legitimate. One must first examine the presenter as to whether or not they posses this popular bias in favor of Homosexuality, before one can conclude that they aren't cherrypicking and skewing their data to produce the results which they sought in the first place.

I regard researchers on this issue much the same as a I do journalists. Virtually all of them are Liberal Democrats, and as a result they cannot be trusted to tell you the truth if it goes against their preferred political narrative.

We have seen what Liberal Scientists do with Global Warming. As far as I'm concerned, everything they produce is suspect.

[Diogenes]

While i'm at it, ran across this today.


Different topic, but related, and one I have mentioned before.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A 33-year-old West Hollywood man who felt sickened by bacterial meningitis earlier this week has been declared brain dead amid warnings to sexually active gay men about the deadly strain of illness, officials said.

Tests were being done to see if the strain of illness is similar to the meningococcal infections that circulated among gay men in New York City and infected 22 people, resulting in seven fatalities, since 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-man-diagnos ... 11660.html

[kcdodd]

Defined by whom? With enough tailoring, you can slice the definition it into as small of a sliver as you wish. Homosexuality is itself just a subsection of a larger group of deviant sexual behavior, and there are many sub categories of homosexuality as well. (of which "Butch" and Femme" are merely two examples.)

Of course you can lump as many, or as few, things together as you like in retrospect. But that is not what your goal is. Your goal is to say that being gay is a predictor. So, you are committing equivocation yet again.

You are quite free with that "Lying" accusation. I generally assume someone is misinformed or delusional before I get to the "you are willfully lying" accusation.

Lying? I didn't say you lied in the part you quoted, so i don't know what you're even talking about. If you're talking about you equivocating, then yes you are doing that. But that is not lying, unless you are in fact doing it on purpose. I guess you don't know what it means, so you just react in defense? I don't know, that's your problem.

You are defining your statistic in retrospect, and then claim it can be applied as a predictor. Here is the problem. AFTER a man has molested a boy you can classify them "gay" in hindsight if you wish to. However, that's not what you're after. You're after a predictor. Something you can know before a pedophile strikes. The key issue here, and which studies have shown, is BEFORE they do it they could be classified as either gay or straight.

Nonsense. For centuries homosexuals have denied being homosexuals to everyone and themselves included. To rely on what people TELL you is to build a fault right into the analysis from the beginning.

If you are going to argue this methodology, a better approach would be to test subject's involuntary responses by hooking them up to equipment and showing them homoerotic images. Believing what they TELL you is just stupid. The problem with actual testing? It's not feasible.



I personally think that seeing who acts on an impulse is a pretty good way to establish the facts. (or as close as we are feasibly able to get to them.)

You still don't get it. I assume my efforts to explain it to you are futile to begin with though. You are the one using the statistic based on admission classification which gets you the 2% figure. And then you're the one using the statistic based on retrospective classification to get the 11% figure. It's you that is claiming this, not me. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim a metric is valid to make one point, and then claim it is invalid to make another point. You are the one being delusional.

[MSimon]

http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

[Diogenes]

You are quite free with that "Lying" accusation. I generally assume someone is misinformed or delusional before I get to the "you are willfully lying" accusation.

Lying? I didn't say you lied in the part you quoted, so i don't know what you're even talking about. If you're talking about you equivocating, then yes you are doing that. But that is not lying, unless you are in fact doing it on purpose. I guess you don't know what it means, so you just react in defense? I don't know, that's your problem.

"Equivocation" is generally regarded as an attempt to deceive, i.e. "lying."

Nonsense. For centuries homosexuals have denied being homosexuals to everyone and themselves included. To rely on what people TELL you is to build a fault right into the analysis from the beginning.

I personally think that seeing who acts on an impulse is a pretty good way to establish the facts. (or as close as we are feasibly able to get to them.)

You still don't get it. I assume my efforts to explain it to you are futile to begin with though. You are the one using the statistic based on admission classification which gets you the 2% figure. And then you're the one using the statistic based on retrospective classification to get the 11% figure.

2% represents the best number cited for percentage of the population that is regarded as homosexual. If that number is incorrect, you need to complain about it to someone other than me. I didn't come up with that number. Kinsey put it around 1 in 6 (16%) but most people regard Kinsey's studies as complete rubbish. Kinsey was an intellectual kook who may very well have caused great social damage with his twisted reports.

It's you that is claiming this, not me. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim a metric is valid to make one point, and then claim it is invalid to make another point. You are the one being delusional.

You are pointing out what you CLAIM is a flaw in my logic. As I mentioned, *I* didn't come up with the 2% number. It is simply the best number derived from the various sources by various studies. Some people put it at 3%, or even as high as 6 %, but other than Kinsey, I know of no one arguing it is higher than 6%.

Given that no study of which I have ever heard puts the number at or above 11%, you are just quibbling about the margins, not disproving the point.

[Diogenes]

http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

Pseudo scientific study's involving Homosexuality began with Alfred Kinsey. I suspect many subsequent studies are the product of a similar sort of research.

[Stubby]

Abstract

To promote optimal health and well-being of all children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports access for all children to (1) civil marriage rights for their parents and (2) willing and capable foster and adoptive parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. The AAP has always been an advocate for, and has developed policies to support, the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being of all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. In so doing, the AAP has supported families in all their diversity, because the family has always been the basic social unit in which children develop the supporting and nurturing relationships with adults that they need to thrive. Children may be born to, adopted by, or cared for temporarily by married couples, nonmarried couples, single parents, grandparents, or legal guardians, and any of these may be heterosexual, gay or lesbian, or of another orientation. Children need secure and enduring relationships with committed and nurturing adults to enhance their life experiences for optimal social-emotional and cognitive development. Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation. If 2 parents are not available to the child, adoption or foster parenting remain acceptable options to provide a loving home for a child and should be available without regard to the sexual orientation of the parent(s).

[kcdodd]

You've completely missed the point Diogenes. Well, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

[Diogenes]

Abstract

To promote optimal health and well-being of all children,

And of course you attempt to get into the conversation like a typical little yap dog. As far as i'm concerned, anything you have to say is automatically wrong. No need to even bother looking at it.

[Diogenes]

You've completely missed the point Diogenes. Well, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

I am not missing the point. I'm saying you are incorrect in believing that you have a valid point.


Let's try another tack. You don't like 2%? YOU pick the number.

[kcdodd]

That isn't the point.

[Stubby]

Abstract

To promote optimal health and well-being of all children,

And of course you attempt to get into the conversation like a typical little yap dog. As far as i'm concerned, anything you have to say is automatically wrong. No need to even bother looking at it.

Well lucky for you I haven't said anything. I have provided an abstract to a peer-reviewed, published paper from the very people who study pediatrics and other things child related. You can accept or not what the American Association of Pediatrics has to say on the subject of children and their health. Do you know of another qualified group that has evidence to support your position?

[MSimon]

http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

Pseudo scientific study's involving Homosexuality began with Alfred Kinsey. I suspect many subsequent studies are the product of a similar sort of research.

Ah. You suspect. But you have nothing definite about the claims made in the articles linked. You know what I think? Your embryo did not fully convert from female to male. Which left you scientifically challenged. As are most females.

I of course have no proof. But suspicion is more than enough. Innit?

You have a very novel way of disputing D. Fact free. Just like a woman to go on feelings.

[Diogenes]

http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

Pseudo scientific study's involving Homosexuality began with Alfred Kinsey. I suspect many subsequent studies are the product of a similar sort of research.

Ah. You suspect. But you have nothing definite about the claims made in the articles linked. You know what I think? Your embryo did not fully convert from female to male. Which left you scientifically challenged. As are most females.

I of course have no proof. But suspicion is more than enough. Innit?

You have a very novel way of disputing D. Fact free. Just like a woman to go on feelings.

Having noted that there has been a long ongoing campaign throughout the culture and academia to "normalize" what had been for millenia a deviant and unnatural condition, it is perfectly reasonable to doubt the credibility of all such products as academic propaganda.

You posted a couple of links. For me to refute them in the manner you suggest, I have to do far more work. Given your tendency to disregard any facts or information I have presented to you in the past, I figured i'd just same myself a lot of trouble and snub your cite(s) right from the start.

[GIThruster]

Given your tendency to disregard any facts or information I have presented to you in the past, I figured i'd just same myself a lot of trouble and snub your cite(s) right from the start.

Too you should note there is no way to "win" the kind of emotional dispute you have here. Once a dispute is this kind of emotional, it doesn't matter how brilliant one's debating. No one is going to convince anyone else of his or her point of view. That only happens with issues about which we are not emotionally invested.