The Flaw In Your Logic Regarding Homosexuality

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Some results of studies regarding male homosexuality and absent or distant fathers can be found here:
fathersforlife.org...

In part to test the Bieber conclusions, Apperson and McAdoo compared 23 non-patient homosexuals and 22 members of the US army. Their conclusion:

The results of this study strongly support the theoretical formations of Bieber et al., in considering homosexuality as primarily related to specific experiential factors. The importance of the relationship -- or lack of it --with the father is again emphasized with the homosexual S[ubject]s showing marked difference from the controls in perceiving the father more as critical, impatient, and rejecting, and less as the socializing agent. (Apperson, 1968)

Snortum, et al., conducted tests on 46 males being evaluated for separation from the military because of homosexual incidents and 89 controls. Their conclusion: "It appears that the family dynamics for homosexual patients described by Bieber, et al. were confirmed in toto." (Snortum, 1969)

Thompson, et al.,(1973) queried 127 white homosexual males and 123 matched heterosexual controls and found that the homosexuals were more likely to report that they spent very little time with their fathers. The authors concluded that weak and/or hostile fathers played a prominent role in the etiology of homosexuality.

A study by Stephan, et al., compared 88 activist male homosexuals with 105 male heterosexuals and found that: "On no variable did the homosexuals evaluate their fathers favorably." Stephan concluded:

The majority of the homosexuals did not appear to have positive male models to identify with as children, and as a consequences they may have identified with females. This process was probably facilitated by the fact that normative masculine role behavior was not encouraged strongly by either parent. (Stephan, 1973)

In a 1979 article Irving and Toby Bieber reported that in their evaluations of over 1,000 male homosexuals, they did not find one "whose father openly loved and respected him." (Bieber, 1979)

Other studies reported similar findings. Sherman (1985) found that homosexual sons "perceived their relationship with their fathers as distant, negative, and conflicted." Saghir and Robins conducted extensive interviews with 86 homosexual men and 35 single heterosexual controls, the results of which they published in a book length report Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (1973).Men with a history of psychiatric problems or incarceration were eliminated from the sample. According to their report:

In over one-half of the homosexuals the parental home during their childhood is marked by intense discord and fighting. The role of the father at home seems to be conspicuous by its absence. In a surprising 84% of the homosexuals, the father is described as indifferent and uninvolved at home, particularly with the homosexual son, and in a similar proportion the homosexuals describe their childhood relationship with their fathers as unsatisfactory. (Saghir, p.152)

Only 13% of the homosexuals (vs 66% of the controls) reported identifying with their fathers in childhood and only 18% of the homosexual men felt that their overall relationship with their fathers in childhood was a satisfactory one in contrast to 82% of the heterosexuals. (Saghir, pp.144, 145) The personal comments by the homosexual respondents confirmed the negative father/son relationship:

From your own quoted study which you didn't actually read:

A fatherless child is deprived of the important paternal contribution to normal development; however, only a few homosexual in our sample had been fatherless children. Relative absence of the father, necessitated by occupational demands or unusual exigencies, is not in itself pathogenic.(Bieber 1962, p.310)

reply to post by HairlessApe

The term "self-defeating" is pretty much pointless, as there is no sole purpose or goal to the gay pride parade.

And that is fine. So say that is what it is about! Say it is a celebration! Yet, we just had such a parade last weekend, and the promoters keep saying the same thing they always do..."it's about fostering awareness and acceptance", etc. BS.

Just as in your examples above, it's BS. It's just about celebrating. Don't try and make it an agenda, don't try and smokescreen it, just own it, that's all.

Originally posted by LUXUS
There is a sadness that surrounds homosexuality, ask any gay person who is at the age where others have had or are having children about family and you will see sadness come across their face because they know their genetic line ends with them!

That's... Actually not even a little true. It's just a blatantly incorrect generalized statement from an ignorant person with no personal experience on the matter, who's likely been given an opinion by someone else and for some reason finds it acceptable to "take his word for it."

Come on dude, "Gay" is right in their name.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

The term "self-defeating" is pretty much pointless, as there is no sole purpose or goal to the gay pride parade.

And that is fine. So say that is what it is about! Say it is a celebration! Yet, we just had such a parade last weekend, and the promoters keep saying the same thing they always do..."it's about fostering awareness and acceptance", etc. BS.

Just as in your examples above, it's BS. It's just about celebrating. Don't try and make it an agenda, don't try and smokescreen it, just own it, that's all.

I have said it's a celebration, several times. In fact, I did in the post you replied to in which you conveniently only quoted the single irrelevant sentence and conveniently forgot to reply to the rest of the post.

Who says it's about acceptance? News anchors? Public speakers? Politicians? Who says their point is valid? People go there to have fun - the meaning you take from it is purely subjective.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

The term "self-defeating" is pretty much pointless, as there is no sole purpose or goal to the gay pride parade.

And that is fine. So say that is what it is about! Say it is a celebration! Yet, we just had such a parade last weekend, and the promoters keep saying the same thing they always do..."it's about fostering awareness and acceptance", etc. BS.

Just as in your examples above, it's BS. It's just about celebrating. Don't try and make it an agenda, don't try and smokescreen it, just own it, that's all.

You don't think parades foster awareness? Are you sure you know what the word means? If you're not aware of what gay pride is after seeing a gay pride parade, then I posit you are fast asleep.
However, if you can't accept them- then that has more to do with you then with them

I'd love to see some studies examining the level of homosexuality in the current generation of teens/20-somethings. Simply put, the vast majority of these I know (my stepkids, friends' kids, neighbor kids, etc.) consider themselves homosexual or bisexual.

This is a HUGE shift from when I was a teen, where you maybe knew a couple of kids (and this was when in high school) who were. I don't know if it is a fad thing, or just Mother Nature's way of population control, but in one generation, this is a massive shift. It would be interesting to see some numbers on it. Maybe there is something to the media argument. Who knows?

reply to post by MrPlow

You don't think parades foster awareness? Are you sure you know what the word means? If you're not aware of what gay pride is after seeing a gay pride parade, then I posit you are fast asleep.
However, if you can't accept them- then that has more to do with you then with them

Obviously didn't read my posts....my brother is gay, I have many gay friends, and they are good people. My step-kids are gay or bi. Acceptance isn't an issue for me....nor is awareness. I'm all for people doing what makes them happy. My issue with the parades is that the behavior during them only serves to further distance those that DO have an issue with it.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'd love to see some studies examining the level of homosexuality in the current generation of teens/20-somethings. Simply put, the vast majority of these I know (my stepkids, friends' kids, neighbor kids, etc.) consider themselves homosexual or bisexual.

This is a HUGE shift from when I was a teen, where you maybe knew a couple of kids (and this was when in high school) who were. I don't know if it is a fad thing, or just Mother Nature's way of population control, but in one generation, this is a massive shift. It would be interesting to see some numbers on it. Maybe there is something to the media argument. Who knows?

The rate of homosexuality hasn't change - only the level of acceptance, and thusly the number of people who are willingly to openly admit to being LGBT. There are many famous studies from the 50's and previous to that in which people, for the first time, were promised confidentiality. The results were a rate of homosexual or ambiguous sexuality far exceeding that reported by mainstream sources, as well as a far greater rate than society itself knew about.

I'm straight and in my early 20's... "The vast majority" are homosexual? Dude. You live in fantasy land. Get a grip.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by MrPlow

 

You don't think parades foster awareness? Are you sure you know what the word means? If you're not aware of what gay pride is after seeing a gay pride parade, then I posit you are fast asleep.
However, if you can't accept them- then that has more to do with you then with them

Obviously didn't read my posts....my brother is gay, I have many gay friends, and they are good people. My step-kids are gay or bi. Acceptance isn't an issue for me....nor is awareness.

I'm all for people doing what makes them happy. My issue with the parades is that the behavior during them only serves to further distance those that DO have an issue with it.

I don't really care what gay people you have relationships with, that doesn't mean you're accepting of them. Your (perceived) disgust at the gay pride parade (I know you don't bill it as disgust - but I think it's fairly apparent) does not ring "acceptance" or even "tolerance" for that matter.

Imagine if you were to say the million-man-march was trite and meaningless. I realize the gay pride parade isn't being assaulted by police with fire hoses and attack dogs, but they still have to face a world that, in general, hates them. And to say "I'm proud of who I am" despite that is an honorable action deserving of your utmost respect. Not recognizing that fact is bigotry.

reply to post by HairlessApe


I said the vast majority of "those I know". I never claimed this extended beyond this...that is why I was curious for numbers...but I doubt a study has been done and collated for this, yet.

I don't really care what gay people you have relationships with, that doesn't mean you're accepting of them. Your (perceived) disgust at the gay pride parade (I know you don't bill it as disgust - but I think it's fairly apparent) does not ring "acceptance" or even "tolerance" for that matter.

You're making a generalization without any knowledge of me. And your idea of acceptance and tolerance is apparently different than mine. I don't approve of flagrant public expression of heterosexuality either.

Imagine if you were to say the million-man-march was trite and meaningless

What did it really accomplish that wasn't already coming to pass? We have an African American President. Where is the disenfranchising? Please... (not to mention the numerous controversies of THAT whole march)...

I realize the gay pride parade isn't being assaulted by police with fire hoses and attack dogs, but they still have to face a world that, in general, hates them. And to say "I'm proud of who I am" despite that is an honorable action deserving of your utmost respect. Not recognizing that fact is bigotry.

Another logical fallacy and generalization. I can dislike the parades, while still accepting a friend's sexual preference. To be honest though, my gay friends and family members know I love them and would do anything for them, so that's really all the affirmation I need.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak
Sorry...not gonna do dueling theses with you. I will take note that all of those studies took place in a more repressive environment for gays, and I would strongly suggest that the data, if not cooked, was certainly skewed. Something from this century might be of more interest.

If one is 100% straight (or 100% gay, for that matter) ya is what ya is, and there is no choice to be made about one's sexuality. If you have a choice...make the one that makes you happy. Why would anyone else care unless they, themselves, are conflicted?

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

I said the vast majority of "those I know". I never claimed this extended beyond this...that is why I was curious for numbers...but I doubt a study has been done and collated for this, yet.

It seemed pretty clear to me that you were referring to the current generation of "20-something-year-olds" when you said:

I'd love to see some studies examining the level of homosexuality in the current generation of teens/20-somethings. Simply put, the vast majority of these I know (my stepkids, friends' kids, neighbor kids, etc.) consider themselves homosexual or bisexual.

Maybe it was a typo? "These" or "Those" makes a fairly large difference here, in my opinion.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Species, not race

So I catch hints of ethnocentrism, and homophobia.

Surely, a reasonable individual can see that a population decline is a good response towards a population overshoot, in the sight of inevitable resource decline in the coming decades.

Remembers, species, not race.

reply to post by Gazrok

This day and age, it hardly gets a second glance.

My point was that many relatively small people things most people take for granted are things that gay people cannot necessarily enjoy. You would be surprised how much of a reaction it gets, however it largely depends on where you live. I have seen it get a reaction, and was rather shocked, which is why I mentioned it.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, this is just around the corner. For many employers and benefit providers, it is already a reality (i.e. the advantages of being a spouse or partner).

Good. About time.

In my country we have gay civil unions however gay marriage is still defined as being between a man and a woman.

2 out ot 3 ain't bad. On the third point though, have you ever BEEN to a gay pride parade? Most certainly ARE about being as perverse as possible in public. (or at least certain elements in the parade make it about this). I'd post some pics as evidence, but they'd violate the Terms & Conditions, no doubt.

Gay pride parades are not in themselves about being as perverse as possible in public. That's not why gay people support gay pride marches. I outlined the reasons why gay pride exists in my previous post. But yes, I will concede that a parade probably needs a certain intensity to it if it wants to successful which is why they some aspects can be somewhat perverse.

You realize this is a textbook logical fallacy, right? (in a thread about flawed logic) You have no idea why someone may be against such parades. (for example, they may be against parades in general).

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My post was a direct reply to the post above my previous by BlastedCaddy who stated:

or... find that happy medium that the majority live in. you know the one. Ya go about your business. Focus on your self and family. The one that does not need a parade to prove your existence.

If people see a need for gay pride, but believe they tend to be too perverse for streets and see a need for a more cordoned off area, like a city park or something, then I don't see a problem with that. Generally that's not what we are seeing in this thread.

also quoting out of context is a logical fallacy.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Maybe it was a typo? "These" or "Those" makes a fairly large difference here, in my opinion.

Actually, it was (a typo). I was originally going to talk about studies for that sentence, then didn't change the identifier in my head.... Doh! Thanks. (changing it now though, would cause your reply not to make sense).

reply to post by C0bzz


You may be right about location. My area just may be more accepting of it, I suppose...though can't imagine why. Or maybe it is just the crowd I typically encounter, so I don't see the bigotry as much as others do.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
[

From your own quoted study which you didn't actually read:

A fatherless child is deprived of the important paternal contribution to normal development; however, only a few homosexual in our sample had been fatherless children. Relative absence of the father, necessitated by occupational demands or unusual exigencies, is not in itself pathogenic.(Bieber 1962, p.310)

Congratulations on picking the one poorly worded sentence which seems to go against everything else in the studies.

I have no doubt that in a small percentage of cases, homosexuality is a result of maternal hormonal imbalances during pregnancy. A larger percentage is caused by the absence of a good/present father figure. Perhaps a few are actually genetic abnormalities.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

I said the vast majority of "those I know". I never claimed this extended beyond this...that is why I was curious for numbers...but I doubt a study has been done and collated for this, yet.

I don't really care what gay people you have relationships with, that doesn't mean you're accepting of them. Your (perceived) disgust at the gay pride parade (I know you don't bill it as disgust - but I think it's fairly apparent) does not ring "acceptance" or even "tolerance" for that matter.

You're making a generalization without any knowledge of me. And your idea of acceptance and tolerance is apparently different than mine. I don't approve of flagrant public expression of heterosexuality either.

Imagine if you were to say the million-man-march was trite and meaningless

What did it really accomplish that wasn't already coming to pass? We have an African American President. Where is the disenfranchising? Please...

(not to mention the numerous controversies of THAT whole march)...

I realize the gay pride parade isn't being assaulted by police with fire hoses and attack dogs, but they still have to face a world that, in general, hates them. And to say "I'm proud of who I am" despite that is an honorable action deserving of your utmost respect. Not recognizing that fact is bigotry.

Another logical fallacy and generalization. I can dislike the parades, while still accepting a friend's sexual preference. To be honest though, my gay friends and family members know I love them and would do anything for them, so that's really all the affirmation I need.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

THE MILLION MAN MARCH DID NOTHING FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?!
I'm sorry, but this conversation is no longer worth having.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by HairlessApe
[

From your own quoted study which you didn't actually read:

A fatherless child is deprived of the important paternal contribution to normal development; however, only a few homosexual in our sample had been fatherless children. Relative absence of the father, necessitated by occupational demands or unusual exigencies, is not in itself pathogenic.(Bieber 1962, p.310)

Congratulations on picking the one poorly worded sentence which seems to go against everything else in the studies.

I have no doubt that in a small percentage of cases, homosexuality is a result of maternal hormonal imbalances during pregnancy. A larger percentage is caused by the absence of a good/present father figure. Perhaps a few are actually genetic abnormalities.

It was part of the conclusion of the study. Again, if you'd have read it you'd have known that. There was no control group, and therefore, while a study WAS done, it isn't scientifically acceptable by ANY stretch of the term.

I'll gladly accept evidence if there is any, but the fact that the study contradicts itself is extremely telling. Again - I did not contradict the study you quoted - the study did that by itself.