Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The
Associated Press wrote a story on the new Canadian
gay brother study. In it, the news organization inexplicably quoted Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies.
"We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality," Dailey said. "We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development. If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time."
If Daily's quote sounds obtuse and unscientific, it is because he has no more qualifications to discuss genetics than Dr. J or Dr. Seuss. A quick web search reveals that this "Center" is an arm of the Family Research Council, a well-known ideological activist front group for rightwing Christian fundamentalist churches. It is not any kind of "scientific" organization and has no academic or scientific credentials or status whatsoever.
An equally quick web search reveals that Dailey's credentials to critique this scientific and biological research, are as follows: "Dr. Dailey received his bachelors' degree in Bible and Theology from Moody Bible Institute, his M.A. in Theological Studies at Wheaton College, and his Ph.D. in Religion from Marquette University." Yeah, a real Academy of Sciences heavyweight! (Thanks to reader Bryan W. for the assist)
Sadly, the modern media thinks it is legitimate to counter scientists with spin doctors. But if veracity and vigilance still have any place in journalism, this unethical practice has to stop. By elevating dilettante doctors to the same plane as learned researchers, the Associated Press diminishes its own credibility and demeans its own profession. It is time for the media to stop "he said/she said" journalism and start interviewing real experts.
46 Comments:
"If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time." What does this moron know about genetics? Anyone who had Biology 101 knows that nature is an explosion of diversity and since homosexuality exists across many species of animals, it obviously has a role to play in the grand scheme of things. But then, we're dealing here with incredibly ignorant and brainwashed people who dont believe in evolution and still think the universe is only 5000 years old.
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
6/27/2006 9:48 AM
The press seems to think it's acceptable and even necessary to include some gay bashing in any article about gay issues. They seem to think it provides "balance," but in reality, it serves to legitimize the bigotry of those who would deny our humanity. We are the last minority group that can be openly vilified without repercussions.
posted by Sam, at
6/27/2006 10:01 AM
no - ex-gays are vilified, too w/o reprucssions.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 10:08 AM
Ex-gays don't exist. It is a political term for psychologically damaged homosexuals who are not stable enough to accept themselves. Or, they are so weak-minded that they grovel for acceptance. Ex-gay really means "pathetic homosexual."
Barb
posted by , at
6/27/2006 10:31 AM
see what i mean.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 10:40 AM
can you imagine having to stand up to the kind of assualt you just perpetrated? what, barb, do you mean by weak and unstable? although, i would probably enjoy throwing back a few quibs of mine own but that would be cuddling bad behavior.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 10:47 AM
It's akin to a straight or gay person saying that they have been loyal and faithful to their significant other and yet they have looked at others with lust or fantasized about others. They say they are monogamous but have thoughts of not being so. Why can't an ex-gay say they are now straight even though from time to time have a gay thought? Or, how about the many lesbians I knew who would have sex with men from time to time and yet, consider themselves full lesbian? Gay activists are afraid that if these things are true then they will lose themselves - not true. It only adds to our understanding of the variety of sexuality.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 10:53 AM
As an ex-ex-gay, I know when a person says they are a "former homosexual" they are a fraud. That's why so many of them hang around on web-sites like this. It allows them to get their homosexual fix and still claim to be ex-gay. It is sad - I know - because it used to be my life before I found acceptance.
Tim G.-- Nevada
posted by , at
6/27/2006 11:11 AM
A very telling point against the unscientific notion of homosexual orientation being "deeply rooted in early childhood development" is that, if those "nurture" theories were true, there should be huge statistical 'blips' in homosexuality among those born and raised during the two world wars.
For both of the World War eras, millions of fathers were absent during those crucial formative years, and of course, many made permanently absent by being killed in action.
There could be no clearer indication of the truth of "nurture" theories than if the fact that so many children then were raised with absent fathers, meant that two huge homosexual statistical 'blips' were present.
They are not.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 11:55 AM
"no - ex-gays are vilified, too w/o reprucssions."
Oh, great! This is just a variation on the 'We're Christians and were being persecuted!' theme sounded by the Religious Reich. Their despairing cry really means: 'We're Christians and our arguments are losing!"
posted by , at
6/27/2006 1:56 PM
"Why can't an ex-gay say they are now straight even though from time to time have a gay thought?"
Because straight people don't have gay thoughts. It's a definition thing. If you're having gay thoughts, whatever it is that you are, you aren't straight.
That makes about as much sense as asking why from time to time snakes don't sing opera.
Timothy
posted by , at
6/27/2006 7:05 PM
phil,
very interesting point. one really should expect a blip along those lines.
Maybe I'll take a look at the CDC report and see if it can be objectively determined that a blip either is or is not present.
timothy
posted by , at
6/27/2006 7:08 PM
I think you'll find it isn't. If it was, it'd have been pounced on!
posted by , at
6/27/2006 7:32 PM
Regan, it is my business because I want equality and privilege for gays. As an ex-gay - I am not anti-gay. In fact, I remember fighting on the frontlines when I was in your shoes. I continue to take a stand against the bigotry that exists against gays. If more ex-gay people did the same (without ridicule from either side) then gays could strengthen their numbers and credibility. I DO NOT think everyone is capable of changing. I DO NOT think it is mandatory to change to have a fulfilling and happy life. I AM NOT in the business of telling gays to change. You should never give in to the presures of an ignorant movement.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 7:57 PM
to the other anonymous - your statement about christians being persecuted is true. but that's not what i said. i said that ex-gays should not being called weak or unstable - in response to barb's comment.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 7:58 PM
timothy, you are gay. maybe you do not have any thoughts about women. but many women i have spoken to who are straight have said that they have had homosexual thoughts before. so you have an experience that is different. that does not mean that a straight woman's experience is invalid (by the way) these admissions were made to me by non-christians. i would never expect a "christian woman" to admit to something like that - (even though I suspect it)
posted by , at
6/27/2006 8:01 PM
to tim in nevada, congratulations on your life. ihope all the best to you. your accusation that i am here only to get my "gay fix" is not ture. i live in a gay neighborhood. so i get "my fix" well enough thank you. and unlike you i am not here cruising or trying to keep one foot in and one foot out sort of speak. i truly want others to hear a different view than the one currently held about being ex-gay and what that menas to a person. i want more than anything protected rights for gays (full rights) not partial rights in civil unions and domestic patnership agreements but full rights of proeprty, inheritance, taxes, etc... to accuse me of your own tauwdry motives is just plain gross.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 8:11 PM
tim in nevada - gross in the context that you have largely misinterpreted me. as in a gross error.
posted by , at
6/27/2006 8:12 PM
"ex-gays should not being called weak or unstable"
I don't think they should either--even though some of them are, as my first-hand observation of an "ex-gay" group will confirm.
"It may be a sin to believe the worst of others--but it is seldom a mistake."
posted by , at
6/28/2006 2:32 PM
Drawing some ideas to logical conclusions: So if sending fathers off to war (surely not limited to the big ones) makes conditions at home ripe for their children to become gay I think we should tell the Right, "Send men off to war and their kids will turn out gay." Better pull out of Iraq now.
posted by , at
6/28/2006 4:46 PM
Haha, Anonymous! Yes, that's about the level of the argumentation.
posted by , at
6/28/2006 7:24 PM
to the anonymous with the first hand experience - look at the other hand - that would be me.
posted by , at
6/28/2006 8:07 PM
you have a first hand observation of a FEW people not the entire population. flamboyant misrepresentation is just as bad as that "mob" attacking that boy at school. but hey - you are gay and expected to be flamboyant - as that would be some people's first hand observation of gays. or would that be inaccurate/wrong of me to clump all of you together.
posted by , at
6/28/2006 8:17 PM
Anonymous, an elegant refinement of your theory has occurred to me!
The sons of US soldier fathers may be safe from turning gay. Here is why, in my new super-theory:
Firstly we should note that the notion of fatherhood propounded by the "reparative therapy" mob is based largely on post-world-war-two gender stereotypes arising partly from deliberate government propaganda in the US and UK.
This is not perhaps the place to discuss this fully, but it was necessary after the second world war, to peddle stereotypes designed to keep women in the home, totally fulfilled in chidbearing and motherhood. This was because all the women who had jobs during the war were summarily sacked to given them to the returning men, so as not to have armies of unemployed trained killers roaming the streets.
Sterotypes arose in which the Little Woman stayed at home and was pretty, and the Conquering Hero hubby brought home the bread.
In the ideology of the "reparative therapy" mob, there is little room for a man to build a relationship with his son by taking him to symphony concerts and poetry readings and teaching him to iron a shirt. No, he must play ball and chew tobacco with him and spit and swear and do the other postwar male gender stereotype things.
Now, paramount, absolute tops, in USA popular cultural conception of manliness, is the Man In Military Uniform! The American public loves their Uniformed men. They are officially top-of-the-tree for maleness! (If you don't believe me, look at which guys get top marks on hotornot.com.....).
Here then is the theory: A soldier father is SO TOTALLY and agressively male, that his maleness will project to his son even in his physical absence!
I alluded elsewhere to Quantum Theory. This must have been prescient, for I am now going to press it into service in support of my undeniably elegant theory.
Quantum Theory gives us the strange phenomenon called "Ghostly action at a distance". A subatomic particle is hit by another in a way that produces two 'children' who can be separated from each other and sent off in opposite directions. Peculiarly, when ONE particle is spun or altered in some way by the experimenter, its twin, who has not been touched, INSTANTANEOUSLY exhibits a similar change, NO MATTER HOW FAR APART. There is, as it were, an instantaneous ghostly communication between them.
I therefore propose "Ghostly maleness at a distance". In this effect, the supercharged All-American masculinity of the Soldier Daddy automatically and instantaneously masculinises his son.
How's that, folks! Social theory AND Quantum Theory in one post! I MUST be rght. You know it!
P.S. It is EXTREMELY dangerous for a girl to have a Mother in forces Uniform, as it will make her daughter a butch lesbian.
posted by , at
6/28/2006 8:18 PM
It slays me how the religidiots equate "biological" and "genetic." They know nothing about fetal hormonal influences, immune factors, etc., yet act as if there is some sort of credible scientific backing for their a priori pipe dream that homosexuality is non-biological.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 10:44 AM
It should be flamboyantly obvious that the people who seek out "ex-gay" pseudo-therapies tend to be deeply troubled folks. They are deeply troubled because they have internalized the anti-gay hostility of their families/religion/society. Some of the people I observed definitely were in need of proper psychotherapy administered by a licensed therapist acting on the client's behalf--not that of superstitious religion or pernicious social predjudices.
Did you know that in the late 1800's it was common practice to perform clitoridectomies on women to extinguish their "sinful" desires? Some women so bought into this twaddle that they demanded the surgery for themselves! Anti-gay pseudotherapies are not one whit less cruel and absurd--and every bit as based on popular ignorance and prejudice. People who view themselves as diseased or sinful have every right to seek out any therapy they would like to try, no matter how dubious. For my part, I have the right to hold up a mirror to the deluded or fraudulent quacks who take advantage of the distress of these people. Distress caused entirely by the ugly and superstitious religions that try to to (ineffectively) mask themselves behind psychobabble.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 11:04 AM
Yes Lisa, that is an important point. "Congenital" does not mean the same as "Genetic".
If one is born with some condition that arose in the womb such as, say, a cleft palette, one is said to have a congenital condition. But a congenital condition is not necessarily genetic in origin. Another example one could cite is of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, a congenital condition in babies caused not by their genes but by alcohol abuse by the mother during pregancy.
No informed person would suggest that there is a simple GENETIC "cause" of homosexuality - there is simply insufficient evidence as yet to make such an assertion. Unnfotunately, when some resaerch has hinted that some genetic factor may be IMPLICATED in some not-yet-defined way, this has been media-hyped into "gay gene" stories.
The trend of current research is suggesting that, if there is some genetic factor involved somewhere, it is in conjunction with conditions in the environemnt of the womb that homosexuality finds its origin. Thus, while it is congenital, it is not, so far as we can say in the present state of research, genetic, or certainly not entirely so.
P.S. Mention of cleft palette and foetal alcoholm syndrome are for illustrative purposes to make the distinction between congential and genetic. I am not suggesting that homosexuality is similar to either.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 11:09 AM
Well said, Phil. They want to argue that it's not even congenital, their belief being that it is therefore modifiable, when of course we can come up with examples of conditions induced in early childhood that are nonetheless unchangeable (e.g., immunity to varicella as a result of exposure to the virus, or speaking English without a French accent because of early exposure to unaccented English). My point is that another false equation they make is between "environmental" and "modifiable." And their lack of an explanation for homosexuality in the animal world or the fact that same-sex rats can be made to mount each other when subjected to certain exogenous hormones really reveals that they cannot be taken seriously and are trying to bend evidence to suit an a priori hypothesis rather than to see which hypotheses best fit the data.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 12:38 PM
oh brother. ia'm an ex-gay and come from a liberla family. the hostility here is enormous. you know it took me seven years before i told my mom i WAsN't gay anymore. we don't all internalize the homophobia of our families.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:30 PM
oh brother. ia'm an ex-gay and come from a liberla family. the hostility here is enormous. you know it took me seven years before i told my mom i WAsN't gay anymore. we don't all internalize the homophobia of our families.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:30 PM
oh brother. ia'm an ex-gay and come from a liberla family. the hostility here is enormous. you know it took me seven years before i told my mom i WAsN't gay anymore. we don't all internalize the homophobia of our families.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:30 PM
Lisa, very interesting thoughts, enjoyed that!
For what it's worth (very little, I'm not a scientist), I'm developing a line of thinking that posits the existence of a yet undiscovered system or group of body chemicals implicated in homosexiality, bisexuality, transsexuality, asexuality and body dysmorphia.
Hormones, after all, are a relatively recent discovery, having only begun to be discovered in the 1920s, and pheromones a much more recent finding.
Some day I will write more!
I like your point about the false equation between "environmental" and "modifiable". All thier equations are false, of course.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 9:16 PM
Completely off subject, I have a theory and am looking for feedback. Many fundamentalist groups assert that folks "turn gay" after having been molested in youth. I have noticed that a good many of my friends were indeed molested in their youth. My theory, however, is that rather than being "turned gay" by the abuse, they were in fact abused because they were gay.
Pedophiles prey on kids who are loners; kids who are left out. Now, how many gay men and women felt out of place as children? How many of us felt like we were different and kept to ourselves, although we didn't know the reason for our problem? Wouldn't that make gay youth a perfect target for predators? Just a theory.
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/04/2006 12:29 AM
jeckelhyde that is an interesting thought. It does make sense, though not all "pre-gay" children are loners, and probably plenty of non-pre-gay children are.
I don't know ofhand of studies support the idea that a greater number of gay people were abused in youth than straight people. I have a vague recollection from stuff I have read that stujdies don't support that idea.
Following the poor quality reasoning of some respecting pschological theories of 'gayness' and 'ex-gay', it's worth noting that since most child abuse is perpetrated by married men, we can conclude that marriage clearly turns men into child abusers........
posted by , at
7/04/2006 5:09 AM
Phil,
After reading your response, I went in search of the study that I had heard on NPR radio about a year ago regarding the "possible" correlation between child sexual abuse and homosexuality. I didn't find it. All I could find were stories, fairy tales, works of fiction by the family research council, which I think should be forced by law to change it's name to something more suited to it's true task. Anyway, I loved your last paragraph.
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/05/2006 9:16 PM
marriage does not turn men into child abusers - that conclusion is as absurd as saying that children make men child abusers. Phil, you make some idiotic reasoning.
posted by , at
7/07/2006 2:43 PM
soory, phil. i jumped to a conclusion about your statment without reading the entirety of your post. my apolgies - sincerely.
posted by , at
7/07/2006 3:05 PM
當舖或專利或商標或存證信函都歡迎討論。專利或商標或存證信函都很重要。
關鍵字:當舖,專利,專利,商標,商標,存證信函,存證信函,商標設計,自創品牌。
posted by 商標註冊/專利申請達人, at
3/08/2009 10:16 PM
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,情趣商品,香蕉按摩棒..情趣用品...香蕉情趣用品..情人節..情趣浪漫..情趣同志..情趣..情趣商品.情趣內衣..成人用品..男同志..女同志..按摩棒,女同按摩棒,,自慰,自衛套,情趣用品,跳蛋,plus28,情趣交友,潤滑液,情趣睡衣,口交,情趣加盟,情趣內睡衣,
香蕉性樂園,按摩棒,AV女優,情趣知識,香蕉性樂園,交友聊天室,情趣,情趣Motel,A片女優,貴婦熟女,
找女朋友,日本Tenga,杜蕾絲,香蕉樂園,小巧按摩棒,情趣加盟,性用舖,
美女老師,聊天視訊,情趣用具,情趣夜店,
posted by , at
4/02/2009 1:02 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
4/12/2009 9:32 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/16/2010 4:09 AM
DVD to iPad Free Tool is a wondeful DVD to iPad application which can convert your DVD contents to Apple iPad compatible MPEG-4 (MP4, M4V), H.264, MOV etc, and other popular file formats like AVI, WMV, MPG, MKV, VOB, 3GP, FLV etc can also be converted so that you can put on your portable devices like iPod, iPhone, iRiver, BlackBerry etc. Besides, it can also extract audio from DVD videos and save as MP3, AIFF, AAC, WAV etc.
you may also interested in iPad Transfer, iPhone to Mac Transfer and iPhone to Computer Transfer.
posted by Titanic, at
5/11/2010 2:16 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 1:43 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/13/2011 9:49 AM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
4/04/2015 2:16 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/26/2015 10:30 AM
<< Home
