Anyone who is rejected by their family faith and friend … suffer harassment ect are more likely to kill themselves this is especially a huge problem w young men - see my above post -
Not necessarily. For instance, suppose the different mental health outcomes between homosexuals and heterosexuals were caused by high school bullying. Suppose in high school A there is exactly one bully harassing all ten of his gay or lesbian classmates while in school B there are exactly ten bullies harassing an equal number of classmates. In the first case, we would say the general level of intolerance was low since there’s only one bigot in the high school, but, as the number of gay and lesbian teens harassed is the same in each case, we would expect to see more or less the same outcome.
Yup, that’s my corner. But I have to wonder why you concede that intolerance is not a problem in the Netherlands: there are many forms of discrimination, and they aren’t all neatly encapsulated in whatever legal recognition is given to homosexual unions. To give an informal illustration of that, my sister was an exchange student in Germany a while back and noticed that even though the laws were generally pro-gay, the high school students she interacted with were not correspondingly less homophobic.
I am no expert on topics of mental health, as some others are around here. I have read that one of the key factors for a young gay person’s potential to suicide is whether his or her family is supportive or is rejecting. Also with kids, they will decide whether to approach an adult for support based on what they have heard the adult express as an opinion on other occasions. Don’t expect your gay kid to seek your advice, if you have spent the last 15 years bashing gay people.
I would say that calling the Dutch relatively tolerant is a devastating proviso: if they are not purely and simply tolerant, then there is nothing here to explain.
My impression, though, is that they can’t rule out the possibility the negative outcomes stem from homophobia. The article you cite, for example, could be taken as showing that same sex sexual behaviors are a catalyst for applying to oneself the homophobia that’s out there (that is, the behaviors would drive home the point that the person who did them is gay and therefore deserves to be treated as other gays have been treated).
This is a good point, and it’s probably one factor in what is driving the negative mental health outcomes here. But I don’t think either study provides particularly compelling evidence for this. The authors of the Norwegian study later observed that being in a steady heterosexual relationship was a strong predictor of suicide among LGB subjects (Suicide Attempts among Norwegian Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youths: General and Specific Risk Factors), but I don’t think it would be possible to draw an analogous conclusion, viz., that gay men and lesbian women are subject to a natural law that prohibits them from being in such relationships. The awkward question about such a conclusion would be, how come they have a different morality from the rest of us?
Sure, but as humans living together, we must make relative choices. I would lie to save your life, even though I don’t know you. I am sure you would return the favor as a moral man. Yet, that would be the intentional commission of a mortal sin, if we apply an unbending moral standard. For someone like yourself with deeply held moral convictions, there is bound to be disagreement with some who have equally strong convictions which are in opposition to your own, yet to live with one another, some accommodation is required. This is the “radical homosexual” (as you call it) position.
I cannot say that intolerance is TOTALLY absent in the Netherlands. However, we’re talking about comparative statistics, and it seems, compared to other countries, homophobia is LESS of a problem in the Netherlands. Of course, that doesn’t mean there is NO homophobia at all on an individual basis. But science is based not only, or even mainly, on individual differences (although that topic is studied), but also on group processes, patterns of general behavior, and so forth. And besides, although I have my opinion on this issue (based on science, religion, and my own thinking, all of which are interrelated), as a psychologist I prefer to go where the results take me rather than impose my own view on the data. At the same time, I realize science is never completely neutral, completely objective: there is always an interpretation of the data. Even one’s choice of the topic to be studied shows some subjectivity. My problem with some studies is more in the realm of experimental design; for, as we know, if the design of the study is flawed, the outcome is going to be not merely subjective, but distorted. This problem of method is more common, even among established scientists who publish their peer-reviewed studies in respected journals, than one may realize. I remember in a research methods course in psychology when I was a graduate student, we spent a great deal of time critiquing studies of well-respected psychologists with regard to their method, as well as their interpretation of the data. The fault here is not with science but with some scientists.
But Elvis, at some point every person must decide what is right and wrong. We may choose to accept a higher authority, such as the Church or a government. There is also a moral obligation to exercise institutional authority in a responsible way. This applies to people as individuals as well. A soldier with a weapon has an obligation to use it responsibly by virtue of having that weapon, for example. The standard of conduct is higher for a priest or a policeman. When that obligation is abdicated, then the authority of the institution or the person is no longer a moral authority. My opinion was and still is that our government had no moral authority to be at war. However, we did have the obligation to set things back aright once we broke the country. So, I knew that what I was doing was wrong. I was younger then. I hope that today I would have the courage to stand for my convictions. Also, being a part of a military unit influences one’s perceptions. I did not really have a full appreciation of what I was doing until I was already in the thick of it for the second time. It is more difficult to turn back, at that point.
**Apparently, you don’t know what mortal sin is. **
Like I said before - the war in Iraq is a debate for another thread, especially since we don’t see eye to eye on that either.
You are 100 percent correct
Great summaryElivis - so let me understand you, because I believe that you are engaging in moral relativism. Would you agree with me that intentionally lying is a grave sin? When we decide that lying your wife in order to spare her feelings is OK, then we are practicing precisely what you are opposed to, in principle. Do you disagree with me on that? Philosophers like Kant have proposed that we must never lie. They agree with your moral absolutism. They would say that the answer to your wife’s question would be something like, “You always look good to me, darling.”, or something like that which is true, but also evades the direct question while avoiding the outright lie. Some would say that any evasion of the truth is tantamount to a lie. Then things get even more “gray”. In the dress example, where is that line? This is a relativistic situation, to use the term that you like.
Please show me an example of where I have rationalized homosexual behavior. I would like to understand what you mean by that. I have been “out” here as a gay man, because I have nothing to hide in that respect, and because in a rhetorical sense, I think people should know that is my bias, if we are going to have an honest discussion. However, I have disagreed with you that I have rationalized gay sexual behavior. If I have done so, then I would like an example of that, if it is not too much trouble. I know that it can be a pain to browse through these threads.
You touch in interesting point in the realm of moral relativism. The standard for conduct of a Marine is to consider what was his state of mind at the time of action. If there is an absolute standard, then it may be applied in an after action review, but it is not relevant to his actions in the moment. You may remember some footage that the media was making an event over a Marine shooting and killing a prone man who was “playing dead”. Any soldier or Marine watching that footage understood that it was proper to shoot the man on the ground, according to the conduct of war, and that Marine would not be disciplined for that act. However, in the eye of the press, it was held out to be an immoral act because the man on the ground supposedly was “defenseless”. This is yet another example of moral relativism, which you embrace yourself when you graciously say that you would not judge my actions, because you were not with me at the time.
I won’t judge your actions in the war because, firstly, it is not pertinent to this thread and is off-topic.
Post 54 – you accused me of providing mis-information when all I did was point out that Dr. Nicolosi was having much success with his theories about homosexual conditioning during the early formative stages of life. You accused me of bigotry and hatred because of this.
No – I would disagree with you that ALL lying is grave – and so would the Church. Whereas all lying is inherently wrong – it is NOT all grave or mortal.
**That’s not what I said at all. Once again, you are trying to twist my words. I never said that some lying is okay and some lying was grave. **
This thread has forked in so many places now, but I wanted to give you my reaction to your post. I realize you are saying that parents and people in general should not be bashing gay people so the youth who may be struggling with sexual identity are not pushed to the path of confusion and despair. You have a good point there.
I do research and read gay suicide accounts, including the issue of bullying in schools, plus different sides / reasons why homosexuals tend to be depressed and have suicide ideation more than heterosexuals. Social issues greatly interest me and the subject herein is something I closely follow, having a close family member who is a homosexual with depression problems. When he was growing up, he had his share of teasing in school, but he was not tortured or abused in the level that some have been. He received and continues to receive no less love and support from his family, but not in any way to include approval of homosexual behavior. You also have a close family member who is a homosexual, which you disclosed in this forum in earlier threads. The similarity stops there, however, because you promote and actively push in this forum for the whole list of gay causes, including legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’, gay adoption, etc. I don’t.