Quick Question on Political vs. Moral Beliefs

[CarlaOLS]

The statistics I quoted came from Catholic Apologetics International and were dated 2005, so I didn’t consider them outdated. Thank you Ender for adding more. As to any debunking of those type of statistics, I expect nothing less form the other side. It has become so politically driven, that EVERY negative study or statistic is attacked without question.

I agree that no one should be inhibited from trying to effect the laws of this land.

Further as Roman Catholics, it is our duty is to defend and promote the teachings of the Church, who CAN NOT ERR in matters of faith or morals. So if you are truly Catholic (not the cafeteria variety) you understand that morally same sex unions are wrong, and on that basis Catholics are obligated to stand for the sanctity of marriage with our votes and our voice.

That is what I see as the bottom line of this thread.

 

[Ender]

Further as Roman Catholics, it is our duty is to defend and promote the teachings of the Church, who CAN NOT ERR in matters of faith or morals. So if you are truly Catholic (not the cafeteria variety) you understand that morally same sex unions are wrong, and on that basis Catholics are obligated to stand for the sanctity of marriage with our votes and our voice.

I agree with you but there are two points to consider when discussing the question raised by the OP. On the one hand are those who’s political inclinations are at odds with what the Church teaches - e.g. abortion. By contending that Catholics have no right to impose their religious beliefs on anyone else they are trying to marginalize a major source of opposition. Whether they believe the charge is true or not, it is a useful tactic.

The other aspect of this question is the effect the claim has on Catholics who support the politicians who support positions the Church has condemned. If those people accept the claim that it is improper for them to impose their “religious beliefs” on anyone else they may well rationalize that to mean that, while they themselves oppose abortion, since they should not force that opinion on others … they are not constrained from supporting politicians who support abortion.

Ender

 

[chain]

Without delving into statistics (I also believe that it not only is an unhealthy lifestyle - but that it is far more dangerous to those exposed to it peripherally than second hand smoke), my issue is that by legally recognizing it we will also be legally promoting it both by giving it official standing and with tax dollars.

I do not think “Homosexual Marriage” needs to be illegal (as abortion should be) - I also strongly do not feel that it’s acceptance be legally mandated - with forced societal acceptance. Religious marriage is between individuals and God - but civil marriage is between people and a community. I do not want to be forced to accept something I feel is immoral.

 

[chrysostim83]

The statistics I quoted came from Catholic Apologetics International and were dated 2005, so I didn’t consider them outdated.

It’s kinda freaky that you didn’t even look at the footnotes to see when the actual data came from! Internet users should make a habit of thinking critically about the information they dig up.

As to any debunking of those type of statistics, I expect nothing less form the other side. It has become so politically driven, that EVERY negative study or statistic is attacked without question.

That’s not quite accurate either. I would say that most people’s political positions reflect what they take to be true—so, generally, if someone questions a negative study or statistic, they are doing it because their prior beliefs tell them that something is wrong. Let’s take a couple of your statistics to see this:

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

The footnote (6) refers to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980. We would expect this statistic, therefore, not to reflect on homosexuals in general, but to tell us about how gay men behaved in the pre-AIDS sexual revolution.

73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)

Follow the footnote to (13): the study quoted was published in 1977, just 4 years after homosexuality was taken out of the DSM. So you would expect attitudes among psychiatrists still to reflect the idea that homosexuality is a pathology. But let’s also think critically about how these psychiatrists could know that “homosexuals are less happy than the average person.” In 1977, most of the gay people these doctors knew of were either living in big city ghetto/slums, or else lying on their couches trying to get their head shrunk. So most of the homosexuals these doctors knew really were less happy than the average person! As for the last bit (that the happiness is not due to social stigmatization), I would just say that the mental health profession has learned a thing or two about this in the last 30 years.

In particular, social stigmatization can lead not only to unhappiness or depression, but also to alcoholism, sexual acting out and/or risk taking, and suicide. Like you said:

• In 1987, 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians were alcoholics (11)
• In 1989, homosexuals lived unhealthy lifestyles, and had historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
• In 1979, one study reported of homosexuals that 43% admitted to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admitted to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners were total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts were one night stands (3).
• In 1982, 78% of homosexuals had been affected by STDs (20)

And finally, both of the following reports come from a 1992 newspaper article, and probably reflect nothing but the opinion of the people quoted.

• Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10)
• Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10)

So your statistics are more than adequately accounted for by the combined effect of the pre-AIDS sexual revolution and lingering social stigmatization (and a bit of sloppy reporting at the end). They do not necessarily show or even suggest that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable. (I’m not saying you can’t make a case for this. You just can’t do it the way you wanted to.)

At the very end of your post you say:

Further as Roman Catholics, it is our duty is to defend and promote the teachings of the Church, who CAN NOT ERR in matters of faith or morals. So if you are truly Catholic (not the cafeteria variety) you understand that morally same sex unions are wrong, and on that basis Catholics are obligated to stand for the sanctity of marriage with our votes and our voice.

We totally agree on this. I just don’t think the teachings of the Church are well defended by spreading dubious interpretations of outdated information. In principle, the issue of gay “marriage” is a purely moral question and the kind of statistics you hit us with would have been irrelevant if they hadn’t been so misleading.

Peace

 

[camerong]

I I just don’t think the teachings of the Church are well defended by spreading dubious interpretations of outdated information. In principle, the issue of gay “marriage” is a purely moral question and the kind of statistics you hit us with would have been irrelevant if they hadn’t been so misleading.

Peace

Agreed. The “statistics” given above from conservapedia.com are indeed highly dubious. Homosexuality is not wrong because GI tract infections, or meth use rates, or any other accusation that could be due to a hundred other factors besides someone’s sexual orientation. If these things all changed, would homosexuality be okay? What if indisputably proof came out year down the road that homosexual sex led to longer lifespans, or that homosexuals strayed from their “marriages” less than heterosexuals?

Homosexual sex is wrong because it involves sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Period. And if people disagree with us about this fact, we are not going to win them by insisting that more homosexuals smoke cigarettes than straight people (a statistic quoted by that site).

 

[Ender]

"CarlaOLS:

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

The footnote (6) refers to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine

in 1980. We would expect this statistic, therefore, not to reflect on homosexuals in general, but to tell us about how gay men behaved in the pre-AIDS sexual revolution.

Whatever the exact numbers are, a great many homosexuals are promiscuous to a rather staggering degree: *“A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.” *(2006)

In particular, social stigmatization can lead not only to unhappiness or depression, but also to alcoholism, sexual acting out and/or risk taking, and suicide.

Thirty years after homosexuality was voted off the DSM it seems the pathologies remain: *In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population. *Also: *An extensive study *(2001) *in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia. *

They do not necessarily show or even suggest that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable.

Whether the information cited show that or not, it nonetheless appears to be the case: The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.

It is reasonable to question whether or not older surveys accurately reflect current conditions. Based on newer data, however, things do not appear to have changed all that much. That said - and relevant to the topic of this thread - the correctness of the data is not especially relevant to whether one is justified in opposing homosexual “marriage”.

Ender

 

[chrysostim83]

Whatever the exact numbers are, a great many homosexuals are promiscuous to a rather staggering degree: A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals.

That’s a joke, right? You really believe that magazine surveys a good way of getting at the truth?

Thirty years after homosexuality was voted off the DSM it seems the pathologies remain

So you’re saying voting homosexuality off the DSM put an end to all stigmatization of sexual minorities. (No wonder conservatives think gay activists are asking for special privileges.)

In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.

Newspapers are a slightly better source of accurate information than magazines, but they aren’t that great, are they?

Let’s also think critically about this statistic. First, we have no idea how researchers sampled the homosexual population. A common method has been to go to gay clubs and interview the patrons about their drug use, and of course that would skew the results badly. Second, the way the result is presented is uninformative: why weren’t the results controlled for factors that affect drug use independently of sexual orientation? I mean, doesn’t “the general population” seem to include people who are too young, too old, too sick, etc, to be trying drugs? Mightn’t, then, “the general population’s” drug use be lower than many other groups’? It would give us much clearer insight into what’s going on if the samples were broken down and compared by age, family background, education, etc.

So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

It takes many more than one point to establish a correlation. While Fitzgibbons (for it is he whom you are quoting) has told us that the Netherlands is legally very affirming of gay people and that it still shows some association between mental illness/distress and homosexual behavior—still, he has not compared degrees of affirmation against rates of mental illness across countries or times. In fact, he hasn’t even bothered to assess the degree of social acceptance (which includes much more than the law) in the Netherlands. If you bothered to look up the paper he was quoting, you would find that the authors believed further inquire into the cause of their discovery was necessary; they did not feel that stigmatization had been ruled out by their results.

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals.

Again, I don’t really get your sense of humor: you’re quoting an online survey now?

That said - and relevant to the topic of this thread - the correctness of the data is not especially relevant to whether one is justified in opposing homosexual “marriage”

Phew. Agreed.

 

[elts1956]

Well, since that would be taking away others freedoms obviously that goes beyond the boundaries of religion. Since when did granting people the freedom to marry who they wish in any way similar to slavery?
Also, I’m not talking about “a country”, I’m talking about the USA. And luckily, our country does not believe that it is a “god given right to enslave women and children”.
I believe in giving people the right to their own decision about morals/beliefs. However, when their morals/beliefs cross the boundary of actually hurting or taking away the freedoms of someone else, that is a completely different situation and I’m sure a believer or an atheist would agree that it is wrong.

Then you don’t believe that babies at any level of development in the human womb are human? They are not worthy of protection?

“You can’t be Catholic and pro choice. Get it straight once and for all.” Father John Corapi

 

[Ender]

That’s a joke, right? You really believe that magazine surveys a good way of getting at the truth?

Actually, I assume that what homosexuals say about themselves is probably accurate and that survey was created by and printed in a homosexual magazine.

So you’re saying voting homosexuality off the DSM put an end to all stigmatization of sexual minorities. (No wonder conservatives think gay activists are asking for special privileges.)

The issue was not whether stigmatization still exists in the US but whether it was stigmatization that was the cause of the high rates of mental/emotional problems among homosexuals. Given the results of the Dutch study - where homosexuals face little stigmatization - it implies that the cause lies elsewhere. Is the study conclusive? Perhaps not. Is it indicative … probably.

Let’s also think critically about this statistic.

You raise valid points and one should always be leery of blindly accepting the results of any single study. I’m not really all that interested in spending time looking for more studies, but I think it would be a safe bet that this one isn’t far wrong.

There are any number of studies that have been made about the causes and effects of homosexual behavior and while the results of any single study can probably be questioned - such questions are notoriously difficult to answer definitively - it is unarguable that most of them come to similar conclusions: homosexual behavior is bad for your health.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Agreed. The “statistics” given above from conservapedia.com are indeed highly dubious.

I’m not sure why you’re so dismissive of this source - did you look at it or assume that something called “conservapedia.com” can’t be trusted? What they have obviously done is to compile a list of sources that reinforce their beliefs but those references include serious sources that cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because they are cited by an advocacy group. Surely if the CDC puts out statistics they ought to be taken seriously regardless of who cites them. Even references to things like Baptist Press need to be looked at as it (the one citation I checked) was a report of a study done by researchers at the University of Chicago. Unreferenced “statistics” should be dismissed but if the source of the data is cited then the seriousness of the information comes from the source and is not diminished by those who quote it.

Ender

 

[gearhead]

Your moral views should reflect on to your political views. Meaning, if you are morally opposed to gay “marriage”,then you should be politically against it. Same goes for abortion, and the killing of old people.

I disagree with this as a general principle. Whether or not a person would choose a course of action for themselves does not necessarily dictate their position on whether that course of action should be imposed on (or barred from) others.

On *some *issues, I can see how a person could be against something personally and be in favour of its prohibition (actually, I’d think it would be odd if you were in favour of prohibition of something generally while in favour of it for yourself), but this isn’t the case for all issues… not necessarily even most.

For instance, there are certain charities that I think are especially good, and I choose to donate to them over others. However, I’d never dream of making it illegal to donate to any other charity. I probably wouldn’t even want to single out the charities I like for special government grants.

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi Ender,

First let me apologize for my intemperate response to your post. The misuse of data is apparently one of my buttons, and it’s doubly upsetting with this issue because I was once hoodwinked by precisely this kind of junk science. Please forgive me, therefore, if I feel I must clarify some of my objections which may have been obscured through my anger.

About magazine surveys: in any introductory statistics course, one of the first things the teacher explains to the students is that magazine surveys are entirely worthless as evidence. For example, your claim is that homosexuals are promiscuous, but the survey does not support this. Why? Because it is not clear that the readership of The Advocate is representative of “homosexuals”: presumably only out-of-the-closet liberal gay men read it. Worse still, not all of the readers (or even a representative sample of them) responded to the survey: perhaps having a large number of sexual partners was a predisposing factor to sending in the survey. We don’t know, and the survey did not investigate any of these design problems. Similar considerations apply to almost every other magazine survey, and so a very good rule of thumb is simply never to use them.

Given the results of the Dutch study - where homosexuals face little stigmatization - it implies that the cause lies elsewhere.

The study itself showed no such thing. The researchers were only attempting to determine whether or no people who reported having had sexual relations with people of the same sex within the previous year had a higher rate of mental health problems. They did not, therefore, attempt to determine any sort of causal factors that would explain their results. The way you’re interpreting the results is totally unsupported by the data. You claim that Dutch homosexuals face little stigmatization, but neither you nor Fitzgibbons cites a study that would show this. It is not acceptable simply to point the laws of the land because there is a lot more to stigmatization than that. Fitzgibbons knows this, and I can only believe that his is deliberately manipulating the data to support his beliefs. You don’t have to follow his example.

And again, it takes more than one point to establish a correlation. The two facts of “low stigmatization” and “high rate of mental illness” are compatible with the theory that the illness comes from the stigmatization if the high rate of mental illness is lower than it was when the degree of stigmatization was higher. We need J. S. Mill’s method of variation here, and not his methods of difference or agreement.

homosexual behavior is bad for your health.

Because of the causation implied in this statement, it is inaccurate. What the studies show is that homosexual behavior and mental health problems are associated with each other, but my impression is that the underlying causes involved have not been thoroughly investigated.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I disagree with this as a general principle. Whether or not a person would choose a course of action for themselves does not necessarily dictate their position on whether that course of action should be imposed on (or barred from) others.

On *some *issues, I can see how a person could be against something personally and be in favour of its prohibition (actually, I’d think it would be odd if you were in favour of prohibition of something generally while in favour of it for yourself), but this isn’t the case for all issues… not necessarily even most.

For instance, there are certain charities that I think are especially good, and I choose to donate to them over others. However, I’d never dream of making it illegal to donate to any other charity. I probably wouldn’t even want to single out the charities I like for special government grants.

Any person who chooses to not stand up for his moral beliefs in the political world really doesn’t have much faith at all. If some group of people choose to belittle a gift that means a lot to me and my faith, you’d better believe that I will speak out against these group of people. When I chose to accept the Catholic faith I agreed to live out my faith in every aspect of my earthly life; that includes the defence of my faith.

 

[gearhead]

Any person who chooses to not stand up for his moral beliefs in the political world really doesn’t have much faith at all.

What do you mean by “stand up for his moral beliefs”? As I alluded to before, it’s one thing to hold fast to a set of principles yourself; it’s another thing to impose those principles on people who don’t agree with them.

If some group of people choose to belittle a gift that means a lot to me and my faith, you’d better believe that I will speak out against these group of people.

Wait - which “gift” are you talking about? Faith? Marriage? It’s not clear what you’re referring to.

When I chose to accept the Catholic faith I agreed to live out my faith in every aspect of my earthly life; that includes the defence of my faith.

But where does defense of your own faith end and attack against other beliefs begin? Surely there’s a line somewhere, no?

 

[rusty20]

What do you mean by “stand up for his moral beliefs”? As I alluded to before, it’s one thing to hold fast to a set of principles yourself; it’s another thing to impose those principles on people who don’t agree with them.

Wait - which “gift” are you talking about? Faith? Marriage? It’s not clear what you’re referring to.

But where does defense of your own faith end and attack against other beliefs begin? Surely there’s a line somewhere, no?

Spot on. You can disagree with someone. You can’t convert everyone to Catholicism. Should Catholics work towards making Catholic moral teaching into law, given that most of the population disagrees with them? Where is any sense of political freedom?

 

[Pamm]

Now I have to say that this is an area I struggle with. I agree that my political decisions should be made on my moral beliefs. The trouble for me is when the Church says I can’t vote a certain way if I am a true Catholic. I vote for the entirety of the person running for office – not just one issue. I suspect I am like many, many Catholics. What politicians say and what they do are rarely the same – as well. I don’t have a litmus test – I look at everything collectively. In some cases, you are choosing between a person who has a few issues you don’t agree with but can lead – and the other is a person who may agree with you on most things but has no ability to lead.

 

[Ender]

First let me apologize for my intemperate response to your post.

Not a problem. Thank you.

About magazine surveys: in any introductory statistics course, one of the first things the teacher explains to the students is that magazine surveys are entirely worthless as evidence. For example, your claim is that homosexuals are promiscuous, but the survey does not support this.

Technically, I’m sure your analysis of magazine survey’s is accurate. In this case, however, I am inclined to accept the conclusion (however arrived at) because it is a statement about homosexuals made by homosexuals - and is in agreement with pretty much everything I’ve seen on the subject. It’s like the claim that the life expectancy of Canadian homosexuals is 20 years shorter than other Canadians. If that unsupported claim was made by the Ontario Baptist Association I would not use it but because it was made by a group of Canadian homosexuals about themselves I give it a very high probability of being accurate.

The study itself showed no such thing. The researchers were only attempting to determine whether or no people who reported having had sexual relations with people of the same sex within the previous year had a higher rate of mental health problems.

I’m missing something - it seems you are suggesting the researchers were simply going to amass some data without analyzing it. What was the purpose of the research?

They did not, therefore, attempt to determine any sort of causal factors that would explain their results.

That does sound strange but I don’t believe it matters: data is data and the fact that they did not attempt to interpret it surely doesn’t mean that it can’t be interpreted, regardless of what their intention was for gathering it.

The way you’re interpreting the results is totally unsupported by the data. You claim that Dutch homosexuals face little stigmatization, but neither you nor Fitzgibbons cites a study that would show this. It is not acceptable simply to point the laws of the land because there is a lot more to stigmatization than that.

I would agree that the data does not prove the interpretation, but it certainly supports it. If stigmatization is a major contributor then there should be measurable differences in rates of mental health problems between societies that differ significantly in their attitudes - such as between the Dutch and us. This study is not proof. It is, however, indicative.

Ender

 

[chrysostim83]

I’m missing something - it seems you are suggesting the researchers were simply going to amass some data without analyzing it. What was the purpose of the research?

The purpose of the study was just that: to determine if people who have had sexual relations with members of the same sex (call them MSM and WSW) experience higher rates of mental illness. The reason the researchers studied this question was that until then there were no studies on the subject that were acceptable by modern standards of evidence.

If stigmatization is a major contributor then there should be measurable differences in rates of mental health problems between societies that differ significantly in their attitudes - such as between the Dutch and us.

Absolutely. But Fitzgibbons wasn’t using this argument. All he claimed was that the Dutch have a “low” degree of stigmatization and a “high” rate of mental illness among MSM and WSW. No comparison can be drawn between countries, simply because nothing has been said so far about the degrees of stigmatization and the rates of mental illness in any nation but the Netherlands. Ultimately, the trouble is Fitzgibbons has based his causal claim on nothing more than a single data point.

 

[Ender]

Should Catholics work towards making Catholic moral teaching into law, given that most of the population disagrees with them? Where is any sense of political freedom?

Does anyone have the right to (attempt to) use the law to enforce that which he feels should or should not be done? The short answer is: of course; that’s why we have laws outlawing murder and theft. Does anyone have the right to use the law to enforce those things about which there in not universal agreement? Again, the answer is: of course; that’s what the political process is all about and the entire concept of majority rule. I’m still waiting for an explanation of when and why one loses the right to attempt to influence the law. What part of your political freedom requires me to sacrifice my political freedom?

Ender

 

[Pamm]

I believe that a marriage is a sacramental blessing shared only between a man and a woman. I do believe, however, that two men or two women can have a legal contractural relationship that has nothing to do with marriage that provides for certain “legal” rights. I do not believe they are married. They may choose to call it whatever they want as I don’t control what they say or do. I can express my feelings about it, however.

I believe that abortion is indeed killing of a human being. There are circumstances, such as rape and incest, where I have great compassion for those who are faced with that hard decision and I am grateful I don’t have to make that decision. Fundamentally though, I can not reconcile abortion without stating that the child is a a human being and aborting it is killing.

I do not believe in the death penalty except in very, very rare situations where like the defense of war under the teachings of the Church, the punishment must be enacted to protect the rest of us. I feel great relief that I am not the person who has to make the decision when that happens as I am unsure I could do so.

I struggle with my understanding and acceptance of a one major issue: whether or not it is a moral sin to use contraception such as the pill or condoms. I know what the Church teaches and I pray about understanding but I am not sure I can fully accept it.

I struggle with the militant Catholics who pass judgment on others. For that matter, I feel that way about all zealots who insist their world view is the only one. I don’t hear that kind of talking from my priest – I hear it more from the pew. The angry, sometimes violent lectures on homosexuality, abortion and so many other issues are counter productive. It turns more people off than reasoned, compassionate dialogue.