Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[zamyrabyrd]

But what you specifically said was definately incorrect. Now we all make mistakes. I do. And when I do I think that the right thing to do is admit it.
Would you please correct your earlier statement.

What wrong statement? If it is wrong according to you, then it is a matter of opinion. If it is objectively wrong, then it is self-evident and does not need correcting.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

But what you specifically said was definately incorrect. Now we all make mistakes. I do. And when I do I think that the right thing to do is admit it.
Would you please correct your earlier statement.

I was doing more reading on the Massachusetts site. There are no questionnaires before 2009 and there is a big difference between that year and the one of 2015. In 2009 transgender was not mentioned and there were only general, not specific questions about intercourse for 12 year olds, no less. So really I don’t know where you get that the surveys were done in this manner all the way back to 1993, Risk behavior was studied but not in such a graphic, provoking manner. Same sex marriage in Massachusetts was permitted from 2004. A lot of dirty water has passed under the bridge since then. There is definitely a connection between SSM and promoting notions such as changeable gender. This is a package of anti-religious values.

 

[Bradski]

What wrong statement? If it is wrong according to you, then it is a matter of opinion. If it is objectively wrong, then it is self-evident and does not need correcting.

This wrong statement:

Since you mentioned it, here’s the latest in children’s “sex” education. This is the result, but by no means the end of having accepted same sex marriage in Massachusetts:

It is not self evident in itself. One has to poke around to find out that you have made a statement in support of your arguments that is not true. This has been shown to you - and anyone else who is reading this thread. It cannot be the result because there was a ten year difference in the two.

Do you agree that the statement quoted above is false?

 

[PRmerger]

What wrong statement? If it is wrong according to you, then it is a matter of opinion. If it is objectively wrong, then it is self-evident and does not need correcting.

I’m pretty sure that Bradski does not believe in things being objectively wrong…

although he can answer for himself of course.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

This wrong statement:
Since you mentioned it, here’s the latest in children’s “sex” education. This is the result, but by no means the end of having accepted same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Do you agree that the statement quoted above is false?

I wouldn’t have said it if I thought it was wrong. On further investigation, it was clear that questionnaires became more bold and graphic from 2009 to 2015. I cannot find any questionnaires for kids before 2005. There are other ways of doing research. Just as I opted out of discussions that use explicit terms for intimate relations, one would expect the same delicacy around children. But as long are certain people are allowed to strut naked on the streets, it looks like very few, besides those with traditional values, and less in public education, care about the effects of over sexualization on children. This is actually a reflection on the researchers’ and educators’ perverted frames of mind.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The stat’s for gay, lesbian and bisexual students are chilling: over five times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because of feeling unsafe; over eight times more likely to have required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt; over nine times more likely to have used heroin one or more times during their life. And almost a quarter say they have attempted suicide in the past year.

Which indicates that in Massachusetts at least, bullying and discrimination is picked up by kids from adults, and will continue until a concerted effort is made jointly by society.
Anyway, I'm off as the thread seems to be a logic-free zone.

Logic requires deductive certainty for conditionals to be true. Your supposed “logic” above – even though it is part of the uncontested, received narrative – is far from established. In fact, there has been, and continues to be, a determined effort on the part of the narrative crafters to steer clear of even allowing anything like sound and rigorous logical analysis of the connection between bullying, discrimination and the psychological issues evident among gay individuals. That is why your point is rhetorical rather than logical.

The fact that gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have the issues they do, may or may not have everything to do with discrimination or bullying. You assume that it does, but that isn’t logically sound – it amounts to question begging – and most certainly reveals a confusion of correlation with causation, your philosophical indignation notwithstanding.

Human society has long used social sanctions to reinforce positive behaviours and suppress potentially destructive behaviours. To merely make the claim that negative reinforcement by society is discriminatory without considering the deeper significance for why taboos and sanctions exist in the first place is to demonstrate shallowness of logical thought. This is precisely why a serious and comprehensive dialogue about the issue ought to be welcomed and pursued – rather than the current campaign of seizing dissenters to the narrative by the throat. (Or, as you do, walking away with your sense of moral and logical superiority safely sheltered by your refusal to engage.)

By the way, real concern about the welfare of individuals who view themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual would not stop at or be content with cursory half-truths about the issue, but would pursue the complete truth of the matter until a proper solution is arrived at. The fact that politics is getting in the way of a proper and complete examination of the pathology is remarkably telling. It is this failure on the part of those who – apparently – have something to hide since they are ill-disposed to carrying out a complete investigation, but rather want punitive laws and “rights” established before anyone catches on as to where the truth of the matter is.

I find this posturing from both you and Bradski that the issue is settled to be not only premature but also revelatory of the fact that your positions are far from being unbiased – which used to be a hallmark of rigorous analysis. Not so much any more, it seems.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The shock-horror-secret-conspiracy headlines are not exactly honest reporting.

I had a look at the Mass. government site and the survey has been run since 1993, so there must be many adults in Mass. who answered the survey long ago when they were at school. Survey questions and results going back to 2005 have been available online for years, and the earliest of those has a comparison with 1995, so the same questions on sexual behavior have been asked for at least twenty years. Everything is there in the open including the methodology and all. The latest report says “There was a significant decline in the percentage of students who reported speaking with their parents or another adult in the family about sexuality and sexual risk prevention”, so it seems parents think it’s the school’s job anyway.

If your “conclusion” is an example of thinking you regard as “logical,” then it becomes clearer why you are recusing yourself from this discussion. The fact that students are significantly less likely to speak to their parents or other adults about sexuality and risk prevention would seem to scream loudly concerning the inefficacy of sex ed in schools and that rather than promoting a culture of “openness” the past twenty years of “liberation” from traditional values has done more to close than open that dialogue.

It would seem to me that a possible inference from the significant decline in student willingness to discuss sex with their parents is NOT, as you say, “parents think it’s the school’s job,” but rather that students are likely engaging in sexual behaviour that they don’t want their parents to know about. That would indicate that students are uncertain and perhaps even disturbed about the confused messages coming different sectors in society concerning sex – messages which are far from reconciliable and far from being obviously true or self-evident.

A missing piece of data to bolster or refute your inference would be comparative statistics concerning the frequency of sexual behaviour engaged in by students. That would answer whether an increased willingness to engage in sexual behaviour has some correspondence to an openness to discussing sex, in general. In other words, do the consciences of students align with their willingness to engage sexually? And if not, why not?

The stat’s for gay, lesbian and bisexual students are chilling: over five times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because of feeling unsafe; over eight times more likely to have required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt; over nine times more likely to have used heroin one or more times during their life. And almost a quarter say they have attempted suicide in the past year.

This was addressed in my previous post.

Which indicates that in Massachusetts at least, bullying and discrimination is picked up by kids from adults, and will continue until a concerted effort is made jointly by society.

Another contrived inference on your part. There is no such obvious implication to be drawn from the statistics that would lead us to conclude bullying and discrimination have continued to the same extent these had existed in the past. Nor do we even know the extent to which they did exist 20 years ago. If you have statistics showing levels of discrimination/bullying do provide those.

In order to make the claim you do above, what needs to exist is the data that shows correlation between levels of discrimination and, for example, suicide rates among LGB students/adults. If, those statistics do NOT correlate - say bullying and discrimination rates have decreased without a corresponding decrease in the number of suicides/attempts – then your inference would seem to be invalidated.

Even if the correlation does exist, there still needs to be established a causal connection between discrimination/bullying and suicide/attempted suicide among LGB students/adults. Correlation does not equal causation.

That, inocente, is what the rigor of logic requires. We welcome any attempt on your part to bring rigorous logic into the discussion. But of course, it is easier to walk than to engage to that depth, yes?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It would seem to me that a possible inference from the significant decline in student willingness to discuss sex with their parents is NOT, as you say, “parents think it’s the school’s job,” but rather that students are likely engaging in sexual behaviour that they don’t want their parents to know about. That would indicate that students are uncertain and perhaps even disturbed about the confused messages coming different sectors in society concerning sex – messages which are far from reconciliable and far from being obviously true or self-evident.

The more I think about these student questionnaires (which seem only to have started from 2005), the less believable they become, knowing how adolescents behave from my own children and students. I think they would have a field day answering questions about guns and drugs. Quite frankly I would not expect them to be honest or even serious.

What shocked me was the blatant language about sex used in the 2015 questionnaire that was somewhat subdued in the 2009. I still believe that such ploys are mainly to desensitize not only to language but to the acts which the words represent. If they never heard about the different ways to “you know” (I hate repeating stuff like this because for me, it is not normal to talk like that) they will certainly learn about them from the test and from there explore on social media and finally to try them. This alone is outrageous.
What the tests are accomplishing, besides earning a lot of money for those who make them, is to normalize sexual practices that were unthinkable to mention in polite society, as the s and f words have become practically universal in the English speaking world.

 

[Thorolfr]

It also demonstrates the “sheeple” mentality at work. If someone appears decent, non-threatening and minds their own business, they have a place in the flock. After all, an inclusive flock is a happy flock, no? If the entire flock heads in one direction, then the flock must be right – safety in numbers, I suppose. Which is why it has been very important to those who have a predilection for eccentric behaviour to have it approved by the flock – hence the PR campaign in the media and the attacks (social and legal) on those who dare to voice disapproval and to convince by social coercion and ostracism that dissenters are not to be tolerated because they spout “feelbad” that upsets the sheeples. The point of your post, I suppose is to make the Zs feelbad because they are upsetting members of the flock.

Human society has long used social sanctions to reinforce positive behaviours and suppress potentially destructive behaviours. To merely make the claim that negative reinforcement by society is discriminatory without considering the deeper significance for why taboos and sanctions exist in the first place is to demonstrate shallowness of logical thought. This is precisely why a serious and comprehensive dialogue about the issue ought to be welcomed and pursued – rather than the current campaign of seizing dissenters to the narrative by the throat. (Or, as you do, walking away with your sense of moral and logical superiority safely sheltered by your refusal to engage.)

By the way, real concern about the welfare of individuals who view themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual would not stop at or be content with cursory half-truths about the issue, but would pursue the complete truth of the matter until a proper solution is arrived at. The fact that politics is getting in the way of a proper and complete examination of the pathology is remarkably telling. It is this failure on the part of those who – apparently – have something to hide since they are ill-disposed to carrying out a complete investigation, but rather want punitive laws and “rights” established before anyone catches on as to where the truth of the matter is.

First you criticize LGBT people and their supporters for supposedly trying “to convince by social coercion and ostracism” while then asserting the right of social conservatives to use “social sanctions to…suppress potentially destructive behaviours.” And the sanctions used by the latter group against LGBT people were much more coercive, often including police harassment and arrest, imprisonment, being fired from jobs, being committed to psychiatric hospitals, etc. And then you say that there needs to be a “proper and complete examination” of homosexuality which you have already decided is a “pathology”. Why have a “proper and complete examination” when you’ve already reached a conclusion?

 

[Bradski]

I’m pretty sure that Bradski does not believe in things being objectively wrong…

although he can answer for himself of course.

Perhaps you’re confusing objective and absolute. If Z states that A caused B and it turns out that A happened after B, then the statement is objectively wrong.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thorolfr:

And then you say that there needs to be a “proper and complete examination” of homosexuality which you have already decided is a “pathology”. Why have a “proper and complete examination” when you’ve already reached a conclusion?

Excellent observation. It reminds me of the Nixon era, when he set up a committee to examine if the mild drugs (marijuana, etc…) were actually harmful or not. As a starting caveat he declared that if the medical results will contradict the official standing, he will disregard the findings of the committee. Guess what, the results did not support the official opinion, so he suppressed the study. Tells you something about the honesty involved.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Perhaps you’re confusing objective and absolute. If Z states that A caused B and it turns out that A happened after B, then the statement is objectively wrong.

Explicit language about sexual activities around children literally exploded after the institution of same sex marriage in Massachusetts. A whole supportive system in the schools had to be put in place to make this not only legal, but devoutly accepted. What happened after 2004 was not only to study of risks of adolescents but reinforce the official sexuality in the schools and in fact in any area of society where the government has anything to do or say:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

Only some of the horrors;
“A hideously obscene booklet on “gay” practices created by health officials was given out in a high school. Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay,” the Mass. Dept. of Public Health helped the AIDS Action Committee produce The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. It was given to teens at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005…
In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts, parents have no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in schools. The previous year the Parkers and Wirthlins had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judge dismissed the case. The appeals judges later upheld the first judge’s ruling that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out their children. Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal,” federal judges have ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In conclusion
Same-sex ‘marriage’ hangs over society, hammering citizens with the force of law. Once it gets a foothold, society becomes more oppressive. Unfortunately, it was imposed on the people of Massachusetts through a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians. The homosexual movement has used that combination to its continued advantage around the country.
It’s pretty clear that this radical movement is obsessed with marriage not because large numbers of homosexuals actually want to marry each other. A small percentage actually "marry."
The push for “gay marriage” is really is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and forcing its acceptance on (otherwise unwilling) citizens and our social, political, and commercial institutions.”

 

[BobCatholic]

The push for “gay marriage” is really is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and forcing its acceptance on (otherwise unwilling) citizens and our social, political, and commercial institutions."

No, the push is to take away human rights from others. No freedom of speech. No freedom of religion. No parental rights. No freedom of opinion.

It is all about promoting totalitarianism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

First you criticize LGBT people and their supporters for supposedly trying “to convince by social coercion and ostracism” while then asserting the right of social conservatives to use “social sanctions to…suppress potentially destructive behaviours.” And the sanctions used by the latter group against LGBT people were much more coercive, often including police harassment and arrest, imprisonment, being fired from jobs, being committed to psychiatric hospitals, etc. And then you say that there needs to be a “proper and complete examination” of homosexuality which you have already decided is a “pathology”. Why have a “proper and complete examination” when you’ve already reached a conclusion?

I’ll concede that your point is correct. “Pathology” was not a well-considered word, on my part. What I meant was something like “potential pathology” or possible ill-effects. I am sure that you will, in moments of deep and sincere reflection, admit that the long term effects of promoting and fostering gay sexual behaviour and same sex marriage have not been given due and proper diligence in terms of looking before we leap into wholesale endorsement and encouragement among children and young adults, no?

After all, even the most adamant apologists for normalization of same sex behaviour will freely admit very little is known concerning how and why individuals become same sex attracted. That, in itself, should give all of us pause before we jump in with both feet.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

No, the push is to take away human rights from others. No freedom of speech. No freedom of religion. No parental rights. No freedom of opinion.
It is all about promoting totalitarianism.

I wish others would see this movement as clearly as you do. The public has been led by the nose, the whiff of rights for all like the scent of flowers but in reality it is a stinking pile of garbage. Of course there are nice people who just want to live their lives and not bother anyone. They are not working the system to ruin the livelihoods of those who don’t agree with them. And they would not even recognize the social engineering agenda behind it all.

The odd thing is that it was tried before in Nazi Germany that owed its rise to homosexualists who fashioned much of its ideology. It was also anti-family, anti-religious and infested with sexual immorality. The book, “Pink Swastika” reveals the macho cult based on ideas about Ancient Greek warriors, whether true or not that despised but still used out the more submissive guys they called “femmes” and kept them in concentration camps (with some better conditions). With all their veneration for science as opposed to religious irrationalism (similar to the Communists and Lysenko’s theories) their distorted racial premises were to serve social engineering.

Destroying the nuclear family was core objective. They didn’t succeed but here we are again. The State has to enforce what it has allowed and in fact is the beneficiary of breaking up those small packets of resistance which is the family unit. People will become modular, sexless agents of the State.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, the push is to take away human rights from others. No freedom of speech. No freedom of religion. No parental rights. No freedom of opinion.

It is all about promoting totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism of the far left … sick and immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you’re confusing objective and absolute. If Z states that A caused B and it turns out that A happened after B, then the statement is objectively wrong.

I’m pretty sure these are your words, Bradski (my bold):

Whether something is wrong or not is decided by us. It cannot be any other way.** There are no objective moral laws to start with.** The bible may mention a few universal guidelines (which we would understand and uphold even without any religious texts), but each has to be interpreted by us as the situation demands.

If you ask someone: ‘Is stealing wrong?’, then the only sensible reply is: ‘Under what circumstances?’ If you blandly state that stealing is morally wrong under any circumstances but could be considered the right thing to do in certain circumstances, then to call stealing ‘objectively wrong’ is to render the term itself meaningless.

It really *sounds *as if you were saying there’s no such thing as objective morality.

No?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

… And then you say that there needs to be a “proper and complete examination” of homosexuality which you have already decided is a “pathology”. Why have a “proper and complete examination” when you’ve already reached a conclusion?

It’s already marching down the streets for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

First you criticize LGBT people and their supporters for supposedly trying “to convince by social coercion and ostracism” while then asserting the right of social conservatives to use “social sanctions to…suppress potentially destructive behaviours.” And the sanctions used by the latter group against LGBT people were much more coercive, often including police harassment and arrest, imprisonment, being fired from jobs, being committed to psychiatric hospitals, etc. And then you say that there needs to be a “proper and complete examination” of homosexuality which you have already decided is a “pathology”. Why have a “proper and complete examination” when you’ve already reached a conclusion?

Collective insanity, while not the norm, is often seen in human history.

I happen to believe that “a proper and complete examination” is really not necessary when the body politic has obviously gone berserk, a condition we are presently in.

 

[Thorolfr]

The odd thing is that it was tried before in Nazi Germany that owed its rise to homosexualists who fashioned much of its ideology. It was also anti-family, anti-religious and infested with sexual immorality. The book, “Pink Swastika” reveals the macho cult based on ideas about Ancient Greek warriors, whether true or not that despised but still used out the more submissive guys they called “femmes” and kept them in concentration camps (with some better conditions). With all their veneration for science as opposed to religious irrationalism (similar to the Communists and Lysenko’s theories) their distorted racial premises were to serve social engineering.

Your notion that Nazi Germany was some sort of homosexual paradise is a fantasy. According to the article in Wikipedia:

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Rüdiger Lautmann believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in the camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust