posted
Amka, but what if that 91% is 20 people, and thus a minute percentage of even the gay community? And how much of a percentage is non-familial boy molestation compared to all boys molestation?
Without this sort of widening of scope, it's like saying uncircumcised boys have twice the chance of getting a urinary infection before the age of two than circumcised (therefore all boys should be circumcised), but ignoring/omitting/not further publishing the fact that the rate is so low in circumcised boys (a percent, tops, I believe), that even the percentage of afflicted uncircumcised boys vs. uncircumcised boys not afflicted is really tiny (no more than 2%). That stuff allows a greater context to be drawn to understand how big of a problem it is.
Is it a problem? Yes. Are there bigger issues though, that are largely the domain of heterosexuals? Yes. So what sort of conclusions can be drawn from THAT?
I think the conclusion should be drawn that sexual predators of all types ought to be found and appropriately punished. Not that gays, oght not to be allowed to gain LEGAL privileges/protections for maintaining long-term, monogamous relationships.
posted
I just don't like the implied cause-and-effect.
It may be that most child molesters are attracted to children of their own gender. Dunno. I still don't see where that follows that homosexuals are automatically suspect. What percentage of child molesters are white? Christian? Parents? Single? Married? Divorced? Middle-aged? Physically/mentally challenged?
Finding what appears to be a pattern and not following up on all the potential connections is sloppy science.
A study was once done on college students and smoking, and a correlation was found between smokers and poor performance. The exact same figures derived could be used to "prove" that a) smoking made you stupid, b) stupid people were more likely to smoke, or c) they were both symptoms of a larger problem.
Tell me, who would you be more likely to hire as a teacher? A homosexual, or a heterosexual dominatrix? Of course you probably wouldn't know about the second one, since that sort of thing isn't asked during the interview...
[ March 04, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that these studies are published and some people believe they are fact, without exploring the background and nuances, because they resonate with their own deeply held beliefs. We can pick apart the pro-gay statistics just as much and it has been done here on hatrack before both ways.
How does one combat all the propaganda out there from both sides and actually find true facts?
And people are gullible. I told a coworker today that the forward they got of the iceberg that you can see both top and bottom of simultaneously that was taken by a Norwegian tanker captain was two different pictures photoshopped together, and the person absolutely refused to believe me. I can't get to SNOPES on my work server because it is blocked for some unfathomable reason.
posted
I lurk. I work 46 hours a week at a non-computer job, and I still write fiction. That doesn't leave a lot of time to play on hatrack.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that it is difficult to follow up on because one can't get funding for such studies.
So now that we've picked apart every study that even resembles being scientific, where does that leave us?
Ignorant.
And people want to act on that ignorance before we can get some valid data.
These are my primary, non-religious arguments:
1. That it appears that harmful behavior such as pedophilia is somehow linked to homosexual behavior, whether one defines themself as homosexual or not. It appears that homosexuality is linked to a risk of mental instability. As such, we need to be careful about the encouragement of such behavior. More follow up study is required.
2. That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.
3. That legalizing gay marriage will further degrade the value society has for the traditional family, and this general vibe projected in media and at educational institutions will lead to fewer intact families. This will be harmful for the society.
quote:2. That there is an agenda on the part of the homosexual community to teach young children that their lifestyle is normal and that no harm can come of it, against the wishes of these childrens' parents. I want to ask you folks honestly: how many of you are secretly thinking that is a good thing? If you can't shove your morality down my throat, then you'll just indocrinate my children instead.
There is as much of a spectrum among gay political beliefs as there is among straight political beliefs. I've had a couple very good friends who were log cabin republicans.
I think you are mistaking a particular fringe of a particular group for representing the entire group.
There are probably an equal number of people who think creationists are trying to impose their beliefs by legislating teaching them into public school classrooms.
quote: 3. That legalizing gay marriage will further degrade the value society has for the traditional family, and this general vibe projected in media and at educational institutions will lead to fewer intact families. This will be harmful for the society.
I think gay marriage legalisation is irrelevant to this. They are such a small portion of the population as you point it out, they really can't swing things one way or the other in terms of the greater familial norms. If you want intact families, make premarital counseling and marital counsling in general mandatory before a divorce, except in abuse cases.
AJ
Oh yes and pre-marital financial planning too. Most divorces are over money. I know I've seen the stats but don't have them at the tips of my fingers.
posted
Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with the fact that they want a minority protection status that would require the government to teach kids in schools that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the already shaky nature of marriage, no one is saying that homosexual marriage would be the worst thing to happen to marriage. Simply that it is yet one more harmful thing.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the government should be teaching anything on homosexuality one way or the other, especially at the lower levels! The only thing that should be said, is that in the eyes of the law all persons are equal. When sex ed comes around, it should be mentioned as a statistical percentage of the population. Safe sex and sexual disease prevention is pretty straight forward regardless of sexual orientation.
posted
read the article. The question is, how is this cultural dissolution of marriage actually affecting crime rates? Are they skyrocketing? Are children actually suffering? Are the poverty rates increasing? Is the population some how more unhappy now than when they were marrying? Will the fact that so much of the population isn't marrying change the statistics (which I believe are US based) about married people living longer. And in a socalized government system even minimally socialized like here in the U.S. do we actually care that there is a couple year age difference in the death ages in married and unmarried people because people are living so much longer to begin with?
So why should we care anyway? If in the nordic system single mothers aren't more likely to be in poverty, then it isn't a big deal.
That article left me with a whole lot of questions and not a lot of answers.
AJ
(edit: I just discovered I'd only read the first page... maybe I'll have answers after the second page)
posted
As for the already shaky nature of marriage, no one is saying that homosexual marriage would be the worst thing to happen to marriage. Simply that it is yet one more harmful thing.
I'm sorry, I can't see it. The more people who honestly want to commit to each other, the better for society. This seems so self-evident to me I trip over myself trying to explain it.
Now, homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) who marry only for the publicity, I have no time for.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.
and
quote: That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.
This will have a neutral affect on society? Are you sure you really read the entire article?
Actually, I just realized something: this will force me to work to help support the family and force me to put my children in daycare or reduce my cost of living, so people can experience more individualism and less dependence on family. So it is yet another way that the morally liberal mindset will be shoved down my throat.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm leaving work, but these quotes from the article are definitely food for thought.
quote: Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.
My comment on this, is that they have to go back to 1953 to coroberate the 2003 study. And the problem is single parenting here, not gay marriage. Though their documentation of the devaluing of marriage overall is interesting. But I think divorce is what has us where we are to day. Their correlations between gay marriage and the decline in marrage are a completely circular argument which they admit.
quote: This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.
quote: AMERICANS take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West. Perhaps the most disturbing sign for the future is the collapse of the Scandinavian tendency to marry after the second child. At the start of the nineties, 60 percent of unmarried Norwegian parents who lived together had only one child. By 2001, 56 percent of unmarried, cohabiting parents in Norway had two or more children. This suggests that someday, Scandinavian parents might simply stop getting married altogether, no matter how many children they have.
quote: Kiernan maintains that as societies progressively detach marriage from parenthood, stage reversal is impossible. That makes sense. The association between marriage and parenthood is partly a mystique. Disenchanted mystiques cannot be restored on demand.
Here they admit it is a mystique. What is wrong with disenchantment. That is what the Protestant reformation was founded on -de-mystifying the Gospel. You could probably trace it all the way back to that and start applying the blame from there if you wanted.
You can also draw a correlation if you feel like between suffrage for women in the US and the national debt. Doesn't mean any of the above is actually truly cause and effect.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
