Thursday, January 12, 2012

God, gays, and K'd up circuit boys

Jay Michaelson's essay in Religion Dispatches, with my commentary:


Why Rick Santorum Can't Just Say: God Doesn't Want You To Be Gay
Gay rights and the collapse of pseudo-secularism
By JAY MICHAELSON
It’s been widely observed that religious foes of LGBT equality...
There are very few actual foes of LGBT equality, religious or otherwise, the Westboro Baptist Church notwithstanding.

The vast majority of people-- Christians included-- strongly support full rights for gays. The right to free exercise of religion, the right to freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to trial by jury, etc.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with "rights", because marrying anyone you want isn't a "right".

There have always been constraints on marriage. Constraints on who may legally marry is a matter of statutory law, decided by the mechanisms of representative democracy. There are no "rights" involved in defining marriage, as long as the definition applies to all and thereby satisfies the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Denying marriage to people who want to marry a sibling isn't denying the rights of the incestuous. Denying marriage to more than two people isn't denying the rights of polygamists. Denying marriage to people who want to marry themselves isn't denying the rights of narcissists. Denying marriage to people who want to marry children isn't denying the rights of pederasts. Denying marriage to people who want to marry the dead isn't denying the rights of necrophiliacs.

Denying marriage to gays isn't denying the rights of gays. It's simply defining marriage in accordance with the majority view, which is how a democracy works.

Gays and others who want to change the legal definition of marriage are entitled to do so, through the legislative process. Those who want to maintain the traditional definition are entitled to do so, through the legislative process. The only "right" involved is the right to access to and participation in the legislative process.
 ...frequently make arguments of convenience. These arguments are usually guised in the language of rhetorics other than that of religion. Thus homosexuality is pathological (medical), destructive of society (sociological), narcissistic (psychological)—anything, really, as long as it’s bad, which is what opponents of equality really mean.
There are religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and homosexual conduct (it's sinful), and there are secular reasons (it's not marriage as traditionally understood, it's unhealthy, pathological, destructive of society... ). Those are all perfectly defensible viewpoints.
Aware, however, that pure rhetorics of sin and God’s will are of limited public efficacy—mostly for cultural reasons, though also for legal/political ones—the more candid statements are rarely spoken publicly.
There are many millions of religious people who are quite willing to state simply that homosexual conduct is sinful. I think it is, and that's my primary reason for opposition to it. Many religious people carry the debate to secular issues, for which strong arguments can be made as well, that others who don't share their faith may agree on.
As Mark Jordan has recently described in great detail, this instrumental use of non-religious rhetoric has led to a discursive slipperiness, leaving the keen observer wondering: What, exactly, is wrong with homosexuality?
It's sinful. Also, it's unhealthy, for the person engaging in it and for the society that facilitates it.
Opponents of equality often seem unable to respond consistently, instead attempting to marshal a variety of non-religious arguments to bolster what is at heart a religious condition. Chosen, as they typically are, for efficacy rather than for accuracy, these arguments often turn out to be wrong.
Homosexual conduct is associated with astonishingly high rates of disease. It is a profound public health issue, about which there is no honest debate.

Last week, for example, Rick Santorum argued that same-sex marriage would be a slippery slope, because “in terms of pleasure,” polygamous marriages offered as much pleasure as gay marriages do. This strange new line of thinking pre-supposes that the only reason for same-sex marriage is pleasure, just as the only reason for a homosexual “lifestyle” is pleasure, lust, and so on. 
The connection between gay marriage and polygamy is obvious. If marriage to someone of the same sex is permitted, by what logic can marriage to more than one person be denied?
This is, of course, absurd. Gay couples get married for the same reasons that straight couples do, with pleasure being pretty far down the list, behind, say, love, companionship, taking care of one another, societal recognition, raising children, and so on. Santorum’s ignorant comment (one of many, of course) assumes, incorrectly, that homosexuality is a (changeable, optional) predilection of the gonads, rather than an orientation of the heart. Lust, not love.
Gay couples certainly have a range of motives and desires, just as straight couples do.
Likewise, Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, recently gave an interview on Christian Radio wherein he described the “homosexual lifestyle” again in terms of selfishness and pleasure. The radio host, in turn, stated that LGBT activists (it was interesting to hear her say the acronym—I think its foreignness and length helped her case) simply don’t understand how a person changes when they are born again in Christ. Because LGBT activists are irreligious, they just don’t get how religiously-inspired change is possible.
This, too, is factually wrong. As readers of this publication know, a great many LGBT activists (this one included) are religious.
Indeed yes. I think that they are mistaken about God's law regarding homosexual conduct, but it is certainly true that there are many quite religious people who are gay and are gay activists.
Many others are formerly religious. We know quite well what it is to live in the light of God, Christ, dharma, et cetera. And many of us have experienced that doing so while not lying and repressing oneself is actually more religiously spacious than the alternative. 
Relation to God is about truth, not "spaciousness".
And, to state the obvious, any queer person in a committed relationship with a partner or with a circle of friends and companions knows that selfishness is as pathetic in a queer life as it is in a straight one. Apparently Chambers has forgotten that during the AIDS plague, queers were highly unselfish in their taking care of one another (including, let’s mention out loud, lesbians taking care of gay men).
That's true, and deeply admirable. I've seen it myself in my medical practice, and I have great respect for the selfless men and women who care for their friends and partners.

But we must not forget the maniacal promiscuity and recklessness that spreads AIDS and myriad other diseases in the gay community.

There has been much courage and love, and much depravity.
It’s a pity that Chambers’ experience of the gay community (apparently extremely brief, according to this report) was limited to its most vapid representatives. But even K’d-up circuit boys take care of one another.
"K'd up circuit boys"?

Does "K'd up" refer to ketamine, K-Y jelly, or Kaposi's?
In making these bogus arguments, Santorum and Chambers inevitably run afoul of the facts, because the facts are not what really interest them. If we assume that Santorum is being sincere in his bigotry rather than purely opportunistic, what he’s really interested in is religion, not social policy.
"K'd up circuit boys..."?

If it were social policy that motivated him, he’d read the studies of same-sex couples in Massachusetts and in other countries, which show that they raise children as well as opposite-sex couples, form stable families, and the rest. 
"K'd up circuit boys..."?

But what Santorum is motivated by is actually religion: a fear of sexuality and of women souped-up by a misreading of Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.
It's odd to hear a gay guy accuse Santorum, who has seven kids and a beloved wife of twenty years, of having a fear of sexuality and of women.
But he can’t really say that on television. If he were honest, he’d just come out and say something like: “I’m sorry, but God just cannot abide any homosexual behavior.” But he isn’t.
He'd be right to do so. But he's trying to point out that there are solid non-religious reasons to critique homosexual behavior. Why Michaelson finds the effort to appeal to common values objectionable is unclear.
Now, in no way am I claiming that the Bible prohibits same-sex intimacy.
It condemns same-sex sex. Intimacy is another matter, and can mean very different things.
I have written abook showing the exact opposite: that Biblical values demand us to affirm it. Rick Santorum’s views are not dictated by St. Paul, but he believes that they are, and that’s enough.
The Bible is quite clear on the sinfulness of homosexual acts. It is also clear on the blessing of love and care for each other. Relationships of all sorts can involve a composite of good and bad.
Let me take one further step. Santorum and other homophobes...
I really don't like the word "homophobe". Very few people are afraid of homosexuals, and even fewer are afraid to the point of diagnosable mental illness, which is what "phobia" means.

Many people hold the opinion that homosexual acts are sinful. That's an opinion, not a phobia.

Heterophobes like Michaelson should know the difference.
... cannot speak frankly because their real motivations are private, emotional, and incoherent.
The Catholic view to which Santorum (and I) subscribe is quite coherent-- homosexual desire is not sinful. Homosexual acts are. People who have homosexual desire and/or commit homosexual acts are God's beloved sons and daughters, just like each of us. We are all sinners, loved always and redeemed, if we accept redemption. Part of accepting redemption is acting, as best we can, in accordance with God's will.
It’s not as though Santorum dispassionately selected Catholicism from a menu of religious ideologies. He believes because he feels.
And feels because he believes.
Even before his wife’s miscarriage (in 1996), before his political career, some concatenation of circumstances installed what some have called religious “software” in his brain.
Huh? I'll have to ask my neurosurgical colleagues in Pennsylvania who operated on him...
Things are good when religion is dominant, bad when it is not. This is the truth of his experience.
What?
I’m reminded of a story told by Tim LaHaye, notorious author of the apocalyptic “Left Behind” series. LaHaye was ten years old when his father died, and obviously devastated by the loss. As LaHaye tells it, it was during a pastor’s eulogy for his father that he truly came to believe. The pastor explained how his father was now in heaven with Jesus, and the young LaHaye knew this to be true, felt it to be true. Indeed, he must have wished it to be true as well. Of course he did; what ten-year-old boy wouldn’t?

That, not evolution or homosexuality or any other point of dogma, is the real issue for people like LaHaye, Santorum, and Chambers: the fundamental comfort that religion provides.
Ketamine, amyl nitrite, and promiscuity provide comfort.

A relationship to God provides truth, which is comforting and terrifying in turns. Fear and trembling.
If people evolved from apes, according to this logic, Timmy LaHaye’s father is not in heaven with Jesus and Rick Santorum’s son died for no reason.
Evolution and the Catholic understanding of man are quite consistent, if one accepts that man's physical nature evolved and his spirit/soul were independently created.
And this is why we cannot argue with people who subscribe to this framework: there is simply too much at stake for them.
We believe what we say.
They have wedded their fundamental sense of okay-ness to the truthfulness of a set of doctrines.
We believe what we say.
Not only is sociology not at issue for Rick Santorum, Romans isn’t either. What is at stake is his very sense that the world is a good place, that things are basically okay, and that he himself is okay as a result. That may be expressed in a theological framework, but it is a psychological reality.
Santorum is figuratively on Dr. Michaelson's couch, getting psychoanalyzed. For free, no less.
If I marry my partner, therefore, Rick Santorum is not okay.
Right. The only reason one could oppose gay marriage is if one has a psychiatric condition. All sane people agree with Jay Michaelson and K'd up circuit boys.
The rest is window dressing. The fake sociology, the religious doctrines of sin and salvation, all of it.
Reluctance to bestow a legal imprimatur on a sexual culture synonymous with promiscuity and contagion is "fake sociology"?
Santorum and Chambers have had powerful religious experiences, and they avail themselves of such doctrines to articulate the inexpressible. 
This is expressible: gay marriage isn't marriage.
The fake secularism, the fake science, the bogus constructions of homosexuality—
All based on publicly available data and obvious inferences...
all of these are so transparently false because they are mere props. As one after another of them collapse,
Here's "fake science": gay lifestyle is associated with astronomical rates of promiscuity, mental illness, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia,  HPV, herpes, anal cancer ... . The life expectancy of an active urban homosexual man is equal to the life expectancy of men in Canada in 1871.
anti-gays will eventually be left only with their convictions, and the reasons why they have them. Perhaps only then, echoing Portnoy’s therapist, might we say “Now vee may perhaps to begin.”
In my view, the most shameful aspect of contemporary homosexual culture is not the sex itself. The most shameful aspect is the willful lying by "activists" like Michaelson about the real world consequences of gay sex, especially among men.  Male homosexuality is deadly, more deadly than drunk driving, I.V. drug abuse, and Russian roulette. The leading killer of gay men is gay men.

Condoms aren't the answer. They haven't been the answer. The answer is continence and chastity, and a respect for God, for others and for oneself, which is the Catholic understanding and Rick Santorum's understanding.

It is Michaelson, not Santorum, who is devaluing the lives of gay men. 

44 comments:

  1. Egnor:

    The life expectancy of an active urban homosexual man is equal to the life expectancy of men in Canada in 1871.

    Bullshit bigot propaganda.


    Here the authors of the original study which contained the comparison with 1871 Canadian men write the following:


    Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today [in 2001] the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

    The writer of that Free Republic piece didn't check his facts or was lying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The authors of the original study also write:

    Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @troy:

    Great. Living on a cocktail of toxic anti-viral drugs has extended the life-expectancy of promiscuous gay men somewhat beyond that of the 19th century.

    Time to party. Who's bringing the ketamine!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Regarding the term 'homophobe', there are two possible meanings. Both meanings are strictly rhetorical while retaining an air of pretension. Phobia, as Dr Egnor cites does not apply. To infer that a person who does not engage in or approve of sodomy 'afraid' is obvious projection. As the Doctor notes in his post, it is a bit rich for a gay man to accuse a father of 7 (Rep Santorum) of being afraid of women. Projection.
    The second, less understood definition is a chemical one. Phobic and Philic. Repulsed and Attracted. There is no middle ground in these terms, and that is the rhetorical gist of this meaning. You are for being gay, or against being gay. No middle ground. No apathy allowed.
    So? What do we call the authors of these rhetorical outbursts homophiles? Or maybe just dupes and propagandists.

    Re the Pathology: I find it incredibly naive of the homosexual community to allow progressives to categorize them as pathological or 'being born gay'. The trendy new argument from this lobby is basically 'it's not our fault, we're broken' - simply to avoid the word 'sin'. They seem to misunderstand what sin is, and who are the sinners (ie we ALL are). To avoid that stigma they choose the "I am sick line".
    These folks should be aware: A Christian establishment calling you a sinner is simply an observation of your lifestyle. A value judgement. We are all sinners. It is a matter of auditing.
    A 'progressive' (positivist/materialist) establishment calling you a genetic defect? That can end up in some very nasty outcomes for those of you who CHOOSE that lifestyle.
    Choice is the preview of free minds.
    A disorder or defect is something the 'scientists' will attempt to correct.
    Currently we see the first strange incarnation of this thinking as we see religious groups using this very concept (which may well be true) to 'cure' gays.
    So my message to the intelligent homosexuals of the civilized world is: Stand by your choice and accept/own your faults or expect to be 'cured' of the disorder you claim you were born with.
    I should note that we have gays in our family and friends circle and while they originally thought my argument was 'anti-gay', after thinking on it and hearing me out (not reducto like this) they actually came to AGREE, and now make the same argument to their gay associates. It has gone viral.
    In short: Christians LOVE you and HATE the sin. Positivists only care about progress, and a 'faulty mating instinct' is not a productive genetic trait.
    I should also note, in finality, that the worst (tolerated) bigot I know regarding homosexuals is an old and dear friend who is a ARDENT Atheist and all the gays I know are Christian, save one who is a Buddhist. They also all claim to have been agnostics or nominal atheists in their wild and promiscuous youths...something many adult heterosexual Christians have in common with them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Troy,
    How can engaging in sodomy be described as 'healthy' or 'productive'? It is obviously an unhealthy and counter-productive behaviour. It involves exposing and irritating some of the most sensitive and porous membranes in the human anatomy to faecal bacteria. It is unhealthy. It is not what copulation is for: reproduction. Two men cannot naturally produce a child. Nor can two women.
    Look, I am not suggesting it be banned or criminalized, but trying to sell the behaviour as 'normal' and 'healthy' as the cited reports do is like trying to say smoking is a healthy practice (also a vice and in many people's estimation a secular 'sin').
    Such behaviour is best CONTROLLED and limited by the individual practising it, and even then poses a risk.
    A conscience and a concept of sin helps in that control and moderation, no matter the vice.
    I speak of this from experience and sympathy as a frequent (and repentant) sinner - even if my own vices are of a different nature.

    ReplyDelete
  6. **with sympathy**
    :@ teeny tiny tablet!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I should note that we have gays in our family and friends circle

    Any argument you have to preface with this sort of disclaimer is an indication that your argument is unadulterated bullshit. And an indication that your "gay family and friends" are made up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My ONLY first cousin Mark is an openly Gay man in a monogomous relationship with a young college (brilliant) professor. We had them over on boxing day for a feast. Great time. Too much to drink and BORED my wife and Mark to near death with history-talk.
      My sister in-law-in-law's (bro in-laws wife) older sister is a lesbian. She has been so since she was a 14 year old girl, according to her.
      She is also STUNNINGLY beautiful - defying the whole 'bull-dyke' stereotype with every sexy giggle. She is not in a stable or monogamous relationship, and her folks worry about that. I just feel bad for the young and single men she is gay.
      GORGEOUS girl!
      That is but TWO examples of five or more people in our circle.
      Both of these two are Christian. One Anglican and one Unitarian.
      I have also worked with quite a few openly gay men.
      In fact one fellow, Steve, who was a GREAT guy, an excellent technician and looked just like a young Tim Curry (you can imagine the Rocky Horror PS jokes) died of AIDS in March of 2000.
      He was a good friend in the mid 90's. Ate supper in our home, played with my (now adult) son when he was a lad. So, our family was touched by that loss. It is not just a stat to me.
      (The horrible irony of it was he had not contracted the disease sexually, but from shooting up with one of his promiscuous pals.) We attended his Funeral at St James cathedral in Toronto. It was hard to reconcile...

      Call me a liar if you want. It means nothing to me... well, other than what I said must have hit a sore spot.
      Bullseye!
      Now think about what I have written, rather than reacting with an inane insult.
      Turn that anger into analysis. Think about whether you feel gays have made a moral decision (love outweighs sin) or that they are somehow malfunctioning or sick. Then think on the consequences of either condition.
      Do I smoke because I chose to originally and COULD quit, or because Tobacco leaf is addictive and I have an 'addictive personality disorder' is my condition hopeless without a 'cure'. Am I an adult or a patient/subject for smoking.
      Now apply that logic to homosexuals.

      Oh...and get a nicname or sign your comments if you want me to respond in the future.
      Thanks for reading!

      Delete
  8. Crusader:

    How can engaging in sodomy be described as 'healthy' or 'productive'? It is obviously an unhealthy and counter-productive behaviour. It involves exposing and irritating some of the most sensitive and porous membranes in the human anatomy to faecal bacteria. It is unhealthy. It is not what copulation is for: reproduction. Two men cannot naturally produce a child. Nor can two women.

    I can only assume that your sex life is pretty dull, if you restrict yourself to only those sexual acts that can potentially lead to pregnancy, and only when your wife ovulates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a poor assumption. My sex life is just fine. I just had my second child against all odds (ie with GREAT effort) and enjoyed every second of it.
      I LOVE being with the woman I love.
      I am simply noting the health risks of sodomy.

      Delete
  9. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's what this article amounts to.

    Supporters of same-sex "marriage" and other such cultural warriors of the left like to say that debate on these subjects is fine, so long as the person couches them in secular terms. Who exactly died and made them the rule setter is beyond me, but that's what they say. Debate is fine, as long as it is on their secular terms.

    But then when opponents of counterfeit marriage play by the rules imposed on us from the outside, we are accused of secretly harboring religious objections.

    Well, I'll make no secret about it. I do have religious objections. I also have secular objections. Both are valid. How I make up my mind is up to me. Another person might not find the religious arguments valid and may disagree. But the point here is that they can make up my mind and I can make up mine. I don't have t subscribe to their rules of what I'm allowed to believe, what I'm allowed to say, and how I'm allowed to vote.

    Nowhere is it written that religion cannot inform my politics. Nowhere is it written that people who have had their politics informed by their religion cannot have a voice in their government. And it's a great thing too. Martin Luther King forced his religion on other people too.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  10. Troy...

    I don't understand how your response to Crusader has any relationship to what he said. He was talking about the medical dangers of sodomy. Can you dispute this?

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe he just wants the steamy details on the soldier and his wife. Sorry. Gents don't kiss and tell :P
      Let's see if he can attempt a rebuttal.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am reminded of Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" in which he explained the religious roots of his quest. He chastised America for failing to live up to the example set by Jesus Christ. He affirmed our Judeo-Christian heritage.

    That was the liberal of the 1960's. The "liberal" of today curses God and tells anyone who talks about morality a bigot. Here's a good post about MLK for his birthday. I hope this homosexual is kidding, but I'm not sure:

    http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/why-do-we-honor-this-christian-talibani-with-a-holiday/

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  13. PS.
    Sorry for the 'deletes', Dr Egnor.
    Still getting used to the 'reply' tabs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joey

    I don't understand how your response to Crusader has any relationship to what he said. He was talking about the medical dangers of sodomy. Can you dispute this?

    He was also talking about sex being intended for reproduction. I was trying to make the point, in a non-graphic way, that many heterosexual acts, like eating your wife's pussy, are no good for reproduction either and are also a potential health hazard. I therefore hypothesized that Crusader does not engage in such acts, which in my opinion would make his sex life dull.

    No, I do not dispute that anal sex carries certain health risks, but if consenting adults want to take those risks that's their business not mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No, I do not dispute that anal sex carries certain health risks, but if consenting adults want to take those risks that's their business not mine."

      Well yes. And I don't think it should be illegal. I don't think that anyone on this thread does. And guess what? It ISN'T illegal!

      I also think that people who engage in other unhealthy practices should be allowed to do that. But when a study proves for the one millionth time that smoking is a danger, we don't call it "bigot propaganda". In fact, when we see a loved one who is killing himself with cigarettes, we try to persuade them that it might not be a good thing to do.

      So let me state my position clearly. Two men sodomizing each other in the privacy of their home should be legal, and it is. That does not mean that is moral. That does not mean that it is healthy. That does not mean that the culture needs to glorify it. That does not mean that the state needs to codify it into law. That does not mean that anyone who says that it's a health hazard is a "bigot". People who discuss the health hazards of sodomy aren't bigots, they're courageous truth-tellers living in a world of deceit.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Joey:

      So let me state my position clearly. Two men sodomizing each other in the privacy of their home should be legal, and it is. That does not mean that is moral. That does not mean that it is healthy. That does not mean that the culture needs to glorify it. That does not mean that the state needs to codify it into law. That does not mean that anyone who says that it's a health hazard is a "bigot". People who discuss the health hazards of sodomy aren't bigots, they're courageous truth-tellers living in a world of deceit.

      Hahaha. Courageous truth-tellers? Pathetic bigots you mean. You don't discuss the health hazards of anal sex between a man and a woman, do you? You don't warn about the dangers of eating pussy, do you? No, you selectively focus on "unhealthy" and "immoral" practices between men.

      Delete
  15. BTW, I don't like this new threaded style. To find the most recent comments you have to scroll through all the comments and look carefully. That takes more time and comments are more likely to be overlooked. Not that my opinion should carry much weight, but I wonder if anybody else finds this to be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I'm with you. I'm going to start leaving my comments at the bottom of threads, and just respond with @ symbols.

      It seems like a good idea, but I do think comments get missed.

      Delete
  16. Troy,

    I read that post in the Journal of Epedimiology.

    I saw that the authors were purposely vague. They claim that there was a significant increase in the life expectancy of MSM in Vancouver since 1996. They don't say what the difference is. They say that there has been a decrease in AIDS, but say little about other diseases and effects of the homosexual lifestyle. Can we at least agree that the life expectancy of an MSM in Vancouver in 1996 was the same as a male Canadian in 1871? Have any idea why that might be?

    The authors did however reveal something about their thought process. They're worried about how the information will be used. They're afraid that "homophobic" groups might draw the correct conclusion from their study. Their logic goes something like this--yes, we found that homosexual men in Vancouver have the same life expectancy as Canadian men about 1871. But then these groups started telling people that homosexual men in Vancouver had the same life expectancy as Canadian men in 1871. Shame on them. We need to clarify.

    Science should be disinterested. What I mean is that these "scientists", if they want to be called scientists, should simply study the issue and provide the facts. When they start to worry about how the facts will be used, there arises a motivation to make the results come out the "right" way. The "homophobic" groups in this instance were correctly positing that homosexuality, particularly the male variety, has deleterious health effects. Duh! They're right, and the study supports that statement.

    I think you will find that this pattern exists wherever scientists study homosexuality and its effects. There is an impulse to present homosexuality in the best light. Plenty of these researchers are homosexual themselves and thus have "skin in the game", ie, an inherent bias. Even those who don't seem to hold political opinions that cause them to shy away from criticizing homosexuality.

    Let's put it this way. Smoking has been connected to a myriad of diseases and scientists say so publicly. They don't worry that their research will be cited (correctly) by "smoker-phobic" groups. They simply follow the truth wherever it leads them. But when the issue becomes sodomy, all of the sudden scientists don't want to criticize. They begin their studies with an inherent bias, and even if they produce results that resemble the truth, they worry that the results will be used the "wrong" way.

    Scientists should be in the business of providing disinterested facts. What we do with them in the course of debate is not their concern.

    Trish

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very sharp, Trish.
      You have sniffed out the PC bias of the academe.
      Extremely well worded.

      Delete
  17. Troy,

    I think the logic of the "scinetists" goes something like this.

    Sodomy is not unhealthy. Only a bigot would say that. We conducted a study and found that MSM in Vancouver have a significantly shortened lifespan. Bigoted groups used our study to support the ridiculous conclusion that sodomy is unhealthy. Only a bigot would believe our study. So be forewarned: people who correctly cite our study are bigots and are not to be trusted. In the future, we'll be more careful to produce the right results.

    Trish

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Male homosexuality is deadly, more deadly than drunk driving, I.V. drug abuse, and Russian roulette. The leading killer of gay men is gay men."

    I don't think it's quite as deadly as Russian roulette, but I get the picture. Dr. Egnor, you just spoke the truth in the starkest terms possible. For that, I expect you to be excoriated.

    Listen up, "gay" men. The people who love and support you aren't the ones telling you to continue a behavior that's killing you. Those aren't your "friends". I know you might think they are, just the same way a person who uses drugs might think that his old drug buddies are his friends, even when they are trying to lure him back to a habit that can kill him.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Egnor:
    "There are religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and homosexual conduct (it's sinful), and there are secular reasons (it's not marriage as traditionally understood, it's unhealthy, pathological, destructive of society... ). Those are all perfectly defensible viewpoints."

    So how exactly is gay marriage unhealthy, pathological(!) and destructive of society?
    Pathological as in, its a disease? I would say it's a mutation. A psycho-sexual mutation.

    I assume you think that gay people just choose to be that way because, what - they're bored with the opposite sex? Do they all of a sudden say hey, check out the way that guy fills those jeans, i gotta get me some of that..

    One thing is correct - the spread of HIV and AIDS is rampant with unprotected anal sex. Do all gay men take part in that? NO they dont. YOU may believe they do because thats the icky gay stereotype you want to adhere to.

    Look, if gay people want to marry each other, they do for a REASON. The SAME reason heterosexual people do - they finally found someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with. Your comparisons to marrying multiple wives, marrying children, corpses, etc. is absolutely ridiculous. We're talking two ADULT individuals who just want to settle down and be with one another.

    Or perhaps you'd prefer it if they kept living the single life, barhopping, having 'sodomy' and spreading disease like you say they do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Or perhaps you'd prefer it if they kept living the single life, barhopping, having 'sodomy' and spreading disease like you say they do?"

      No, it's pretty clear that Dr. Egnor opposes sodomy in all of its forms. You act as if homosexuals are forced to do that because we don't have gay "marriage" across the fruited plain. As if there's some homosexual sitting around thinking, 'Geez, I'd really like to have a nice monogamous relationship, but the state won't issue me a marriage license to marry Ralph, so I guess I'll have to be promiscuous. It's really too bad because I find the bar scene to be so empty and meaningless and I contracted the clap the last time I was there, but...I guess I have no choice."

      This is just silly.

      Trish

      Delete
    2. "I assume you think that gay people just choose to be that way because, what - they're bored with the opposite sex? Do they all of a sudden say hey, check out the way that guy fills those jeans, i gotta get me some of that.."

      That's a mighty big assumption. I won't speak for the good doctor, but here's my answer to that tiresome question, asked over and over again by angry activists who never bother to listen to the answer.

      I don't really think that people "choose" to be "gay". At least not men. With women, lesbianism is EXTREMELY fashionable. It wasn't all that long ago when I was in high school and all of the girls were sleeping with each other. No, not just for the entertainment of the guys either. They slept with each other with no one else around.

      I do, however, think that sexuality is a complex thing that DEVELOPS. It is not inborn. Given ideal conditions it will develop into a heterosexual desire that can be channeled through marriage. But sometimes the path to development gets warped. Sexual abuse is a big one. If a child is abused, the chance of him growing up to be a homosexual is staggeringly high. That doesn't explain all "gay" men because other factors may play a role as well.

      People who are abused as children often grow up to practice destructive behaviors. Sodomy is one such behavior.

      But in the end, a person's choice of bed partners is a CHOICE. "Gays" can choose to continue this destructive, unhealthy lifestyle. Or they can choose to stop. It's really up to them. But to pretend that homosexuality is something that is involuntary, something akin to race, is patently absurd.

      To put it simply, sexual desires are probably not something that a person chooses. Sexual behaviors are. So when a person says that he's "gay", it's understood not that he likes men but that he sleeps with them.

      Joey

      Delete
  20. Call me a liar if you want.

    Okay, you're a liar. I suspect that every one of your stories about your gay acquaintances are made up to trey and give you bullshit arguments a leg to stand on.

    How do we know? Because if you had actual gay acquaintances, you'd realize that gay sex is not tantamount to anal sex (not even the word "sodomy" as used in a legal sense is restricted to anal sex). And as a result, you wouldn't be so seemingly obsessed with it.

    Further, if you had actual gay acquaintances you'd know that until very recently "sodomy" (including oral sex) was actually illegal in many parts of the United States (for everyone, not just homosexual partners), and many places still have those statutes on the books. Sodomy is still illegal in Canada if more than two people are present. So, as usual, you are simply wrong on the facts.

    And if you had actual gay acquaintances, you'd know these things. But you don't know them, because you are nothing more than a liar who makes shit up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Because if you had actual gay acquaintances, you'd realize that gay sex is not tantamount to anal sex"

      It's not?

      my uncle is a homosexual. He's "gay" because he has anal sex with other men. He has anal sex with other men because he's "gay". It's hard to imagine what kind of "gay" man has sex without committing sodomy. Help me out here.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Think about it for a bit Joey. You might figure it out. Perhaps if you took an oral exam. Or maybe if you actually asked your uncle what other things gay men do with one another.

      Delete
    3. "Okay, you're a liar."
      I am destroyed? How will I ever get another command, now that anonymouse called me a liar.

      "I suspect that every one of your stories about your gay acquaintances are made up to trey and give you bullshit arguments a leg to stand on."

      Why on earth would I bother? I don't even know you? Lying to you would require me to care what you think; I don't. Honestly!

      "How do we know?"
      We? You mean the other voices in your head? Or perhaps you are a monarch (Queen?).

      "Because if you had actual gay acquaintances,"
      I will have to break the news to them: They're not gay.
      Anonymouse said so!

      ".. you'd realize that gay sex is not tantamount to anal sex (not even the word "sodomy" as used in a legal sense is restricted to anal sex)."
      A student of Wiki. Would you prefer buggery? Or the term ANAL sex?

      There is a difference between the sex act and foreplay. You may want to look that up.

      "And as a result, you wouldn't be so seemingly obsessed with it."
      Projection?

      "Further, if you had actual gay acquaintances you'd know that until very recently "sodomy" (including oral sex) was actually illegal in many parts of the United States (for everyone, not just homosexual partners), and many places still have those statutes on the books."
      Not American, and neither are my gay family and friends...at least that I am aware of. Why should I be an expert on morality/vice law in a neighbouring land?


      "Sodomy is still illegal in Canada if more than two people are present. "
      Good. Monogamous, caring homosexuals work in pairs. Orgies are another topic.

      "So, as usual, you are simply wrong on the facts."
      What? As usual?
      You seem to be coming apart here. No cohesion. What facts? What is the usual? This segment is non sequitur. Maybe a cut and paste error?

      "And if you had actual gay acquaintances, you'd know these things."
      Know what 'things'? Carolina's sodomy laws? British buggery statutes? Oral sex? Foreplay?
      I have no immediate interest in those aspects. We are not discussing them.
      We are talking about HEALTH in relation to sodomy (anal sex), no?

      "But you don't know them, because you are nothing more than a liar who makes shit up."
      I am an officer, a father, a husband, and good friend to many people including the homosexuals I know.
      Your assertion -from a complete stranger - that I am 'no more' than ANYTHING is baseless.
      As far as sin goes, I am a LOT more than a liar.
      But I only lie when paid to do so by my government or I have emotional or real investment. I have neither here.
      Lying for you? Sorry. You're JUST NOT WORTH IT!
      Again, making shit up would require far too much investment in you. I don't care.
      In fact: The ONLY reason I have responded to this is for the OTHER readers who may think we know each other somehow, by your mannerism.
      That should be obvious to all by now.
      With that, I bid you adieu!

      Delete
    4. Joey,
      Anon thinks foreplay=sex act. He is confusing the Victorian legal definitions of the charges 'Buggery' and 'Sodomy' (inclusive of act such as oral sex) with the traditional meaning associated with Sodomites. Catamites are another subject.
      Anon does not seem to discern between the two.
      Perhaps simply out of convenience. Perhaps out of ignorance or inexperience.
      Who knows?

      Delete
  21. "We're talking two ADULT individuals who just want to settle down and be with one another."

    Uhhh.why only two? That seems pretty random. Did you pick that number out of a hat?

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Trish,
    Nice to see a new and sharp mind on Egnorance!
    Great comments :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let's call off the crap of this shebang!

    A man in love with a woman says "I love you!"
    A woman in love with a man says "I love you!"

    A man in love with a man says "I suck you!"
    A woman in love with a woman says "I lick you!"

    The Irish have a saying for this:
    Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald!
    or
    Gerald Fitzpatricka and Patrick Fitzgeralda!

    Don't forget: EVOLUTION is based on REPRODUCTION!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joey:
    "Uhhh.why only two? That seems pretty random. Did you pick that number out of a hat?"

    I guess i dont get your point here. How many times do you see three people marrying each other? Or more?

    "It wasn't all that long ago when I was in high school and all of the girls were sleeping with each other. No, not just for the entertainment of the guys either. They slept with each other with no one else around"

    ALL of the girls? And you know this how? I know MANY women will fantasize about being with another woman, or get excited watching lesbian porn, but actually taking part is a BIG step. They still need that penis. That masculinity..

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I guess i dont get your point here. How many times do you see three people marrying each other? Or more?"

    The Mormons used to do it. The Muslims still do. Do you have a problem with that? My point is that you still think that restrictions should be set on who can marry whom. Restrictions that make sense to YOU. That's fine. Let's have a discussion as to what those restrictions might be. Let's hammer it out in a democratic fashion.

    But for the militant homosexual, there is no discussion and no democratic process. They should win even if 99% of the public were against it, they should still win because it's their "right".

    Marriage is not a "right" and two dudes don't constitute a marriage.

    Furthermore, the very basis of the "marriage equality" argument is that the current definition of marriage (in most states) is discriminatory and arbitrary. It discriminates against people who don't like that model. Hmmm...I guess the two-person model is discriminatory against people who want to marry three wives. They're IN LOVE after all.

    Think about it this way. If it's none of the government's business what two consenting adults do, why is it their business what THREE consenting adults do?

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think about it this way. If it's none of the government's business what two consenting adults do, why is it their business what THREE consenting adults do?

      And?

      Delete
  26. @Mulder

    "ALL of the girls?" No, not all of them. But the number was very high. Because it was fashionable and encouraged.

    "They still need that penis." Well, they can buy that at the store. But seriously, a woman does not need a penis (whether flesh or plastic) to sleep with another woman. Ask half the chicks in my school. The point I was trying to make is that lesbianism is the cool thing to do. So when I hear that "no one" would choose homosexuality because no one would choose to be an "oppressed" minority, my bullshit alarms starts howling.

    I can understand why men wouldn't want to be seen that way, but women? No, for women it's cool. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is healthy, or that the men who engage in it don't make conscious decisions. On the contrary. It just means that I don't think that they choose their attractions.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  27. Marriage is not a "right"

    Wrong. Under US law, marriage IS a right.

    Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

    ReplyDelete