Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

What I meant was your assertion should be applied to any scientific studies from gay activists, gay activists funded studies, and religion believers' studies. You have only pointed out the religious group studies. You did not even mention that there are many many gay activists influenced and funded study results which are actually not scientific. Read "In Their Own Words - Gay Activists Speak".

Bluebonnet said:

That is wrong.

In western world, you are not pressed group. The Christians are. You have become the elitest group of people, higher than the blacks, higher than any other minorities. People who hold religions have to be forced to swallow or be suffocated, like the examples Toni has listed. What is freedom of speech?! What is freedom of religion?! People will be tolerated only if they agree with you. Scientific studies will be accepted only if they fit your political agenda! Look at Jeremy Abbott! Who would dare to voice different voices that you don't want to hear next time?!!! Abbott is supposed to be one of your own if the rumors are truned out to be true. But no, you won't accept any different voice.

Click to expand...

Really? Christians are an oppressed group in the Western world?! You do realize that Christianity is the dominant religion in several western countries... not to mention those anti-non-Christian/anti-gay folks are always parroting "Well, America was founded on Christian values", "Well, the Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman", etc.

Until you can get your face bashed in for being gay, or be prevented from marrying the one you love, don't give me that "Christians are so oppressed" bs. I hate it when Christians play the whole victim game "You should tolerate my bigotry, otherwise you're infringing on my right to religious beliefs!" Gimme a break. :sarcasm:

Ask the Native Americans what it's like to have people who hold religions force them to swallow it and be suffocated by it.

Also, just because Abbott might be "one of our own" doesn't mean I support his beliefs, especially when he makes asinine statements.

Do you support the beliefs of every straight person, seeing as how they're "one of your own"?

Look at USA! What I have said are all true!

"Play the whole victim game"? Gee, I'm wondering who are you talking about?:sarcasm:

Oh, my! You've used the word, "hate"! Could a person against homosexuality use this word?! Of course not! No way! Even if they have never used this word and have never thought this way, they are still seen as haters.

Of course, I do not support the beliefs of every straight people. But I do not cry like you people have on his twitter, his facebook, write articles to condemn him, personal attacks to him on skating forums, etc. So this time, Abbott has been more careful. He said, anyway he says it, it will hurt some people. But he was wrong again. He could not say that. He has to stand up. He was attacked on some skating forums again.:disapp:

[NB: This took me a while to write. Please refer back to the post on "In Their Own Words, Gay Activists Speak"--an interesting title given that no gay activists are quoted directly in the entire article]

Sure. Let's put the article to the test.

First off, it is important to realize the article was published in 2001--12 years ago. So it does not take into account any developments in research which have occurred since then (really Bluebonnet, how about finding some research that is less than at least a decade old?).

The article looks at research regarding biological causation of homosexuality (let's note right off the bat that the article doesn't talk about biological causation of lesbianism or bisexuality at all). In other words, is homosexuality biologically innate? The article asserts that there have been no conclusive studies indicating that homosexuality is biologically innate. As the article's authors state, "What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have FAILED. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions."

This is, at least as far as available research and studies on biological roots of homosexuality, correct. There have been no conclusive studies to date that show a simple (if not simplistic) cause and effect relationship between, say, genetics and homosexuality. BUT--and it is a very big but--to reach the conclusion that there is no cause and effect relationship whatsoever should raise red flags. Sexuality is a very complicated process. Studies into the biology of sexuality are a relatively recent phenomenon. Who knows what similar studies in the future will bring? And then to assert that the major researchers in the field are "gay activists" is just laughable. Did the author verify with each of these researchers their sexual orientation, political viewpoints and level of activism? Or are the authors trying to insinuate that we should dismiss all research because the researches are all gay activists with an ideological axe to grind (no, that would be Regnerus and Cameron, as we have already seen). What may actually be the case, given the complexity of sexuality (let alone sexual orientation), is that no one theory is going to cover all cases. Clearly more research is needed before any conclusions should be reached.

Oh but that doesn't stop the authors of the article from reaching some very disturbing conclusions. Having already implied that, since biological studies have been inconclusive, there is NO biological basis for sexual orientation in homosexuals (remember, only homosexuals are mentioned in regards to biology--heaven forbid we complicate the "reasoning" with the fact that lesbianism may involve gender differences which must be accounted for), the authors now look at two further issues: that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation if only they want to badly enough, and that homosexuals (and lesbians and bisexuals--yes, they finally appear here, and isn't that interesting?) are more prone to mental illness.

Let's look at the assertion that LGBs are more prone to mental illness. Actually there have been numerous studies indicating this is the case: LGB people do have higher rates of some kinds of mental illnesses (a distinction the article fails to mention--it simply implies LGB people are crazier than heterosexuals in general) but cavalierly dismisses the fact that discrimination may be a leading factor for this. Oh no--it's all about "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity" (oops, we're back to just homosexuals again). Because the article does not look at rates of mental illness in heterosexuals who engage in anal sex or promiscuity, it is impossible to take such a conclusion at face value. Isn't it possible it's the promiscuity, for example, that leads to mental problems and not necessarily the sexual orientation of the individual? Oh but let's not cloud the argument with any reasonable complications, shall we?

Regarding what is called "conversion therapy," (whereby someone converts their sexual orientation from same-gender to other-gender attraction), oy veh. Even some of the most prominent previous supporters of conversion therapy have now come to the conclusion that no only is such therapy pretty much completely ineffective, but actually causes real and measurable damage. Exodus International was, for 37 years, the leading group promoting the effectiveness of conversion therapy. But now even its president, Alan Chambers admits that not only can you not just can't pray away the gay, but such therapy can evoke feelings of "shame," "hurt," "pain" and "guilt" (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/group-that-promoted-curing-gays-ceases-operations.html?_r=0 and a whole slew of other articles on the subject). The American Psychological Association issued an in-depth report on the subject on 2009. According to the report's Abstract: "The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates." You can read the entire report for yourself here: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

Is it possible for someone to change their primary sexual orientation? Perhaps. Research has indicated that it is highly highly unlikely and more likely to cause far more damage than good. But I tend to be wary of "all or nothing" prescriptions. The problem again centers around using extremely simplistic approaches to an enormously complex subject. Let's use an hypothetical analogy here. Say there is an illness that affects a statistically significant proportion of the population. But, lo and behold, a few people are successfully treated using a specific type of therapy. But now specific groups want to use that same therapy to treat ALL affected members of that population, even though in most cases it not only not "cures" the affliction, but the side effects are more damaging than the original affliction. Is it morally wrong to insist that all patients be treated with that therapy anyway? I think so.

The article concludes with a statement I find so idiotic it is hard for me to believe educated people wrote it: "Homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality." I don't know what world the writers of that article live in, but homosexuality--and lesbianism and bisexuality and transgenderism--is far, far more than simply an issue of ethics and morality. But hey, that would be admitting we live in a complicated real world. And in the world of ideologically-driven polemics we can't have that now, can we?

It is far from accurate to say that Christians face any particular ill treatment in American society. Ancient Rome, yes. They were fed to the lions. The recent attack by terrorists at the mall in Kenya, yes. Everyone who couldn't prove he was muslim was gunned down.

But in the United States black people were hanged and mutilated for being black. Gay people have been assaulted and murdered for being gay. Indians were slaughtered and driven off their land for being Indians. To equate being criticised on a figure skating message board with this is just loony.

At first I think I will not waste my time with the thread anymore as it is useless to argue with someone that have a high prejudice against homosexual and believe that gay is majority of people who commit pedophilia.

But once I read Gay is the most elite group it just leave really poor taste in my mouth! It sad to know that someone is so prejudice till ignoring how many gay teen have been bullied and kill themselves; how many gay children is disown just because they don't love opposite sex; how transgender got weird stare. How all those religious people condemn 'gay' every single day that the place for homosexual is hell. How many gay is beaten up by hate group just because they want to have some space to express themselves - consider all this fact and still be able to say gay got preferential treatment then I don't know what to say.

And of course if you are so happy with being prejudice toward homosexual let be; however I think it is my rights to express my opinion that this kind of statement is very disrespectful and insulting.

I'm so done with this argument!!!!!!!


BTW, if gay is a choice there is nothing wrong with it , what is wrong is people who mind are too twist that judge other by sexual orientation!

I totally agree treeloving.

And being gay isn't a choice; sexuality is natural to each person. If people are silly enough to ask me "How long have you chosen to be gay?" I would tell them "Well, how long have you chosen to be straight?"

People who judge other people on their sexual orientation or discriminate in any other way are afraid, sad, and pathetic. Or they possess no free will and selectively condemn gay people because they were raised that way or because some book proscribes it. They also tend to associate sexual orientation with the sexual act (when a straight man introduces me to his girlfriend, I can assure you my first thought isn't what they're doing in the bedroom, nor is it any of my business anyways).

Everyone also has their moral compass too. Some will draw the line at interracial couples, some at gay couples, some at inter-generational couples, some at couples with different body types... people have all sorts of reasons they discriminate, and it's appalling. These people are super insecure and will probably die alone and angry with the world, and would love to see the same happen to those they discriminate against, instead of letting them be happy and live their own life. Or they'll have children who will grow up in a world that is accepting and be utterly ashamed and embarrassed to admit that they had parents who were so bigoted. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/gay_marriage

Bluebonnet said:

I have told you where to look for it. You didn't go to watch and read but continue to ask the same question.

Click to expand...

In other words, you don't have a definition and can't explain what this "propaganda" is and how exactly it will have harmful effects. If you want to claim that there is "gay propaganda" you need to define what you mean by that, not to tell people to go watch videos. And if you want to dismiss scientific studies and defend others, you should have a minimal understanding of research methodology, how to interpret the reported findings, and what the limitations of certain types of data collection and analysis are, rather than cherry-picking user comments and relying on various biased sources.

Bluebonnet said:

In western world, you are not pressed group. The Christians are. You have become the elitest group of people, higher than the blacks, higher than any other minorities.

Click to expand...

You actually believe this? That straight white Christian people are a persecuted group in the western, majority-Christian world? That people of color and LGBT folks are privileged in society?

Wow. You have truly outdone yourself with this one.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to write it, WeakAnkles! I did read through your long long post.

WeakAnkles said:

really Bluebonnet, how about finding some research that is less than at least a decade old?

Click to expand...

I did, didn't I? I have provided you an example based on your extremely narrow conditioned request, "ONE study done by a university or a group that isn't funded by a conservative group out to "prove" an ideological point that proves children raised by LGBT parents are more prone to grow up gay/lesbian/bi. Just one." And that was done in 2010. However, that result did not fit your agenda. Therefore, a couple of online amaturs have "killed" that professional research.

WeakAnkles said:

The article looks at research regarding biological causation of homosexuality (let's note right off the bat that the article doesn't talk about biological causation of lesbianism or bisexuality at all). In other words, is homosexuality biologically innate?

Click to expand...

Really, first time hearing it. I've never known that homosexual does not include lesbian.

WeakAnkles said:

Clearly more research is needed before any conclusions should be reached.

Click to expand...

At least, we have agreed on this one. So those of you who have repeatedly insisted that biological reasons are the only reasons for it are not based on science.

WeakAnkles said:

Oh but that doesn't stop the authors of the article from reaching some very disturbing conclusions.

Click to expand...

Please allow me to point out the obvious. All those things that you are angry with and/or do not agree with are not from this article's author/authors. Those are the quotes from numerous studies by gay active and/or pro-gay scientists.

Mathman said:

It is far from accurate to say that Christians face any particular ill treatment in American society. Ancient Rome, yes. They were fed to the lions. The recent attack by terrorists at the mall in Kenya, yes. Everyone who couldn't prove he was muslim was gunned down.

But in the United States black people were hanged and mutilated for being black. Gay people have been assaulted and murdered for being gay. Indians were slaughtered and driven off their land for being Indians. To equate being criticised on a figure skating message board with this is just loony.

Click to expand...

If you say that only killing and beating can be called oppressed, no, they have not been. But ever since Obama has become a president (comparing with Bush), this country has been leaving true Christian values further and further. A couple of liberal extremists in the supreme court have redefined the constitution of the United States. From now on, there will be no stopping. What is next?

If it's just a few criticising on a figure skating forum, I will not say this. Well, that will be too big a topic.

Buttercup said:

In other words, you don't have a definition and can't explain what this "propaganda" is and how exactly it will have harmful effects. If you want to claim that there is "gay propaganda" you need to define what you mean by that, not to tell people to go watch videos. And if you want to dismiss scientific studies and defend others, you should have a minimal understanding of research methodology, how to interpret the reported findings, and what the limitations of certain types of data collection and analysis are, rather than cherry-picking user comments and relying on various biased sources.

Click to expand...

I'm not a philosopher or a book author who has to give you a text book accurate definition for you to scrutinize. I've told you where to look for the chilling gay propaganda among young children and teenagers at school. You either don't have the guts to see and read them or you have seen and read them but don't think that you could defend and make legitimate arguement out of that. So you just enjoy arguing with me on an empty point the third time. I'm done with you on this topic!

Buttercup said:

You actually believe this? That straight white Christian people are a persecuted group in the western, majority-Christian world? That people of color and LGBT folks are privileged in society?

Wow. You have truly outdone yourself with this one.

Click to expand...

Ha, that was history!

If you say that only killing and beating can be called oppressed, no, they have not been. But ever since Obama has become a president (comparing with Bush), this country has been leaving true Christian values further and further. A couple of liberal extremists in the supreme court have redefined the constitution of the United States. From now on, there will be no stopping. What is next?

Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's what the first amendment of the constitution of the United States says, not the "liberal extremists" (the current SCOTUS is hardly an extremist liberal one, BTW).

Nobody is infringing on the rights of Christians in the US to practice their faith. There are limits, however, to the ability to express this faith via legislation and public policy. Don't like it? Move somewhere with no separation of religion and state.

I'm not a philosopher or a book author who has to give you a text book accurate definition for you to scrutinize. I've told you where to look for the chilling gay propaganda among young children at school. You either don't have the guts to see and read them or you have seen and read them but don't think that you could make legitimate arguement out of that. So you just enjoy arguing with me on an empty point the third time. I'm done with you on this topic!

Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for you to state what your personal definition of chilling gay propaganda is? You constantly allude to it but refuse to specify what you mean by it. It's not very persuasive to call something chilling and then refuse to say what it is. Can you actually outline what constitutes, in your opinion, unacceptable "gay propaganda"? I am going to speculate that what you find chilling others don't. You have accused me and others of being too afraid or biased to consider opposing views, but you yourself refuse to explain what these views are based on. So who is making empty points, and who's the one not making a legitimate argument?

But by all means, don't respond if it's so difficult to explain these things.

Buttercup said:

Why is it so difficult for you to state what your personal definition of chilling gay propaganda is? You constantly allude to it but refuse to specify what you mean by it. It's not very persuasive to call something chilling and then refuse to say what it is. Can you actually outline what constitutes, in your opinion, unacceptable "gay propaganda"? I am going to speculate that what you find chilling others don't. You have accused me and others of being too afraid or biased to consider opposing views, but you yourself refuse to explain what these views are based on. So who is making empty points, and who's the one not making a legitimate argument?

But by all means, don't respond if it's so difficult to explain these things.

Click to expand...

It is not difficult for me to explain them. But it is difficult for me to watch and read them. If it's THAT difficult for you to go to the other thread to look for it, here you go. Those are gay propaganda that happened in the public schools in the United States:

Bluebonnet said:

Do you really want me to bring what I've found? OK:

WARNING: You don't have to read them. I was trembling while I was reading them.



AFTAH Press Conference at HRC against ‘Gay Pride’: Linda Harvey on Gay Youth Propaganda and Diane Gramley on Gay Health Risks

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html



http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html







http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Sodomy/glsen_fistsex.htm

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5757/pub_detail.asp





There are more...but...

Click to expand...

What more do you want?!

Bluebonnet said:

Ha, that was history!

Click to expand...

Apparently you're able outdo yourself when you outdo yourself. Are you honestly so ignorant to think that racism/homophobia no longer exists in America?

And you have the audacity to suggest Christians are oppressed, while it remains a dominant religion that in many cases preaches hate and intolerance? Christianity started waning in America long before Obama -- if faith is supposedly infallible, you would think it would take more than one President to break that. Christianity has been waning in Europe and several places in the world. Younger people are now more rational and not god-fearing as their Bible-thumping parents and grandparents. People are abandoning their faith as they realize that religion is a poison that leads to war, discrimination, and oppression. Not to mention, it's all one big fairytale that contradicts itself over and over and is selectively interpreted to fit an agenda. The church is no longer relevant or necessary for many... even the Vatican has acknowledged this. Much like the Republican party, the only thing Christianity can potentially do to save itself is revise its doctrine, and include rather than divide, and, frankly, be less insane. Religion should be for the purposes of giving people optimism, good will and positivity in their own lives, and it should not be wielded as a weapon to infringe upon the lives of others.

Bluebonnet said:

It is not difficult for me to explain them. But it is difficult for me to watch and read them. If it's THAT difficult for you to go to the other thread to look for it, here you go. Those are gay propaganda that happened in the public schools in the United States

Click to expand...

So you're simply answering yes to what I wrote here:

Buttercup said:

Bluebonnet, what is "gay propaganda"? Is it anything that tell kids that gay people aren't evil and that they should be treated the same way as everyone else?

Click to expand...

What you consider chilling gay propaganda is telling kids that LGBT people and relationships are normal and not bad/evil/dangerous/predatory. I don't find that at all chilling, and think that painting LGBT people as any of those things is what's truly chilling.

BTW, repealing DADT, which some of your favored organizations described as a highly dangerous decision, was anything but. And the problem with Regnerus's research is that it purported to study adult children who were raised by gay parents, but the methodology used meant that it didn't do anything of the kind: almost none of his participants were raised by same-sex parents (this comment on the earlier article explains it well). You can't claim that being raised in a same-sex household affects people if you didn't actually gather data from people who were raised in such households.

But I appreciate your finally explaining what you meant; now I can disagree with the substance of your argument and not just with your manner of stating it.

Also, Ashley Wagner is still awesome.

Bluebonnet said:

It is not difficult for me to explain them. But it is difficult for me to watch and read them. If it's THAT difficult for you to go to the other thread to look for it, here you go. Those are gay propaganda that happened in the public schools in the United States:

What more do you want?!

Click to expand...

Well, it'd be nice if you categorically stated your own opinion... not the compiled opinion of biased articles (from jesus-is-savior.com, no less). There's a lot of tripe in those articles and we're not going to filter out what is or isn't your opinion. For god's sake (no pun intended), have a mind of your own.

Bluebonnet said:

If you say that only killing and beating can be called oppressed, no, they have not been.

Click to expand...

Please tell me that you're not so ignorant as to imply that people haven't been killed or beaten for their sexual orientation (heck, even perceived sexual orientation), and even if they have then it doesn't amount to oppression. In Russia, the government has essentially condoned it by turning a blind eye at violence incited towards LGBT people. If that's not oppression, when your own government supports your physical harm by doing nothing about it, I don't know what is. When you can have your kids taken away from you just because you're gay, that is oppression.

You really need to be more informed about the state of the world and the status of LGBT people in society, instead of saying things like gay people still don't face oppression (particularly in Russia where they can't even call themselves normal without getting arrested for it). I mean, what's your next assertion? That people no longer use derogatory terms like 'fags' or 'dykes'?

BTW, people losing interest in Christianity or bashing Christians that are intolerant towards others isn't oppression... it's people coming to their senses. Believing in something intangible is difficult enough, but when that's coupled with discrimination, are you honestly surprised that people are abandoning Christianity? Plus, who really wants to get up that early on a Sunday anyways?

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Apparently you're able outdo yourself when you outdo yourself. Are you honestly so ignorant to think that racism/homophobia no longer exists in America?

And you have the audacity to suggest Christians are oppressed, while it remains a dominant religion that in many cases preaches hate and intolerance? Christianity started waning in America long before Obama -- if faith is supposedly infallible, you would think it would take more than one President to break that. Christianity has been waning in Europe and several places in the world. Younger people are now more rational and not god-fearing as their Bible-thumping parents and grandparents. People are abandoning their faith as they realize that religion is a poison that leads to war, discrimination, and oppression. Not to mention, it's all one big fairytale that contradicts itself over and over and is selectively interpreted to fit an agenda. The church is no longer relevant or necessary for many... even the Vatican has acknowledged this. Much like the Republican party, the only thing Christianity can potentially do to save itself is revise its doctrine, and include rather than divide, and, frankly, be less insane. Religion should be for the purposes of giving people optimism, good will and positivity in their own lives, and it should not be wielded as a weapon to infringe upon the lives of others.

Click to expand...

I should have explained myself better in the quote you have used for this post. I didn't mean that Christians had been persecuted because he/she was a Christian in the western world. What I meant was that Christian values have been oppressed. Yes, I know perfectly that Christianity has started gradually waning in US long ago. But Obama has accelerated that process so much more. you have climbed onto the elitist level in US and a few western extreme liberal countries. But of course there will never be any place on this earth where there is 100% no racism. Homophobia is a word that homosexuals created. No one fears homosexuals. Are you heterophobia?

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

For god's sake (no pun intended), have a mind of your own.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I do have a mind of my own, clear and firm!

Bluebonnet said:

But ever since Obama has become a president (comparing with Bush), this country has been leaving true Christian values further and further.

Click to expand...

To further illustrate how wrong you are, here are statistics that prove that religion (Catholicism) has been, in most of the US, declining before Obama became president in 2009.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Please tell me that you're not so ignorant as to imply that people haven't been killed or beaten for their sexual orientation (heck, even perceived sexual orientation), and even if they have then it doesn't amount to oppression. In Russia, the government has essentially condoned it by turning a blind eye at violence incited towards LGBT people. If that's not oppression, when your own government supports your physical harm by doing nothing about it, I don't know what is. When you can have your kids taken away from you just because you're gay, that is oppression.

You really need to be more informed about the state of the world and the status of LGBT people in society, instead of saying things like gay people still don't face oppression (particularly in Russia where they can't even call themselves normal without getting arrested for it). I mean, what's your next assertion? That people no longer use derogatory terms like 'fags' or 'dykes'?

BTW, people losing interest in Christianity or bashing Christians that are intolerant towards others isn't oppression... it's people coming to their senses. Believing in something intangible is difficult enough, but when that's coupled with discrimination, are you honestly surprised that people are abandoning Christianity? Plus, who really wants to get up that early on a Sunday anyways?

Click to expand...

CSG, did I tell you that you are really good at twisting people's posts? Yes, I have said that before, several times in fact.

My quote that you have used was the one I responded to Math. I meant to say Christians. Thanks to you that you have used that quote back to mean that I was aiming at homosexuals. Thanks for the humor you bring here!

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

To further illustrate how wrong you are, here are statistics that prove that religion (Catholicism) has been, in most of the US, declining before Obama became president in 2009.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm

Click to expand...

Did I say anything different?