Secular Cases Against Gay Marriage and Rebuttals

a reply to: mOjOm


www.cdc.gov...

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

originally posted by: ghostrager

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Does the name Sandusky ring a bell?

He had a wife and kids (including an adopted son whom he allegedly abused). What's that make him - homosexual or heterosexual or both? What group do you want to lump him in and assign blame to?

See, the thing about pedophilia is that it's about more than just sexuality:

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

originally posted by: ghostrager
Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thank you.

You did however leave some of the information out in that quote. Here is the whole thing with missing parts in bold.

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

Take note to that last line especially. What this is saying is that among True Pedophiles (attraction by an adult to a child), those pedophiles, in this case male pedophiles based on phallometric tests, that they are more likely to be attracted to children of the same sex. The last line however points our specifically that this would not indicate that androphilic males (males attracted to males) have greater propensity to offend against children.

In other words Pedophilies who are male tend to like little boys more than little girls. However that does not mean that Homosexual Men tend to like little boys.

The reason for this is because being Homosexual just means you are attracted to the same sex. But it's still being attracted to a human being who is biologically developed to be sexual. Children are not developed enough to be sexual. Pedophiles who are attracted to children of their same sex are attracted to children. Homosexuals are attracted to other developed people of the same sex. Do you see the difference???

Attraction to children, even of the same sex, is a different type of attraction all together. Homosexual means you like the same sex as yourself. Hetero means you like the opposite sex. Pedophiles like children. Even if they tend to like children of their same sex, do not typically like them when they grow up. Do you see the difference??

a reply to: mOjOm

How is this relevant? The ratio of homosexual pedophiles to heterosexual is higher. Of course they are attracted to the same sex more. Besides an attempt at political correctness, why is it be higher just because they are homosexual?

You're arguing against the article, not me. So why do they have a higher ratio to heterosexuals? Shouldn't it level out to heterosexuals?

Again, this is just for debate, nothing personal


Also, maybe you can argue the STD rate among homosexuals?

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: [post=19503991]mOjOm[/post

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The scientist you are quoting was actually one of the first to state that conversion therapy doesn't work (they tried it) and that homosexual people need understanding not treatment. Furthermore, this fragmented abstract doesn't grasp the full conclusions about what is being said.

The same scientist has also conducted other research that demonstrates that homosexual males show no greater reaction to children than heterosexual males. Reference: Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117. If your hypothesis was true, then the above findings simply shouldn't occur.

There is a tendency for pedophiles to be overwhelmingly male and target male children. Several researchers have put this down to risks of pregnancy and greater access to male children, not specifically the pedophile being 'gay.' To use a rather atrocious phrase ... there aren't many female altar boys.

Aside from this there is a real issue with definitions here. For this conversation to continue ghost, you need to do the following:

1. Define pedophile
2. Define homosexual
3. Define homosexual pedophile (the above information makes it harder than you think)
4. Present full study findings that demonstrate the links between the two
5. Explain why gay men aren't any more attracted to children than heterosexual men
6. Conflate homosexuality with pedophile attraction, not just other common factors

For arguments sake, lets say there is evidence of a common origin of this type of sexuality. Fraternal birth order or hormones or which ever hypothesis you would like. There is a common origin for violence. For anger. For passion. In fact in general we all have a common origin because we're born as humans.

To punish gay people for the existence of pedophiles is akin to punishing men for the existence of violence or banning the use of combustion because fire can be dangerous. There is plenty of evidence to show clear divisions between pedophiles (many of whom specifically state they are not gay and lose interest in their victims once they age) and gay people who are in mature relationships.

So therefore even if you can do all of the above, you then have to prove that it is productive to punish people - that the category ends are 'gay people' and there is no 'pedophile.' That's a lot of work.

a reply to: ghostrager

Back to the original argument.

Point #1: Not natural.

I'm not a supporter of saying the Earth is overpopulated and that we need to lose people, but one can argue that this is "nature's way", or "god's way" of thinning the herds of humanity.

Devil's advocate answer, and trying to follow the OP's request.

Its against the op rules but here is a logical reason for same sex marriage.

Yesterday everyone won. Both homo and hetero sexual people can legally marry whomever they want and reap the legal benefits.
How many of us know how we are going to live without our opposite sex spouse? Those without family usually have a same sex best friend that would help us. Sometimes this help means moving in together and caring for each other especially when it comes to finances and health issues.

Now we can marry that friend and allow that person to be by our bedside, to make medical decisions, to reap tax and other benefits, to adopt our children so when we die they are in good hands.

The country has given everyone the right to enter a contract with another adult that ensures legal protections. No sex or faith is legally required in this contract.

Per Ration we sexual abuse more Children than Heterosexuals?....

i can't understand peoples logic against Us.. we are Human

a reply to: Pinke

I'm off to bed and will try to elaborate further to tomorrow.

But, for your list;

1. I'll use the same definition regardless of sexual orientation but still in accordance of local laws where studies were conducted.
2. The attraction to another member of the same sex.
3. The previous information is irrelevant to ratios and thus makes it no harder to prove the op point.
4. I will and encourage you to do the same.
5. Rhetorical
6. Common factors such as ratios are quite relevant. I believe you have the proof of burden in this matter.

originally posted by: ghostrager

How is this relevant? The ratio of homosexual pedophiles to heterosexual is higher. Of course they are attracted to the same sex more. Besides an attempt at political correctness, why is it be higher just because they are homosexual?

You're arguing against the article, not me. So why do they have a higher ratio to heterosexuals? Shouldn't it level out to heterosexuals?

Again, this is just for debate, nothing personal

Also, maybe you can argue the STD rate among homosexuals?

It's relevant because this study is about Pedophiles not Homosexuals. They even make that distinction in that last statement just to clarify. You have to understand that Pedophilia is a set all it's own. Pedophiles can be attracted to their same sex or the opposite sex, but those are subsets of their primary attraction which is to children.

Homosexual Men are attracted to Men, not children. Just like Heterosexual Men are attracted to Women, not children. Attraction to children(pedophilia), even if it's to children of the same sex(homosexual), doesn't mean that the Homosexual aspect is the primary attraction. The attraction is to Children.

You could say that Pedophiles are attracted to children, while their attraction to children has a preference of either Homo or Hetero.

I'm not arguing against the article at all. That is what this article is saying. You just need to read and understand when they use terms like Homosexual and Heterosexual, they don't use them loosely like normal people. They are specific terms meaning specific meanings that are used differently within the general populous. This is why so many people get these twisted up and confused too and it happens all the time.

There is no evidence to support Homosexuals abusing children because they are homosexual. Because homosexual just means they are attracted to the same sex, not children. Pedophiles are attracted to children.

I don't know how else to explain this. Does it make more sense now??

Also, I'm not taking it personal at all. I've had this debate before also. That's why I wanted to first make sure you were serious about it too. Because it takes effort and time to gather the data and present the facts how they really are and the difference between the correct interpretations and the incorrect ones.

a reply to: mOjOm

Thank you for providing relevant facts. i think people grasp at straws to dry and dismiss anyone under the GLBTQ umbrella.

Does any of that take into consideration Lesbians or is this strictly Male?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

It's my pleasure to provide the info. I spend a lot of time figuring out the answers to these very same questions myself as there are people who tell you completely opposing sides. It get's much more involved that this too, believe me. Human sexuality is very complex and even more so when you start mixing it with things like pedophilia which in some ways doesn't even fit the normal idea of sexuality at all.

I'll try and find some of the stuff that helped me understand the various terms when they are used in a scientific setting and post it. It's extremely important to understand all the subtle differences in how they're used and misused.

This one particular study was dealing with Male Pedophiles only.

originally posted by: ghostrager
1. Argument: It's not "natural"

Male + Female = offspring. Evolution from the simplest life forms shows no sign of necessity for homosexual relationships and is either confusion in an individual or an abnormality in cognitive development. Further, while some species may show "perceived" homosexual nature, they also engage in polygamy and incestuous relationships. Can we accept one form of nature without the others?

What does marriage have to do with reproduction? People can choose to not have kids if married, and unmarried couples reproduce all the time.

2. Argument: Social Ramifications

People who engage in homosexual relations have a higher rate of STD's. Had a higher rate of sexual abuse as children, and will sexually abuse more children than a heterosexual per ratio. They will have a higher rate of substance abuse and a higher rate of poverty. Why expose the leaders of the next genertion to this?

Promiscuity isn't innate to homosexual activity, it's an act of defiance against social taboos that say people can't simply be themselves. Acceptance of gay lifestyles leads to a reduction in this behavior. What STD's do happen also get treated sooner as people no longer have to hide what they're doing in the bedroom.

3. Argument: gay marriage is detrimental to children in their care

Children of homosexual relationships are more likely to contemplate suicide, have been forced into sex against their will, more prone to poverty and welfare. Many studies conclude that children fair better in heterosexual upbringing by social standards. Why allow a deviation from the proven?

This argument is that children adjust best when the lifestyle of those around them coincides with what is most popular. Being financially well off is also more popular, and their children tend to turn out in a better position in life. Should we ban the poor from having kids now as well? In the long run (after a generation or two), the diversity of those childs experiences will create social change for those who come after them, allowing it to simply stop being an issue.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Pinke
3. The previous information is irrelevant to ratios and thus makes it no harder to prove the op point.

It is relevant. Simple question, is a male pedophile who targets boys homosexual for certain? If you answer yes to this then everyone is wasting their time.

5. Rhetorical

How is findings by a scientist you've been quoting rhetorical? Male homosexuals showed no increased interest in children than male heterosexuals. It demonstrates a clear difference between categories. If homosexuality was the major cause of what you're saying then surely they would show interest in children.

6. Common factors such as ratios are quite relevant. I believe you have the proof of burden in this matter.

I'm not the one claiming to know the answers. All I need to demonstrate is that you could be wrong. You have to demonstrate with a degree of certainty that would warrant making policy specifically against a group of people.

I work at university, and I'm happy to volunteer my time to read journal articles etc ... as I have done many times at ATS. To be clear though, I'm not interested in macho battles about burdens of proof. We're either here to discuss the issue as volunteer's time allows, or we're not. Besides even if anyone was to 'win' this debate I doubt there would be major policy changes coming from it ... so perhaps we should cool down with the challenging language?

Easy peasy.

1. Argument: It's not "natural"

Wrong. It is not the norm. It is, however, natural under the laws of nature and therefore in accordance with our organic law. Homosexuality was not created in a lab, or a class project, or even in Congress. Homosexuality is an inherent part of humanity. Even if we consider the adverse physical effects of synthetic hormones and other endocrine-disrupters poisoning our water and soil... and therefore our food... and therefore our bodies... it is still a natural part of our human physiology.

2. Argument: Social Ramifications

Social ramifications are an artificial construct of people -- not nature. Most of the social ramifications are compounded and exacerbated -- if not created -- by people forcing their will on others in various ways, including color of law, which is completely contrary to the law of the land. We all have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Two consenting adults of any gender have the inalienable right to pursue their happiness with each other.

3. Argument: gay marriage is detrimental to children in their care

Again, much of the detrimental effects are a result of societal norms discriminating and sometimes abusing gays, including legislation under color of law denying due process and equal application of the law, thus significantly impacting their children in negative ways. Who are the real abusers? Ideally, every child would have a mother and father for the benefits each can provide. But that's not reality even within heterosexual parents, as parents die and divorce and neglect and abuse and on and on and on.

References:

Declaration of Independence
United States Constitution
Organic Law

I just have one teeny tiny little problem with this thread. What do any of these arguments have to do with gays getting a marriage license? Even if your arguments were correct (they're not, but that's beside the point), gays getting marriage licenses has no bearing on any of them. Let's say we go back to banning same-sex marriage across the whole country. Homosexuals will still exist. Homosexuals will still be having sex with each other. Homosexuals will still be partnering up in committed relationships. Homosexuals could still have and raise children, through previous heterosexual marriages, invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. Banning gay marriage will have no effect on any of that.

So, I can only surmise that you want homosexuals removed from the planet, i.e., executed on sight. Is that what you want? Or do you just want to make them feel bad because they can't get a marriage license because you hate them? You just want to be able to thumb your nose at them and say "neener, neener, you can't get married, ha ha ha"?

Sorry, but this is a stupid thread against gay marriage at best, and a horrible cruel thread in favor of eliminating all gay people at worst.

originally posted by: ghostrager
I think most agnostic/atheists that oppose are silent on this topic as it is taboo in their general vicinity of like minded peers and the debate is frivolous in comparison to other topics, that is only my opinion.
~Ghost

A great statement, and I agree 100%. Dissent appears being tamped down, and it is a little on the frivolous side to worry about or protest that situation, given all the other worries of the world.

Given that, I have some comments:

This is a BIG CHANGE to the structure of society that could have any number of bad side-effects down the road that we can't see right now.

For example, if homosexuality is unrestrained in this society, we might see a huge drop in population, which some people would say is a good thing, but which actually is a disaster for society -- just a possibility.

You may think that is an absurd assertion, but I think it is a possible long-term outcome, especially if it turns out that there exists zero genetic basis for same-sex preference, and your sexual identification is purely due to environmental and societal triggers. If you remove prohibitions, you may see an explosion of homosexuality in years to come, upsetting a precarious balance within society.

On the other hand, permitting marriage might be the exact prescription for avoiding the above. Maybe permitting gay marriage is EXACTLY what society needs!

Or -- gay marriage may have zero impact on society, either good or bad.

I don't know -- and it may take 50 to 100 years to make an accurate final assessment of the consequences, about the same amount of time necessary to assess whether legalizing marijuana is a good or bad thing, and about the same time frame as we will know the truth about the consequences of climate change (if any.) Same with many other recent changes to society (such as social networking, among other changes.)

So -- is gay marriage slow poison? Or is it medicine? Or perhaps a bit of both?

We can speculate all day long, but we don't know. Further unbiased research is needed, and we just have to wait and see what ultimately happens.

a reply to: Axial Leader

Hiya Axial,

Several ancient societies considered bisexuality to be the norm or had plenty of homosexual elements within them. The populations of those cultures are, overwhelmingly, still around. Not only are they still around, one of them was China.

I'd be more worried about diet and fitness causing us all to be infertile rather than gay people who some evolutionary psychologists have proposed may actually represent the opposite.

a reply to: Axial Leader

For the population to drop because of homosexuality the amount of closested gay men and women would have to be a hell of a lot higher then it actually is. People will not just turn gay because it's allowed now. There will be the same number of gay people after legalizing gay marriage as there will be afterwards.

It's flattering the amount of power people give us homosexuals. So many people seem to think we can topple civilizations just by getting married and living our lives without pretending who we are.

As for the op, the 3rd or 4th post in linked all the relevant studies debunking it all.

a reply to: Megatronus

We seem to be able to bring about the destruction of Church, religion, The World, families... people don't view us as Human, but give us so much power