Discreet wrote:1. Homosexuals are five times more likely to be child molesters. About half (50% more or less) of all child molesters are homosexuals. Homosexuals are less than 10 percent of the population.
This is a key point. Homosexuals site study(http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm) after stud(http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm)y saying there's no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Others say(http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html) different. Homosexuals can argue that most pedophiles are heterosexual. That doesn't matter. They can also argue that no causal link has been proven. That doesn't matter either. They'll point out that most homosexuals are not pedophilia. Ditto. The key is proportionality. Make a big sign that says: "If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. " .
Your entire logic here is wrong.
If 50% of child offenders are homosexual, then that does not mean that 50% of homosexuals are child offenders, although this is what you are stating.
If 50% of child offenders are homosexual, it must follow that 50% of heterosexual. If we apply your logic to that statement (50% of all child molesters are heterosexual) then that means that 50% of all heterosexuals are child molesters, meaning that 45% of the population in general are child molesters.
It is like the saying, all grass is green therefore everything that is green must be grass. It is wrong.
Quote:
2. Homosexuals want some of benefits and compensation that are now given to heterosexuals, to be instead given to homosexuals. This hurts society.
From Cornell University school of law(http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html): In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.
You have done something which is to misquote. Technically, you have reproduced the words from that website perfectly, with two exceptions.
You did not reproduce the entire paragraph and you didn't make a distinction between the text from that site and the below text, which is not from that site. If you were doing this in an academic thesis (doesn't matter what academic thesis, scientific, religious...) you would be held accountable for plagiarism and not just plagiarism but distorting information. Please bear that in mind in future, and if I do it, please point it out so I can correct my mistakes.
Quote:Humanity is innovative. Over the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity's existance some cultures have been good at sustaining themselves and some were good at being diverse. By definition, all people alive today are descended from social groups that were good at reproducing, and all groups that were not good at reproducing are gone.
Your last statement is true. That is the whole point of natural selection. Your second sentence at first does not seem to bear any relevance to the third.
What are you trying to say and what relevance does that entire paragraph have to this debate?
Homosexuality has never been deterimental to the society in reproductive terms. The Greeks are still here. The Romans are still here. The Japanese are still here (and they're more technologically advanced too).
Quote:3. Almost all people already know intuitively that homosexuality is 'bad'.
No, almost all people intuitively know that homosexuality is something that not everyone accepts and that is best not made public in the presence of someone who might be homophobic.
Quote:Concepts of 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong' are not logical or observable. They are intuitive. Ask anyone how they know if anyone but themselves exist-- or if they're just imagining other people's existence (solipsism). Only intuition can refute solipsism-- logic and observation fail. The same with morality. Why is diversity good and cruelty bad? Why would it be wrong to say, kill all the elephants? The basis for communication is that there is more than 'your truth' and 'my truth', there is 'The Truth' that we can find together.
You are wrong on diversity at least. Diversity, genetically at least, is good because it means that if a virus comes along that exploits a certain genetic trait, then 100% of the population will not die.
Quote:In his heart of hearts virtually everyone prefers that heterosexuality to homosexuality. Ask anybody in the room if they want it announced that they are a homosexual.
This has more to do with being afraid of what any homophobic people might think or do. Otherwise it would just be Christian doctrine being enforced on to people to make them think its bad.
Quote:We're not taking a poll here, we're demonstrating that homosexuality is like a bad smell-- there are so many people who intuitively don't like that we end up having to laws to limit it. I don't like bad smells, I don't have to give a reason. You make a bad smell where I can know about it I can put you in jail. Homosexuality stinks.[/qoute]
That sounds of bigotry, and I will now comment that Nero once called Christians "sexual perverts", because they dared to have males and females share Communion at the same table! Oh my!
You know what? I think bigotry stinks more than homosexuality and your comment, "homosexuality stinks", just screams bigot to me.
Quote:If you don't want to bother reading my articles or doing/posting any reserach of your own don't bother arguing your opinion
I've read your article from the FRI. At first, it seemed rather respectable. Not! It didn't seem quite right and the more I read it, the less respectable and trustworthy it became.
It wasn't long before I noticed the name at the top of the page, Dr. Cameron.
I then checked for any articles by Cameron on homosexuality, using Entrez PubMed and guess what I found. I found out his first initial was P and that of the 24 articles from the FRI, published in respectable journals, 23 were attributed to him (the remaining one was attributed to Cameron K, whose name appears on some of the other 23 articles).
Further delving revealed him to be none other than Paul Cameron, the same guy who gave that faulty statistic of decreased life span in non-AIDS infected homosexuals and the same guy who was thrown off four various associations related to sociology or psychology.
Type in "Paul Cameron" in Google and the first two pages you'll come across are:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html.
He is not trustworthy, but if you don't believe me, let me give you my opinion on his article.
First things, first, have you noticed his references section? It's a small picture (picture?) about 359 by 335 pixels, small enough to shrink the text such that you need to magnify it in order to read it properly. I find that suspicious.
After saving it to disk and expanding it, I read some of the references he cited. Most either require the laymen to pay for access, thus denying them access to the original article, or are second-hand sources.
Take reference 10, referring to the statistic "40% to 45%". Note how the quotation marks are around "40% to 45%" have the words, "of child molesters have had" and then "significant homsexual experiences". Why is his quote fragmented like that? It looks as if its been taken out of context, but I can't check, because its a second-hand quote from a newspaper that requires payment to access its old articles.
Also, try searching for article 11 on Entrez PubMed. You won't be able to. I tried searching for the journal, Sexual Behaviour, I couldn't find it. I tried searching for McGaghy and I couldn't find him.
Try using Google Scholar to do the same thing. The same results.
I'd do it for the other references in his pamphlet, but frankly, that's far too much effort for me for one day. I've spent three hours doing this and have far more important things to attend to.
I find the entire article suspicious and untrustworth. Four different associations of psychologists and sociologits have complained of Paul Cameron distorting their data for his own anti-gay political motives.
There is no secret Gay Agenda (Paul Cameron was the first person to coin this phrase, I think). There is only an Anti-Gay Agenda.
)..and on average 1/2 the children molested will be male..so going by easy math, about 50% of child molesters are gay. But this doesn't imply 50% of gays are child molesters..so I guess the point that discreet is making is that bias exists in stats posted on gay-friendly sites..