tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post1450758716676052280..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: If you play with canons, you may get burntPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83007699638485897482011-10-24T07:09:25.485+13:002011-10-24T07:09:25.485+13:00Dear Brother David,
In case you are still reading...Dear Brother David,<br /><br />In case you are still reading this website, I would like you to know that the point in using research done by homosexuals was not to present their conclusions, although it was Diamond who indicated that people change in her interview in the Washington Post. The point was that research data presented by homosexuals cannot be ignored, because it is biased against homosexuals. The high prevalence of homosexual identificaion in youth is not something that some social conservative made up. The common change of identity seen in young women was not discovered by someone who hates gays. When a New Jersey state senator leaves ex-gays off of state hate crime laws because she believes that no one can change their identity, it is significant to know that is not true. <br /><br />In the end, my conclusion was that the situation is not clear, and that alone should be reason to step back from destroying the Anglican Communion by charging ahead. Yet TEC went to the Lambeth Conference to discern the leading of the Holy Spirit with talking points. The high level of dishonesty in TEC regarding their failures with respect to "To Set Our Hope on Christ", their refusal to dialogue, and their talking points almost pushed me out of Anglicanism all together. I actually left for an independent church that encouraged all people to come as they were. I even told Archbishop Rowan, who asked me to stay in TEC as long as I could, that I was leaving. But suddenly my life situation changed and moved me back to Virginia and the people, who had helped me find the Lord after the age of 50. By then they had left TEC, but not Anglicanism.<br /><br />So honesty is important to me. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that data supports different hypotheses from the ones being discussed by the researcher, especially the CDC data, which particularly shows instability of attractions. The thing about a hypothesis is that it is just that, and we are talking about a behavior that people mutate out of no matter how you define homosexuality. Therefore, we are not talking about a one-size fits all fixed and genetic stereotype, which is the point that I was making.<br /><br />And Bowen Theory taught me that cutting off is evidence of a poorly differentiated person. I did not walk away when you called me names. That would have been easier, but discussion is not always easy, yet it is necessary to understand each other. I would have answered earlier but I was away ministering to underpriveleged children.Jackie Keenannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1054697568509958642011-10-23T20:08:32.208+13:002011-10-23T20:08:32.208+13:00Hi David
You are always welcome here if you should...Hi David<br />You are always welcome here if you should ever choose to come back.<br /><br />Of course my integrity is not to be trusted, nor anything else about me: I am, and remain a fallible, sinful human being who often lets people down, upsets people, and fails to do what I ought to do.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15602636092827545132011-10-23T19:36:22.445+13:002011-10-23T19:36:22.445+13:00Peter, Veterinarian Keenan and now Janice, are not...Peter, Veterinarian Keenan and now Janice, are not questioning Psychologist Savin-Williams use or interpretation of the other research, they are claiming that what he has written means something that it does not mean. There is not logical confusion to his writing.<br /><br />If we cannot trust folks to be honest with small things such as what a paper does or does not say, then we can never trust them with anything larger, because these are ultimately our lives that hang in the balance.<br /><br />Earlier this year I stopped participating in the Mad Priest's website, Of Course I Could Be Wrong, because I felt that I could no longer trust his integrity. I have now reached that crossroad with you. You have shown that you are not a man of your word on a number of small things here on your blog. For me they add up to a small thing too many. I shall never again return and participate here. It is no loss, you can continue to entertain those who would be ready allies against TEC, the Presiding Bishop, her cabal who pervert Christianity and the Gay Agenda and its plans to bring down the Anglican Communion.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47037780552913117852011-10-23T18:39:21.678+13:002011-10-23T18:39:21.678+13:00Hi David,
I am making or attempting to make a simp...Hi David,<br />I am making or attempting to make a simple point: when a researcher conjoins data together towards conclusion A, the same data may, read by others, yield other conclusions, or support other conclusions.<br /><br />To cite from your citation of the article above:<br /><br />"In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11% re- ported exclusive same-sex attraction 1 year later; 48% reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35% reported no attraction to either sex, and 6% reported attraction to both sexes [4]."<br /><br />For all the world, this looks like the same set of boys asked the same set of questions yielded different answers over the course of time. Indeed it is difficult to work out how this particular bit of the paper works towards support for Savin-Williams thesis because I do not find that Savin-Williams clearly explains that in this particular study different definitions etc were involved in the different surveys of the same group.<br /><br />Either way, there is another point at stake here, namely, that any scientific paper is potentially falsifiable. The data may be wrong, the interpretation of the data may be wrong, the conclusions drawn may not be logically warranted and so forth. It is, you must know this, the stuff of scientific papers for subsequent argumentation to occur.<br /><br />To try not to be misunderstood: Savin-Williams makes an important point. I am trying to make an important point that those who discuss this paper and in the course of that discussion draw other conclusions from the paper and its data do not necessarily deserve to be called liars and dishonest.<br /><br />I would have thought it useful to subject Savin-Williams to reasonable critique. After all his conclusion does little for the GLBT cause as promoted in the Anglican Communion: here is a respected researcher acknowledging that the science of homosexuality has no agreed definition of homosexuality, nor the objective means to measure it, let alone yield any conclusions as to how many people we are working with, nor whether homosexuality (on some agreed definition) is a fixed orientation as measured on an agreed basis.<br /><br />I do not mind you being disappointed in me. I do mind us being able to search for the truth in a truly scientific manner, i.e. without resort to calling the researchers and analysts 'liars' and 'dishonest.'Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67455996693359367382011-10-23T15:14:05.925+13:002011-10-23T15:14:05.925+13:00I am sorry to hear you say that Peter, because it ...I am sorry to hear you say that Peter, because it now makes me question your own integrity to the process. I see nothing ambiguous at all in the statements in the article in question. One may go to the original source material sited, and then question if Savin-Williams is correctly representing/interpreting the data in the source, but there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Savin-Williams is stating when using the citations as examples in his own article. And that is what is being discussed here, not his accuracy in the use of the source material.<br /><br />I am sad Peter, truly sad and deeply disappointed in you.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18630409060181967472011-10-23T13:31:55.845+13:002011-10-23T13:31:55.845+13:00Hi David,
Thank you for your work on this article....Hi David,<br />Thank you for your work on this article. Your helpful summary etc makes it quite ambiguous as to whether the research indicates instability in responses to surveys or changes in self-perception of sexual attractions. It is quite logical to presume that changes in self-perceptions of sexual attractions over time would contribute to differing sets of responses.<br /><br />On the basis of what you have helpfully given us above, it is quite clear to me that any charges of people reading this material in the way that has been done above should not incur charges of "lying" let alone "dishonesty."Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2883777130850447982011-10-23T09:37:06.767+13:002011-10-23T09:37:06.767+13:00Here is the breakdown of the structure of the para...Here is the breakdown of the structure of the paragraph;<br />Topic statement<br /><i>This dissimilarity in prevalence rates is further reflected in people’s inconsistent responses to the different components within a study and the instability of their responses over time.</i><br />Support statement 1;<br /><i>Several studies assessed more than one dimension; the resulting correlations ranged from extremely low (0.10) to high (0.79) [1].</i><br />Support statement 2;<br /><i>Among U.S. adults, just 20% of those who were homosexual on one dimension were homosexual on the other two dimensions [2]; 70% responded in a manner consistent with homosexuality on only one of the three dimensions. [2]</i><br />Example a;<br /><i>Diamond’s research highlights the instability problem [3]. Over 7 years, nearly two thirds of women changed their sexual identity at least once, often because the label did not adequately capture the diversity of their sexual and romantic feelings.</i><br />Example b;<br /><i>In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11% re- ported exclusive same-sex attraction 1 year later; 48% reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35% reported no attraction to either sex, and 6% reported attraction to both sexes [4].</i><br /><br />The examples cited are support for the topic statement that people are inconsistent in their responses regarding their sexuality, they are not examples that people have reported ontological changes in their sexuality.<br /><br />----<br /><br />I have pulled the citations out of the body of the paragraph as footnotes because their presence in the paragraph in parenthesis tends to clutter the paragraph and be confusing to the reader.<br />1. Eskin, Kaynak-Demir, & Demir, 2005<br />2. Laumann et al., 1994)<br />3. Diamond 2003b<br />4. Udry & Chantala, 2005Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41450128645026549532011-10-23T09:34:59.129+13:002011-10-23T09:34:59.129+13:00Unfortunately Janice, when you cherry pick an arti...Unfortunately Janice, when you cherry pick an article for the "little gems" you violate the integrity of the article. Scientific papers are not just a random set of statements strung together that can stand on their own individually, scientific papers are carefully crafted arguments of interrelated facts and figures constructed to enable others to follow the logic of the argument. You have pulled your "little gem" out of its context in the argument being laid out in Psychologist Savin-Williams paper and stood it up stark naked for everyone to see and are forcing it to say what it was not written to say. In doing so, you are either naive and ignorant of the process involved in the construction of scientific papers or you personally lack honesty and integrity and you lack respect for those you purposely mislead.<br /><br />Whether one is writing in English, Spanish or I dare say any other human language, there is a logical process involved in crafting a scientific paper. We all use it today. One begins with an idea, a thesis, which is formed into a thesis statement of, at most, two or three sentences. The rest of the paper then involves the process of building a logical argument of the evidence that leads to one's thesis. Each paragraph in the paper is a part of that process leading to the logical conclusion laid out in the thesis statement. And each paragraph is formulated in a similar fashion, beginning with a topic statement with the following sentences providing support and examples for the topic sentence.<br /><br />The paragraph in question consists of a topic statement, two supporting statements and finally two examples to support the topic statement. Here is Savin-Williams full paragraph from which you pulled "the gem;"<br /><i>This dissimilarity in prevalence rates is further reflected in people’s inconsistent responses to the different components within a study and the instability of their responses over time. Several studies assessed more than one dimension; the resulting correlations ranged from extremely low (0.10) to high (0.79) [1]. Among U.S. adults, just 20% of those who were homosexual on one dimension were homosexual on the other two dimensions; 70% responded in a manner consistent with homosexuality on only one of the three dimensions [2]. Diamond’s research highlights the instability problem. Over 7 years, nearly two thirds of women changed their sexual identity at least once, often because the label did not adequately capture the diversity of their sexual and romantic feelings. [3]<br />In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11% re- ported exclusive same-sex attraction 1 year later; 48% reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35% reported no attraction to either sex, and 6% reported attraction to both sexes [4].</i>Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15610086350602236392011-10-22T15:07:35.402+13:002011-10-22T15:07:35.402+13:00The whole point of the paper by Dr [PhD in psychol...The whole point of the paper by Dr [PhD in psychology - not medical doctor] Savin-Williams was that different researchers have used different criteria to define homosexuality, <i>"giving rise to the possibility of discrepant findings across investigations".</i><br /><br />Just above that quote from the paper however, is this gem:<br /><i>"Diamond’s (2003b) research highlights the instability problem. Over 7 years, nearly two thirds of women changed their sexual identity at least once, often because the label did not adequately capture the diversity of their sexual and romantic feelings. In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of theWave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11% reported exclusive same-sex attraction 1 year later; 48% reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35% reported no attraction to either sex, and 6% reported attraction to both sexes (Udry & Chantala, 2005)."</i><br /><br />Note that these two different sets of researchers were comparing their own later research with their own earlier research. They were not comparing their research with research done by other people who might have been using different criteria to define homosexuality. Their results, comparing like with like, show that homosexual identification and homosexual attraction are fluid, which is precisely the argument Jackie has been making.<br /><br />Table 2 in Savin-Williams' paper is titled, "Prevalence of Homosexuality Among Females and Males in Four Countries, Separated by Sexual-Orientation Component". Some might think that the numbers in the table actually show prevalence figures, e.g., that 11% of young females in the United States were involved in homosexual behaviour at the time the study was undertaken. In fact, it's impossible to tell from Savin-Williams' paper whether that was the case or not. The only sample question provided was from a different study and that question was asking not about current homosexual behaviour but about any homosexual behaviour that had ever occurred. That is not a question that can reveal the prevalence of homosexual behaviour during the study period.Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77851996069703276022011-10-22T06:16:16.821+13:002011-10-22T06:16:16.821+13:00Your charges of dishonesty seem to be that Jacquel...<i>Your charges of dishonesty seem to be that Jacqueline is drawing conclusions from the studies that the authors don't personally believe.</i><br /><br />No, I am stating that Vet Keenan is claiming that the data supports conclusions that the researchers themselves state cannot be supported by the data because of the criteria that they used in setting up the collection of the data. Which is exactly what Dr Diamond says in the video to which I linked and which was the whole point of the paper by Dr Savin-Williams.<br /><br />In the paper by Savin-Williams, he points out that historically researchers have use three different criteria do define homosexuality. He points out the weaknesses of each definition, showing examples that by using a specific definition the collected data would include folks it should not include and/or exclude folks it should have included. His point was that to date we do not have data that can be trusted for its accuracy of what it purports to measure and that more importantly, we do not have data that can be accurately compared, because it is based upon different criteria in its collection. To use it would always be comparing apples to oranges.<br /><br />Table 2 in his article was set up to illustrate just that point, that the data contained in the table was all different fruit that did not use the same criteria in its collection and so the results that one would see in the table was faulty. Vet Keenan has now purposely lifted that table of data out of the article and says that it accurately illustrates exactly what Savin-Williams set the table up to show it did not in fact illustrate.<br /><br />How Mark, can that be anything other than dishonest?Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22387878612735423922011-10-21T21:58:18.685+13:002011-10-21T21:58:18.685+13:00I cannot respond Peter. I do not see this behavior...<b>I cannot respond Peter. I do not see this behavior as innocuous as you want to paint it. I see it as purposely damaging the lives of my GLBT Christian brothers and sisters and my own life.<br /><br />I was careful not to use the word liar, I choose my words very carefully. However a lie by any other name is still a lie, and I strongly feel that we as GLBT Christians are being lied about and being lied to.</b><br /><br />And there you have in a nutshell why TEC is on its trajectory with +Lawrence, Peter. In a culture war, there can be no 'noble opposition'.<br /><br />People who <i>strenuously</i> oppose the normality of homosexuality (or whatever the cause of the decade is) are always going to be guilty of deceit and fear of the other somewhere down there. And, goshdangit, my incredible integrity just won't allow me to not call them on it regularly.<br /><br />Brother David, many of us don't see your behavior, or that of some others with your views on the thread as innocuous either. We still don't feel the need to be churlish about it when Peter has made it clear what kind of tone of comments he wants. Show some respect for the moderator, and if your integrity can't handle how terribly limiting his requirements are, then silence is still golden.<br /><br />Your charges of dishonesty seem to be that Jacqueline is drawing conclusions from the studies that the authors don't personally believe. Jacqueline's arguments are drawn from her analysis of the data itself - and the author just doesn't 'own' the data the way you seem to be suggesting.<br /><br />If Jacqueline hasn't misunderstood the basic data of changes in rates of attraction, the most you could say from the study, from what I can see from listening to you both, is that there was a much smaller set of women whose levels of attraction remain fixed over the course of the study - much smaller than the set of those who evidenced some degree of same gender attraction. <i>Most</i> women evidenced significant change.Mark Baddeleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43094056186333696142011-10-21T13:20:22.287+13:002011-10-21T13:20:22.287+13:00Dear Brother David,
The abnormally high prevalenc...Dear Brother David,<br /><br />The abnormally high prevalence rate in Australians was noted by David de Pomerai, the scientist who wrote part of the science in the Listening Process book. He, however, missed that confounding factor noted by King and McDonald. He suspected the problem was a biased sample. Also, one need only be a decent scientist to know what is normal in scientific literature. One always does a literature reveiw to see what confounding factors have been a concern in the past. One must design the study to take them into account or at least say that the study fails to do that. Confounding factors can cause the entire effect that is being seen, so they cannot be ignored. Discussion sections always consider what might have made results stronger and what might have made results weaker.<br /><br />The self identification results that I quoted are correct. They also show that girls are identifying at a much higher rate than boys. That is not surprising, given the difference between homosexuality in men and women. It is not dishonest to use correct data in making a point that is different from the source where the data are obtained. Also, everything I have said has been noted somewhere by psychiatrists or psychologists, even those things that I noticed myself before I knew others had done the same. <br /><br />There is nothing dishonest here. However, the claim that people do not change orientation or attractions is dishonest. There are way too many young women, who were gay, but now are not. Perhaps if Diamond had continued her study, the young woman, who had gone from 100% attracted to women to 50% and was in a long-term relationship with a man that she found "very, very, very enjoyable and, um, fulfilling", would now be a heterosexual with little attraction to women. After the flap about the amount women were changing, there have been no more studies. <br /><br />You need to engage the information that is being discussed. I got to talk about the situation in the church, because I was at the seminary, and I can translate science well for lay people. I notice IT just tried to snow them with generalizations rather than engaging the scientific articles.Jackie Keenannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81837516633018234032011-10-21T12:20:24.605+13:002011-10-21T12:20:24.605+13:00David, perhaps our host would be content if you re...David, perhaps our host would be content if you referred to your Veterinarian friend as 'naive'. It is a less pungent word than dishonest, with perhaps a further-reaching clarification of that poster's general attitude. Anyway, I think most of us have heard quite enough naivete for the time-being.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10082690543316999172011-10-21T11:47:53.332+13:002011-10-21T11:47:53.332+13:00I cannot respond Peter. I do not see this behavior...I cannot respond Peter. I do not see this behavior as innocuous as you want to paint it. I see it as purposely damaging the lives of my GLBT Christian brothers and sisters and my own life.<br /><br />I was careful not to use the word liar, I choose my words very carefully. However a lie by any other name is still a lie, and I strongly feel that we as GLBT Christians are being lied about and being lied to.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70667355543719588172011-10-21T10:31:56.722+13:002011-10-21T10:31:56.722+13:00Hi David, cc Jackie
I am only just letting your co...Hi David, cc Jackie<br />I am only just letting your comment through, David, as it stands. I do not take kindly to people here being called liars and dishonest. You could make your point in a different way, sticking to arguments that Jackie has misread or misunderstood the research papers she has engaged with etc.<br /><br />As far as I can tell few people know each other personally here and thus few of us would have reason to impute motives to lie and to be dishonest with each other.<br /><br />Please stick to what we can know via these comments, that is, the actual words we use, and these we may engage with respectfully, presuming that miunderstanding (if that is what we think is taking place) is due to our fallibility as people with finite minds, and not to our sinfulness.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49917439729752750032011-10-21T10:01:05.171+13:002011-10-21T10:01:05.171+13:00Veterinarian* Keenan, at this point I shall stop t...Veterinarian* Keenan, at this point I shall stop the conversation with you because you are dishonest, and out of respect for our host and the tone of his blog I shall not say more than that about your comments here, you are dishonest.<br /><br />I have most of the articles that you cherry pick little tidbits from because I first started collecting them when you first made the scene back around 2006-7 and began the attempt to make a name for yourself. And cherry pick you do, to a great disservice of the folks whose research you twist and misrepresent and a great disservice to the layfolk who are not versed in psychology, psychiatry, the social sciences in general and especially in reading research papers. Nothing that you write in comments here is new, you have been repeating the same rubbish since you appeared on such esteemed websites as Virtue Online in AUG 2007.<br /><br />So I shall let just one of your misrepresentations of the research stand as the prime example of your dishonesty.<br /><br />In the Virtue Online article you state, "Yet environmental effects became clear when the results of this same study were used in an article produced by Savin-Williams in 2006 ("Who's Gay? Does it Matter?" Current Directions in Psychological Science 15.) <b>Savin-Williams produced a chart of prevalence rates of homosexuality in many countries and covering many age groups.</b> The groups from Australia had markedly higher prevalence rates than any age groups in any other country." You later return to the Savin-Williams research with this statement, "The 2006 article by Savin-Willliams confirmed high prevalence rates of homosexuality in young people. He reported that rates of homosexual self-identification differed with respect to age. The rates of homosexual self-identification for females in the USA were 1% for adults, 4% for young adults, and 8% for youth. Further homosexual behavior was 11% for female youth. The rates of homosexual self-identification in males were 2% for adults, 3% for young adults, 3% for youth, and 5% for behavior in youth. This research also verifies the high levels of homosexual behavior in the girls reported on by The Washington Post."<br /><br />Here is the Savin-Williams paper - <br />http://webfieldtrips.com/PSY210doc/WhosGay.pdf<br /><br />Any honest person who reads the Savin-Williams paper should easily see that you are dishonest about what the paper actually says, what Table 2 was an attempt to explain in relation to the paper and should see through your tissue thin twisting of what he is stating about his research.<br /><br />It is time to stop deceiving folks with the cherry picking and the lies.<br /><br />*Why do I call you Veterinarian Keenan? Because in Latin American countries it is the respected title of the profession, Veterinario. Just as we call a professional who practices medicine on humans Medico. It is also so that no one is fooled by a more generic title into thinking the person is trained in a field in which they are not. You are not a trained or licensed human medical doctor and the little bit of training that you have in the behavioral sciences is a two year degree (MTS) from a school of theology, where you studied some family systems theory. We do not need a repeat in the Anglican world of "Dr." Laura Schlessinger.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15274755895438857662011-10-21T01:40:45.303+13:002011-10-21T01:40:45.303+13:00Dear Brother David,
I do not have working speaker...Dear Brother David,<br /><br />I do not have working speakers to get to YouTube, but I also do not know what NARTH said about Diamond's research. They are another political group like Division 44. Politics has no place in science. I only know what her papers say and what she said publicly before her last paper was published. She illustrated the changing identities and attractions that occur in women. <br /><br />The same article in the Washington Post, "Trying Gay for the Day: The Rise of the Heteroflexible Woman.", interviewed one girl who said she started going with girls at fourteen after she broke up with her boyfriend. Her statement was, "At first I thought going out with a girl was nasty. Then I went to a club and did a big flip-flop. I've been off and on with girls and guys since then." Another girl said, "I like women only right now, but who knows where I'll be in 25 years?" The article goes on to say that "gay rights veterans such as David Shapiro struggle to explain such equivocation...As he thought about it, he concluded that 'kids today know the difference between behavior and orientation. They say, "I may be behaving in this certain way, but I'll make up my own mind about who I am in my own time." It's like saying, "Mom, Dad, I'm going to take some courses in science but I'm not sure I want to be a doctor."'"<br /><br />So these people assume that orgasm is not a positive reinforcer that will strengthen attractions to women? And these people think it is great to live into this behavior to figure it out. Society and the Bible have said that is immoral. And since homosexuality is more about close social relationships in women than anything else, men don't have a chance. Men are less relational than women. Interestingly, the article indicates that genuinely heterosexual women who are thirty or more can become homosexual. So change is only one way?<br /><br />Perhaps God is aware of these issues, and that is why the Bible says not to behave this way.Jackie Keenannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4441511964870078772011-10-20T22:13:28.975+13:002011-10-20T22:13:28.975+13:00Jackie, do give up. I don't think you're g...Jackie, do give up. I don't think you're going to get many takers of your book here.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69603438249281270832011-10-20T16:03:05.505+13:002011-10-20T16:03:05.505+13:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64A2HrvYdYQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64A2HrvYdYQBrother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64579486738487716022011-10-20T12:45:42.270+13:002011-10-20T12:45:42.270+13:00Brother David,
You need to look at her research. ...Brother David,<br /><br />You need to look at her research. Some of the women in the study were bisexual and some were lesbians at the start. Both groups changed over time, both their attractions and their identities changed. Not even the lesbians were fixed, which her data and her example show. Her earlier studies at two and five years showed that people changed their identity. After two years, one third of the women had changed their identity since the first interview. At the five year interview, one fourth of the women had completely relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities. Diamond noted that the women who gave up their lesbian/bisexual identities did not differ from those women who retained their lesbian/bisexual identities. So she found no way to predict who would change and who would not. But these people experienced changing attractions and changing identities. <br /><br />She was quite clear about changing identities in the Washington Post, but I have no doubt that gay activists have pressured her to spin things differently. However, she cannot unpublish her articles, and they were very clear. You need to look at those. Although her articles do not look at whether attractions can change with therapy, they do demonstrate that people change. She also did not look at the degree to which reinforcement played a part in stable versus fluid attractions. She simply documented changing identities and attractions.<br /><br />Also, because homosexuality is more about social interaction in women, the rate of homosexual identification is much higher in girls than in boys, while the rate in adult women is lower than in men. The gay agenda is having an effect. Savin-Williams reported that rates of homosexual self-identification for females in the United States were 1 percent for adults, 4 percent for young adults, and 8 percent for female youth. Further homosexual behavior was 11 percent for female youth. The rates of homosexual self-identification in males were 2 percent for adults, 3 percent for young adults, 3 percent for youth, and 5 percent for behavior in youth. <br /><br />You need to look at the research. Frankly, when I started looking at information on homosexuality, I thought the conservatives in my church were ignorant. Looking at the data changed my mind, and after that church blew up over homosexuality, then next one helped me come to faith.<br /><br />Yours in Christ, JackieJackie Keenannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83868632693278785222011-10-20T10:49:34.553+13:002011-10-20T10:49:34.553+13:00Diamond and Savin-Williams make that claim and bac...<i>Diamond and Savin-Williams make that claim and back it up with research.</i><br /><br />In fact Vet. Keenan, you misrepresent her data, as is often the case with religious conservatives, that is not at all what Dr Diamond's research was about and she has unequivocally stated so. Folks had questioned whether there was such an orientation/gender attraction in women as bisexual. She says that her research points out that there is such an orientation and that the women who are bisexual have no more choice in the matter than those who are on the ends of the spectrum. That sounds to me that she believes that the orientation is fixed.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35495917059772906832011-10-20T10:27:12.517+13:002011-10-20T10:27:12.517+13:00Dear Brother David,
You stated that no one would ...Dear Brother David,<br /><br />You stated that no one would argue that that sexual attraction/gender attraction is not fixed. Diamond and Savin-Williams make that claim and back it up with research. Diamond said she did her research, because “Previous research suggests that the sexual identities, attractions, and behaviors of sexual-minority (e.g., non-heterosexual) women change over time, yet there have been few longitudinal studies addressing this question, and no longitudinal studies of sexual-minority youths.” Even Bailey noted little research had been done on women in his 2002 review article. It turns out that homosexuality is more about social relationships in women. Also, longitudinal studies in general show instability of attractions, but I covered that in my book.<br /><br />If you google my full name, my two published articles should come up. They are free. Also, there is more info in the book. I really cannot reproduce it in this space.<br /><br />I did get my MTS from VTS in 2008 despite having been thrown out of school in 2004 for talking about issues in the church, but that really is OK at VTS. Still, it took a while for the dean to figure things out and put me back in school. I graduated with a 3.66 and an honors thesis in Bowen Theory. Of course, I am much better at science than humanities. I graduated with a 3.98 and a BA in math and chemistry from UVA, and got into Harvard, Cal Tech, MIT, and Berkeley to study quantum chemistry before deciding to be vet.<br /><br />Although it is not in any of my writing, the Washington Post reported in Aug. 2009 that the CDC said that homosexual men account for over half of all new HIV cases a year in the US. Also,an article by Scott James, "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret", published in the NY Times in 2010 said that in a study of 556 male couples, half had sex outside of their relationships with the knowledge and approval of their partners. That looks like a dangerous practice and hardly a marriage, which is supposed to be monogamous. <br /><br />Yours in Christ, JackieJackie Keenannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50653168015807046542011-10-20T08:36:50.552+13:002011-10-20T08:36:50.552+13:00Brother David,
I'm not aware of anyone who cl...Brother David,<br /><br />I'm not aware of anyone who claims that mental health outcomes, particularly depression and suicide attempts, are the same for active homosexuals and active heterosexuals. My impression is that the debate is over causality. If you know something to the contrary please feel free to contribute it to the thread.<br /><br />And there my impression is that the evidence is mixed. When I said "a reasonable debate can be had as to the causes" I was trying to flag that. I think that the case of the Netherlands is important counter-evidence to the thesis that <i>the</i> cause is opposition: because it is one of the lead countries for removing that opposition and yet still observes elevated rates. <br /><br />Because of how I evaluate a thesis (I place a lot of weight on counter-evidence) that's fairly decisive for me. There's other things that I'd add, but that one is the clearest and easiest to grasp. <br /><br />But I understand that there's other data out there - not least people's own perceptions that their problems are caused by the intolerance of others; their self-reporting. My hunch is that, given that IT seems to put a lot of weight on the opinion held by most experts in the field, as what it means for something to be 'scientific', such testimony would be more important for IT.<br /><br />That's part of what it means for reasonable people to disagree - there's different evidence and different people will weight different studies differently. <br /><br />What's unacceptable is for someone to just handwave those issues as though the 'science' position is just obviously that there is no inherent connection between active homosexuality and bad outcomes. <br /><br />That's a reasonable view, in my opinion, but it needs to be argued. I think it's wrong, and I think that's another reasonable view that also needs to be argued.Mark Baddeleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44915783471117722142011-10-20T07:41:10.378+13:002011-10-20T07:41:10.378+13:00So what, Veterinarian Keenan, are you saying are t...So what, Veterinarian Keenan, are you saying are the conclusions that Dr Diamond's research supports? BTW did you finish your MTS at Virginia Theological Seminary?<br /><br />Mark, is that the only research that supports your idea that actively homosexual people are more prone to psychopathology? Has the research been replicated? Is there research that contradicts the findings?Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87842778878499135312011-10-20T06:58:04.770+13:002011-10-20T06:58:04.770+13:00IT,
Now, @Mark, I knew someone would bring up alc...IT,<br /><br /><b>Now, @Mark, I knew someone would bring up alcoholism. Isn't the question really one of where we draw the line between a normal human variant, and a pathology? We would not today try to "cure" left-handedness, although at one time we did, with awful effects. If you look at the Deaf culture, many Deaf people do not consider themselves in need of a cure, but rather see themselves as a normal variant. Yet most of us who hear, would think that being Deaf is a defect. Still, while we might concede that, we would all agree that alcoholism is a pathology. However, you cannot call being gay a "pathology" just because it is a variant, any more than a red-head is a pathology just because they have a variant allele in the melanocortinin receptor.</b><br /><br />Sure, no argument with anything you've said here. My point was that <br />you began by stating that 'genes isn't destiny' and then used left-handedness and red hair as the analogy for 'natural and used to be thought pathological'. And the analogies were utterly hopeless. You needed to find something that is a complex behavior and is a variant and over which there is debate over whether it is pathological. <br /><br />Even pedophilia would have been a better example than the ones you chose - I understand that there are moves to remove it as a pathology from the next DMV on the grounds that judgements on it are really moral in nature, not psychological.<br /><br />Obviously not a good choice rhetorically for your basic case, but you needed to pick something that involved complex human behaviors.<br /><br /><b>Can you say being gay is "harmful"? Not really. Most studies that claim that gay people die young are out-dated or inaccurate. To go on and claim it is, is also to deny the witness and experience of many healthy and happy LGBT people. I have a strong suspicion that most of those railing about being gay being a "choice" do not actually know --really KNOW-- any gay people.</b><br /><br />? I have no idea where you've gotten these 'scientific facts' from. Last time I checked, actively homosexual people had far higher rates of depression at suicide attempts than actively heterosexual people - a point that the homosexual lobby pushes hard in its offense on all forms of disagreement with same gender sex. So worse outcomes are <i>associated</i> with active homosexuality. <br /><br />Now, a reasonable debate can be had as to the causes of that correlation. Those campaigning for greater acceptance of active homosexuality will argue that the cause is due to legal and social rejection. Those (like me) who disagree will point to the fact that even in countries with the greatest approval of active homosexuality in law and in society, rates of depression are still markedly higher for people who are actively homosexual. An example is found here: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/58/1/85<br /><br />To put it bluntly, you seem to be asserting things in a dogmatic way that does not reflect the actual science. There are bad outcomes associated with active homosexuality. There is no scientific evidence to say that this is <i>simply</i> due to disapproval, and there is some counter-evidence to suggest that it is not.<br /><br />By all means hold that that is all that is going on if that's what you want, but possibly you could be a little bit more scientific about the way you push the idea. As you said to Peter, misrepresenting the science isn't helpful.Mark Baddeleynoreply@blogger.com