Religion and LGBT people

[John V]

Well, let's look at that too: you present one study that doesn't show what you think it does. When this is pointed out to you, you ignore our objections and keep trundling on with your own point, without rebutting any of ours.

If you're referring to the bi invisibility report, I responded by showing that the increase in self-identified gays of 1.5% was greater than the decrease of self-identifeid stragihts of .8%, refuting your position that the change was merely a matter of peer pressure on adolescents.

If you're referring to the longitudinal study of women, I don't recall any serious objections that needed to be refuted.

You present a second study that has a massive bias and plenty of methodological flaws that has been condemned by a major psychological association as unscientific, and instead of responding to any of those accusations you claim that it's fact because it's peer reviewed, demonstrating a clear ignorance of the fact that peer review is an ongoing process, and that being published does not confer some special credibility on its own.

I did not claim it's fact. I do claim that a peer-reviewed study should be given more weight than blogs and press releases.

You allude to a third study about twins, that shows that there's at least a little genetic predisposition involved in sexuality, with your sole objection being that the number isn't enough.

"Sole objection"? I don't object to them at all. I'm the one that brought them up. I noted myself that those studies indicate genetic predisposition. I don't "object" to the numbers not being enough. It's a clear observation which you refuse to concede due to your own bias.

I also noted that other cultures have had very different notions of sexuality. THis went unchallenged.

All the while, you ignore the simple logic that we've presented, bouncing from subject to subject instead of ever answering the singular question we've provided you.

Which question? If it's "When did I choose to be straight," I answered that twice IIRC. You guys just pretend I haven't answered it.

I was unclear in my language, I apologize: the participants had all already been with the Exodus program for one to three years before the study began, so there was quite a lot of variance in their experiences.

Yes, the study is clear and open about this. What's the point? They had to work with what was available.

Yeah again, that was on me. I misread things and was going from memory at the point I wrote that.

Yes, that wsure as on you.

However, I also missed that the sample group slipped down to 72 people as participants dropped out; even if my other methodological concerns weren't valid- and they are- then the sample group is too small to make any real conclusions from. Not to mention the bias. You seem to keep forgetting the immense bias.

I'm not forgetting it. The study is clear and open about the numbers and the bias. Guess what - there aren't any unbiased groups attempting this. Again, they can only do research on what's available to research.

Note I have not once said that this study is the last word on the subject. However, I likewise disagree that the blog posts and press releases you provided in opposition are the last word. And, you seem to dismiss the possibility of bias iin your sources.

Interestingly, your first link in opposition includes this quote:

"I don’t think we have anything really new here," said Coleman. "We have known for sometime that some people are able to shift their behavior and their perception of their sexual identity through these attempts at conversion."

Your second comes right out and admits its bias:

As an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and as someone who tried for over a decade to change my sexual orientation, I approached with interest and skepticism the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

The fact that the APA commented on the methodology of the study proves that it is biased, as it does not review methodology of every published study as a matter of course.

However, it's at this point that I need to ask: what's your endgame here? What's the position you're actually arguing for? Because at times it almost seems like you have a progressive stance. And we actually agree on a bunch of things too.

I'm arguing that the facts do not support the hypothesis that people are born with an immutable sexual identity.

Now, if you're trying to intimate that certain sexual behaviors are at all sinful, that's where we'll have a problem. But if not...

Oh please, you've had a problem for a long time now without my mentioning sin or morality in the slightest.

[Esquilax]

If you're referring to the bi invisibility report, I responded by showing that the increase in self-identified gays of 1.5% was greater than the decrease of self-identifeid stragihts of .8%, refuting your position that the change was merely a matter of peer pressure on adolescents.

Please go back and read my initial response to that. It says it all.

I did not claim it's fact. I do claim that a peer-reviewed study should be given more weight than blogs and press releases.

And in doing so, you reveal you're not quite getting what peer review is. The initial review before publication is just the pregame show, at most; the real deal comes afterward, when the rest of the scientific community can dissect the results and uncover issues that might not have come to light in the initial testing. The community is its own fraud detector, here, and it will snap up any mistakes or errors very quickly, as it did in this case. The APA kind of does have a ton of credibility.

"Sole objection"? I don't object to them at all. I'm the one that brought them up. I noted myself that those studies indicate genetic predisposition. I don't "object" to the numbers not being enough. It's a clear observation which you refuse to concede due to your own bias.

How would one "concede" a point that he is making? The genetic predisposition thing has been my schtick from the beginning.

I also noted that other cultures have had very different notions of sexuality. THis went unchallenged.

Because it doesn't matter? How would cultural issues alter genetics?

Which question? If it's "When did I choose to be straight," I answered that twice IIRC. You guys just pretend I haven't answered it.

You cited studies in answer, sure. And we refuted them. That happened.

Yes, the study is clear and open about this. What's the point? They had to work with what was available.

That's not how research works. These guys weren't attached to Exodus at the hip; it would only have helped their credibility if they had reached out to some unbiased sample groups, or at the very least used potential candidates for the Exodus program, rather than using people already in it.

I'm not forgetting it. The study is clear and open about the numbers and the bias. Guess what - there aren't any unbiased groups attempting this. Again, they can only do research on what's available to research.

Again, avoiding bias is a huge, huge part of mainstream psychological research. And these guys intentionally limited their own pool of samples by staying at Exodus; that was absolutely not all there was to research.

The fact that the APA commented on the methodology of the study proves that it is biased, as it does not review methodology of every published study as a matter of course.

Or, to put it another way, why on earth would you hear about all the studies they reviewed and didn't find anything wrong with?

Oh please, you've had a problem for a long time now without my mentioning sin or morality in the slightest.

Which is why I ask at all. It occurs to me that I might be arguing where I don't need to. Consider it an ingrained response; after years of listening to religious types angling toward this "it's a choice!" canard in order to make me out to be sinful and evil, I'm automatically wary of anyone approaching the same argument.

Now, if you're actually trying to tell me that I'm sinful and my gay friends are too, then I'll fight you forever. But if you're just arguing for a more nuanced view, then I still might not agree with you, but it's definitely worth discussing, just assuming that you do it well, and I don't think you have been so far, really.

Of course, that's also assuming you aren't trying to foist a moral position here too.

[John V]

If you're referring to the bi invisibility report, I responded by showing that the increase in self-identified gays of 1.5% was greater than the decrease of self-identifeid stragihts of .8%, refuting your position that the change was merely a matter of peer pressure on adolescents.

Please go back and read my initial response to that. It says it all.

Please give a link.

And in doing so, you reveal you're not quite getting what peer review is. The initial review before publication is just the pregame show, at most; the real deal comes afterward, when the rest of the scientific community can dissect the results and uncover issues that might not have come to light in the initial testing. The community is its own fraud detector, here, and it will snap up any mistakes or errors very quickly, as it did in this case. The APA kind of does have a ton of credibility.

You didn't link to the APA. Blogs don't have a ton of credibility. I'll do your homework for you. Here's the APA report:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/the...sponse.pdf
The Jones-Yarhouse study is discussed among others (BTW having read the actual study I retract the charge that APA was singling this one out) in chapter 5. The APA report does not refute or debunk the findings of this or other studies. It says that they don't rise to the level of proof. I don't use this study as a smoking gun, but rather just one piece of several lines of evidence, so this is not a problem.

How would one "concede" a point that he is making? The genetic predisposition thing has been my schtick from the beginning.

Seems to me the schtick of you and others has been genetic determination, not genetic predisposition.

Because it doesn't matter? How would cultural issues alter genetics?

That's the point exactly. unless you're arguing that these other cultures had a widespread bi gene that other cultures lack, then culture has an effect on sexuality, and sexuality is shown not to be determined at birth.

Which question? If it's "When did I choose to be straight," I answered that twice IIRC. You guys just pretend I haven't answered it.

You cited studies in answer, sure. And we refuted them. That happened.[/quote]
That's a non sequitur.

That's not how research works.

According to the APA report, the vast majority of research in this area over the past 50+ years faced similar limitations, yet they still considered it the reviewable research.

Again, avoiding bias is a huge, huge part of mainstream psychological research. And these guys intentionally limited their own pool of samples by staying at Exodus; that was absolutely not all there was to research.

According to the APA report, after the APA stopped calling homosexuality a mental disorder in the 70s, almost all conversion therapy stopped, and now it's most all religious based.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't determined at birth, wouldn't make it a choice. Wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't a choice, wouldn't make it evil.

Whats left? What room for nuance is there?

[John V]

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/124/

The sexual development of children of gay and lesbian parents is interesting for both scientific and social reasons. The present study is the largest to date to focus on the sexual orientation of adult sons of gay men. From advertisements in gay publications, 55 gay or bisexual men were recruited who reported on 82 sons at least 17 yrs of age. More than 90% of sons whose sexual orientations could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, gay and heterosexual sons did not differ on potentially relevant variables such as the length of time they had lived with their fathers. Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientation is not large. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

[catfish]

Fuck the APA, really, fuck them lying bastards sideways.
If they could find a drug to combat homosexuality, they'd reinstate their 70's dictionary and be drugging them like crazy...
.

[iameatingjam]

Do you get so weird enjoyment from annoying me?
1. Are religions for or against LGBT people in their scriptures? And Why?

The vast majority of religions are neither for nor against LGBT people as their scriptures are older than the current LGBT paradigm. The notion that people are born with a certain sexual identity has only recently become widespread. You should do a little reading on historical concepts of sexuality.

What does it matter what the current trend is? Why is god's understanding of the world always the same as that of man 2000 years ago? Wouldn't this almighty god who created the universe be able to look into the future that he created a few thousand years and go "Hmmm, looks like homosexuality will be accepted one day, I might as well accept it now"? No, he's going to make sure a whole lot of people are suffer and burn in hell for something that will be okay as soon as MAN decides so?

what bullshit. "Depend on the bible for your morals, but as soon as a verse is outdated then disregard it"

EDIT: oops didn't realize this was 28 pages long

[John V]

The vast majority of religions are neither for nor against LGBT people as their scriptures are older than the current LGBT paradigm. The notion that people are born with a certain sexual identity has only recently become widespread. You should do a little reading on historical concepts of sexuality.

What does it matter what the current trend is? Why is god's understanding of the world always the same as that of man 2000 years ago? Wouldn't this almighty god who created the universe be able to look into the future that he created a few thousand years and go "Hmmm, looks like homosexuality will be accepted one day, I might as well accept it now"? No, he's going to make sure a whole lot of people are suffer and burn in hell for something that will be okay as soon as MAN decides so?

what bullshit. "Depend on the bible for your morals, but as soon as a verse is outdated then disregard it"

EDIT: oops didn't realize this was 28 pages long

Dude, spell your religious views correctly if you want to be taken a little seriously.

[Question Mark]

Views on sexuality have altered, they certainly have, but all previous known views have been either social or religious in nature. The ancient Greeks, for instance, had a paradigm of political sexuality where an elder member of society would support a younger person in the same or a connected position. The relationship here was one of social dominance.

However, the paradigm of today, that of equality and natural states of being, is based on the modern notions of social equality and participation in government. Not even Athens, the first democracy, could look at the democracy of today and not choke on their lamb kebabs. It stands to reason that the view of minorities alters with the shifting of societal norms and views.

[iameatingjam]

Dude, spell your religious views correctly if you want to be taken a little seriously.

I'm sorry that my grammar isn't always top notch. I didn't realize it was bad enough for you to disregard my entire point in the same fashion that you disregard parts of your holy book. You just see/hear what you want to see/here eh?