Hypocrisy, thy name be Wal*Mart (Selling ex-gay kid's book)

[presidentjlh]

Who cares, it's a private company, if you don't like what they do, don't buy from them, that's all you can honestly do.

 

[Hatchet90]

Yes, because a specific group of people shouldn't be able to express their beliefs on an issue. I'm sorry did I just describe gays or a religious group? Trick question, I described both. I hate how this country is forcing a lifestyle that is fairly recent in retrospect. We will shun the people who believe that there is a greater being controlling us and that sodomy is wrong. But the minute we question homosexuality, in this day and age, it's the homosexuals that have a right to believe what they want to believe, not Christians.

 

[Laze]

This isn't an issue of "not agreeing," this is an issue that it's blatantly labelling homosexuality as "evil" and "wrong". It's going to be insanely offensive, and it's insensitive, too. Even if it is just his opinion. Freedom of speech is one thing, but this is as close as you can get to propoganda. Spreading your opinion as "devine truth" is what's wrong about it, not that he has an opinion on it.

I'm well aware some of the people here are pretty hypocritical about it, myself included, but for the most part, the reason behind this is fairly logical - it puts down a group of people who should not be put down this way. Let's say a black man became white and said "I'm glad I'm not an evil black man anymore!", it'd be regarded as racism; so saying "I'm glad I'm not an evil gay man anymore," is prejeduice all the same.

[snip]

This isn't some sort of "holier than thou" spiel on his part either, I believe. (Inferring from the summary) He's not saying "I'm no longer gay, so I'm no longer evil." He's saying "I've given up this sinful act in my life. I'm still a sinner, just no longer in that way." If a Christian is being a "goody two shoes" - acting superior on the basis of not sinning - he hasn't realized just how much sin is in his life. Feel free to direct him to Romans 3:23.


What I find most troubling here is that a book which "suggests that homosexuality can be overcome" is considered a bad thing. This suggests that the authors of said post have decided that it is not, and furthermore consider any argument with that viewpoint to be inherently bad. Of course, considering it's copied from the "Advocate," (which a quick google search reveals as a gay news portal) that's hardly surprising...

I'd like to point out a few things:

1. The book is not written by the boy, it's written by his mother.
2. It is holier-than-thou, I'm not sure why you're trying to draw a distinction between a "sin" and an "evil act". To all Christian sects that I know of, the two are practically synonymous in meaning, though "evil" may be a strong word depending on which act you are talking about (appropriate for murder, bit strong for fantasizing about your friend's wife). A sin is a wrong behavior. And since the authors are Christians, the Christian interpretation of a "sin" is what matters.
3. The book is talking about "proper gender roles" and "God-given sexual appetite". It's about homosexuality being a sin and wrong. It's not a self-help book for confused bicurious people (though those do exist); it's clearly stating that all homosexuality is wrong.
4. The family is involved in a group that actively decries homosexuality.

While I'm not trying to get into an argument over the content of the Bible (since that is generally an unresolvable argument), the idea of homosexuality being a sin is in large part a modern concept. There's a very strangely worded and ambiguous section in Leviticus that some interpret as forbidding gay sex, and there's a whole debate about Sodom and Gomorrah and whether the mob attacking the visiting angels were destroyed because the mob was gay, or because the mob was trying to hurt/kill the angels, and what the ancient word corresponding to "molest" actually meant. (Also, everyone assumes that the angels had a gender and were male. What?!) There's no section in the Bible or any other standard Scripture that clearly outlaws homosexuality, I claim.

Homosexuality as a sin is something interpreted, not something hard-coded like murder or adultery. Calling it a sin is in itself accusing all homosexuals of evil, not just pointing out to them that it's illegal in Scripture (because that's not even generally true, it's something that each sect decides on through interpretation).

So I guess my point is this; I agree with you and others totally that most of the people on here just want to complain about something and (inevitably and pathetically) relate it to a near-imaginary censorship of gaming to get some kind of moral high. I also agree that the family should certainly be free to express their views and I have no problem with Wal-Mart selling the book, freedom of the press/expression and all.

But from the standpoint of the book itself, the things being stated are prejudiced and backwards. Just because there are people who get confused about their sexuality (and I do realize that some gays are just confused or experimenting) doesn't mean that all homosexuals are confused and committing evil.

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

No data was cited in those articles, or at least any relevant and mostly unbiased sources were.

But I shall concede, the debate involving homosexuality can not factually come to any absolute conclusion yet.

I apologise for the incomplete list, and not running background checks on my sources - I thought something easy to read on a news site might be a better option than technical journals which one would have to wade through. Such as:

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/attempted-suicide-gay-lesbian-all-studies.htm

Note the research in Norway, which has some of the most liberal laws and the most acceptance of the Gay community. The stat is still the same - an increased rate of attempted suicide - so drawing the conclusion that the increased rate of suicide is due to discrimination is not backed up by the studies. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers there which start to look like data and evidence.

I'm glad that your gay friends have not got these problems, and to the best of my knowledge, neither do mine. But saying that your single anecdote disproves the data is not really ironic it is, as you've labelled your opponents, "pseudo-science".

So now the ball is in your court - I'd like you to show me the data that states that a homosexual lifestyle is healthy and beneficial. Or even data that states that people are hardwired that way, which, to be frank, is a slap in the face to anyone who has worked through that change in their life, and would make a book that the OP was about, be completely redundant. Essentially, those people exist. They're rare, true, but they're there.

 

[Shizukomaru]

Its not videogames that make me have violent thoughts. Its people like these...

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

Oh, and there's the Massachusetts reearch, which I note ShadowsOfHope didn't refer to, perhaps as I didn't feel the need to include a link?

http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/hprograms/yrbs/

This is a government website, with their data. It shows the issues mentioned in my original post, and that they haven't changed from previous findings in 2001, despite the introduction of gay marriage and, hence, official recognition. Stating that the increased mental health issues are due to intolerance of the society is not supported by the evidence that we have.

 

[Teppe]

Note the research in Norway, which has some of the most liberal laws and the most acceptance of the gay community. The stat is still the same - an increased rate of attempted suicide - so drawing the conclusion that the increased rate of suicide is due to discrimination is not backed up by the studies. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers there which start to look like data and evidence.

From your article about Norway: (Translated from Norwegian)

Homosexual activities/actions are stigmatized and taboo in our society, and this is an important premise to explain discrimination or reduced life quality among gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Stigmatizing as a social process have social and emotional consequences for individuals being stigmatized.

So much for acceptance among youth..

The study is about homosexual youth, aged 16 to 19. Many of these will still be in high school, with everything that comes with it. The law might be liberal when it comes to gay marriage, but I can assure you that coming out of the closet as a high school student will not make you accepted. The opposite holds true, you will be stigmatized for it and as such the likelihood of committing suicide will increase.

This is not because they're homosexual, but because homosexuality still carries a strong stigma in Norwegian society. This is especially true in the age range 16-19.

 

[krimson_dropz]

why does no one ever question the agenda of authors of books like this?

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Note the research in Norway, which has some of the most liberal laws and the most acceptance of the Gay community. The stat is still the same - an increased rate of attempted suicide - so drawing the conclusion that the increased rate of suicide is due to discrimination is not backed up by the studies. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers there which start to look like data and evidence.

Teppe has the ball on this one, so I won't bother responding here.

I'm glad that your gay friends have not got these problems, and to the best of my knowledge, neither do mine. But saying that your single anecdote disproves the data is not really ironic it is, as you've labelled your opponents, "pseudo-science".

I've never said it does conclusively disprove anything, that is you placing words in my mouth. Don't do that, please.

And yes, I am completely at home calling institutes such as the Family Research Institute pseudo-scientists. All they really do is make up their own "evidences" based on biblical sources, compare homosexual couples to the Christian nuclear family, and make rather bold insinuations that homosexuals are "naturally" pedophiles and indoctrinate their kids into becoming gay (which of course, it can be argued heterosexual couples do the same thing to their children). Which is, of course, a fucking load of crock on a stick.

So now the ball is in your court - I'd like you to show me the data that states that a homosexual lifestyle is healthy and beneficial.

You never showed me conclusive data that it was the opposite. At least, not without said links referencing to known anti-homosexual, pro-Christan nuclear family organizations. If I feel up to taking the time, I will track down some easy sources on the matter, of course.

Or fuck, just talk to any openly gay individual on this site. It may be anecdotal evidence, but they are living representations of homosexuality within human population regardless. I would think they know themselves better at the fundamental level than most outside sources could ever.

..is a slap in the face to anyone who has worked through that change in their life, and would make a book that the OP was about, be completely redundant. Essentially, those people exist. They're rare, true, but they're there.

To be completely honest, I don't really give a fuck about what those individuals think of evidence contrary to their position and actual scientific data on the matter gathered by real scientists. And to be even more completely honest? The guy is likely to come back out of his shell and stop lying to himself to appease his fundamentalist parents whom would quicker ostracize him from his own family for his sexuality rather than accept him for who he is, which is just sick enough as it is. If not? Then he is just very, very good at repressing his truer, basic instincts on the matter.

Of course, that is just my view on it. You are free to your own, even if I fundamentally think you are wrong on this topic.

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

Note the research in Norway, which has some of the most liberal laws and the most acceptance of the gay community. The stat is still the same - an increased rate of attempted suicide - so drawing the conclusion that the increased rate of suicide is due to discrimination is not backed up by the studies. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers there which start to look like data and evidence.

From your article about Norway: (Translated from Norwegian)

Homosexual activities/actions are stigmatized and taboo in our society, and this is an important premise to explain discrimination or reduced life quality among gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Stigmatizing as a social process have social and emotional consequences for individuals being stigmatized.

So much for acceptance among youth..

The study is about homosexual youth, aged 16 to 19. Many of these will still be in high school, with everything that comes with it. The law might be liberal when it comes to gay marriage, but I can assure you that coming out of the closet as a high school student will not make you accepted. The opposite holds true, you will be stigmatized for it and as such the likelihood of committing suicide will increase.

This is not because they're homosexual, but because homosexuality still carries a strong stigma in Norwegian society. This is especially true in the age range 16-19.

Interesting. So legalising gay marriage hasn't helped? Although there HAS been a concurrent increase in the divorce rate, and the number of children born outside wedlock. Maybe unrelated, maybe not.

In any case, the data is accurate and well collected, but the opinion of the author is just that: the opinion of the author. Logically then, in a country where homosexuals feel safer, then the suicide rate should be the same as heterosexuals.

OK, then let's look at Canada, ranked by a Gallup poll to be one of the preferred and accepting countries to live in.
http://www.gallup-europe.be/newsletter/articles/1207_10.htm
Oddly enough, the data does not support this hypothesis, as there is still a higher suicide rate, although, apparently, being bisexual has a protective status. Maybe a smaller sample?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6390b046-2bac-4be5-a4b6-9cb7ba2d9a9f
The Gallup poll also suggests the Americas should also be more accepting, but anecdotally this isn't the case, if you ask people on the site. The Massachusetts data on attempted suicide examines the reasons behind their attempts. Attempted suicide is much more common than actual suicide, and you're in a position to ask people why they attempted to take their own lives. Less than 1 in 10 gave their homosexuality as the reason.

So, there's some more info. Suicide (just one of the issues looked at in the Massachusetts data) is higher amongst homosexuals in countries which have accepting laws but less cultural acceptance, accepting laws and more cultural acceptance, and non acceptance across the board. And it's not necessarilly due to the cultural attitude when you ask people why they attempt to suicide.

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

I've never said it does conclusively disprove anything, that is you placing words in my mouth. Don't do that, please.

I presumed you mentioned it as evidence, which is fair enough as were are having an informed discussion. I'll wait for your data with baited breath.

And yes, I am completely at home calling institutes such as the Family Research Institute pseudo-scientists. All they really do is make up their own "evidences" based on biblical sources, compare homosexual couples to the Christian nuclear family, and make rather bold insinuations that homosexuals are "naturally" pedophiles and indoctrinate their kids into becoming gay (which of course, it can be argued heterosexual couples do the same thing to their children). Which is, of course, a fucking load of crock on a stick.

You can name call as much as you like. And insinuate that other organisations insinuate that homosexuals are "naturally" pedophiles. It's a crock - both that they are naturally pedophiles, and that they make those claims. However, they do compare outcomes for children raised by two married parents to others, such as same sex parents, de facto parents and single parents.

You never showed me conclusive data that it was the opposite. At least, not without said links referencing to known anti-homosexual, pro-Christan nuclear family organizations. If I feel up to taking the time, I will track down some easy sources on the matter, of course.

I wasn't aware that the Massachusetts government was a known anti-homosexual, pro-Christian group? Granted, I'm not a resident in the States, so I apologise if I don't know these things. And easy sources? So they'll come from pro-homosexual, anti-Christian websites then?

To be completely honest, I don't really give a fuck about what those individuals think of evidence contrary to their position and actual scientific data on the matter gathered by real scientists.

I'd like to see that scientific evidence. I've supplied you with plenty of data, even if you don't agree with the interpretation. At least some of the data is collected by sources that are not pro-Christian, pro-family groups, and there is a lot to wade through. All that evidence starts to look a bit, well, conclusive.

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

why does no one ever question the agenda of authors of books like this?

You don't have to - you KNOW they have an agenda, and a bias. I have one, as do the other posters on this thread.

Why would you expect one side of a debate to not have an agenda or bias?!?

 

[Vryyk]

Everyone needs to stop pretending like this handful of idiots speaks for all of Christianity. The whole idea that Christianity condemns gays is based off of one tiny verse in one chapter of one book of one testament of the Bible, a book that has been translated over one hundred times. If you really wanna get arcane there is good evidence that Jesus calls a gay man the most faithful man in the city in the book of Romans. I'm a Christian who has no problem with gays, but I do have a problem with willful ignorance. Atheist or Christian.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I'm more worried about the impact this will have on the kids who's parents buy the book.

Say this thing takes off and sells millions in the deeply religious parts (you know the type, religious to extreme, not willing to consider the fact that others might have a valid point too, thinks the bible is the only truth, etc..). So these people buy into the book in a big way and raise there kids according to the book....If the kid IS actually gay then that's going to cause some seriously deep seated psychological issues.

 

[Teppe]

Interesting. So legalising gay marriage hasn't helped? Although there HAS been a concurrent increase in the divorce rate, and the number of children born outside wedlock. Maybe unrelated, maybe not.

This has been the case long before gay marriage was legalized I'm afraid. Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that married couples don't get any advantages over cohabitation couples, so it has degenerated into a more expensive form of cohabitation.

In any case, the data is accurate and well collected, but the opinion of the author is just that: the opinion of the author. Logically then, in a country where homosexuals feel safer, then the suicide rate should be the same as heterosexuals.

OK, then let's look at Canada, ranked by a Gallup poll to be one of the preferred and accepting countries to live in.
http://www.gallup-europe.be/newsletter/articles/1207_10.htm
Oddly enough, the data does not support this hypothesis, as there is still a higher suicide rate, although, apparently, being bisexual has a protective status. Maybe a smaller sample?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6390b046-2bac-4be5-a4b6-9cb7ba2d9a9f
The Gallup poll also suggests the Americas should also be more accepting, but anecdotally this isn't the case, if you ask people on the site. The Massachusetts data on attempted suicide examines the reasons behind their attempts. Attempted suicide is much more common than actual suicide, and you're in a position to ask people why they attempted to take their own lives. Less than 1 in 10 gave their homosexuality as the reason.

So, there's some more info. Suicide (just one of the issues looked at in the Massachusetts data) is higher amongst homosexuals in countries which have accepting laws but less cultural acceptance, accepting laws and more cultural acceptance, and non acceptance across the board. And it's not necessarilly due to the cultural attitude when you ask people why they attempt to suicide.

The article from the Vancouver Sun points out that it could very well have to do with harassment and violence from the community. These are still rates for middle- and high school students, where bullying is more prevalent than among adults. On the other side adults can "just" change jobs if they get bullied for their sexuality, while students rarely have the ability to change schools. Youth have also rarely told their parents that they're homosexual, So are the rates of suicide because of bullying, or because of sexuality? Suicide Rate Increases in Teens as an Effect of Bullying [http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/15450/suicide-rate-increases-in-teens-as-an-effect-of-bullying].

Sadly a country can be as accepting to homosexuality as it wants, it doesn't take more than a bullying minority to push someone to suicide, especially these days with Facebook, Myspace and whatever flavor-of-the-month social community where access to the victim is a lot easier.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well, I won't complain if someone wants to write a book like that. However, I can't wait to see what he's like in 10 years after he gets married and then rediscovers himself. I met a guy in college whose dad did the same thing and then got divorced.

 

[Geekosaurus]

You can have the freedom of speech, but nobody said anything about judging you for for what you say.

 

[Giovanto]

If we can't have this book, we need to get rid of "The God Delusion" too. Along with all the other anti-religious books. No one is forcing you to read it. They can sell what they want. They could sell Mein Kampf if they want. Oh wait...they do. You don't see anyone taking issue with books that say it's okay to be gay.

Also, thinking that homosexuality is wrong doesn't make you hateful. This isn't the WBC. Stop trying to paint a picture that the church is hateful because they don't agree with you. I'm only being fair here.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

However, they do compare outcomes for children raised by two married parents to others, such as same sex parents, de facto parents and single parents.

Yes, and tend to make claims on such that have no evidences to them whatsoever either way. (heterosexual relationships better than either same sex or single parent)

I wasn't aware that the Massachusetts government was a known anti-homosexual, pro-Christian group? Granted, I'm not a resident in the States, so I apologise if I don't know these things. And easy sources? So they'll come from pro-homosexual, anti-Christian websites then?

No, I wasn't referring to Massachusetts in such, only the other links. Massachusetts got lumped with one of those, sorry.

And no, they won't. They'll come from pro-scientific sites, I'm not going to be a hypocrite now. Although, of course, secular sources may very well have small snipes at Christianity here and here.

I'd like to see that scientific evidence. I've supplied you with plenty of data, even if you don't agree with the interpretation. At least some of the data is collected by sources that are not pro-Christian, pro-family groups, and there is a lot to wade through. All that evidence starts to look a bit, well, conclusive.

To your interpretation, yes. This is all just interpretation until anything conclusive is made, yes.

However..

http://sites.google.com/site/taoismnet/home/articles/homosexuality-as-seen-through-the-tao

And alternative religious view on it, not anti-Christian at all. (Infact, it makes reference to Jesus in a positive light at the bottom)

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Not an anti-Christian site, simply scientific data and explanation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

And indecisive article on the matter

http://www.units.muohio.edu/saf/glbt/programs/documents/SchoolClimateStats.pdf

This may be a pro-homosexuality link (as the organization itself is made up of homosexuals), but it gives a comprehensive view on the matter in schools nonetheless.

 

[krimson_dropz]

why does no one ever question the agenda of authors of books like this?

You don't have to - you KNOW they have an agenda, and a bias. I have one, as do the other posters on this thread.

Why would you expect one side of a debate to not have an agenda or bias?!?

good point however you would be suprised how little it actually happens. its really kinda sad...how few people realize that the information may be scewed even though it supposedly happened in real life, i mean look at that texas chainsaw massacre really based on ed gein. if you look him up you will be wondering why they made that movie and how it's based on that man...but i digress this is just sad, really really sad.