Just curious if any of those who worry about the danger to marriage by allowing homosexuals to marry if they have any proof that it is harmful to Traditional Marriage.
Any statistics, studies, verifiable results, studies which can be recreated that show Gay Marriage is a danger to Traditional marriage.

Are homosexuals responsible for the high rate of divorce in America?

There have been no replies to this question because there is no such evidence. As far as I can tell, even the strongest opponents of same-sex marriage do not claim that it will somehow lead to fewer opposite-sex marriages or more opposite-sex divorces.

The claim that it will somehow "weaken" marriage is based only on the fact they they do not wish to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It is difficult for me to understand this objection. The closest analogy I can think of would be the belief that using the word "animal" to include human beings would somehow "weaken" the word "animal." This seems a pointless objection, since human beings are animals by any reasonable definition. By any reasonable definition, many same-sex couples are married. (The law does not always recognize reasonable definitions.)

Let me try to play the devil's advocate and make as strong a case as possible for the other side. Here is the one statistic I have been able to find concerning divorce rates in a nation where same-sex marriage is legal. This information comes from an organization which opposes same-sex marriage and which seeks to treat homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Link



The absolute most that can be said about this study is that same-sex marriages may not be as stable as opposite-sex marriages. Even if this is true, it is irrelevant to opposite-sex marriage.

Another statistic which might be cited is the ironic fact that the only state in the USA in which same-sex marriage is a legal reality is the state which has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Link



Is this low divorce rate somehow caused by same-sex marriage? No, of course not. (If nothing else, the fact that these statistics are from 1997 disposes of that hypothesis.) My point is that same-sex marriage has zero effect on opposite-sex marriage.

Agreed cannot seem to find any actual evidence to support the need to protect traditional marriage from Gay Marriage. So again why the need to prevent if there is no direct correlation?
If there is no factual evidence then is it correct to assume it is the result purely of bias?

Isn't their other secular argument, that children adopted into homosexual unions, are more likely to become homosexuals then other children?

Of course the premise of that argument, asserts that homosexuality is wrong, as it says society having more homosexuals is a bad thing.

Honestly, at the core, I don't think these secular debating points are the real contentions people have with homosexuality. The real opposition to it rather sources from religion and a-natural?-distaste for same sex romance.

If you want to know what the "other" arguments are, then I suggest starting a thread dealing with that question, or looking over a past one. This thread only deals with one particular argument, and the reason it's been getting so few replies is that it's attacking an argument that few if any opponents of same-sex marriage have raised. It's usually just raised by supporters so that they can have something to shoot down.

I disagree Blackstone, it is the whole rationale behind the movement to ban gay marriage. Something is endangering Marriage, and to stop that damage Gays must be banned from marriage.
If you remove it you are left with 2 major rationales; Religion states Gays are evil/bad/wrong/abominations or "i juss dont think its natural MmmKay!".





its actually avoided like the plague by supporters of gay marriage bans.
For all the soapbox sermonizing by supporters of the bans and the clear drama they try to envoke as they "battle" to save marriage from the ravenous hordes bent upon "destruction of the american way, marriage, children and homebaked apple pie vs. storebought" they have to the avoid the reality that their is no actual proof to support their claims.
Unless I am mistaken and have somehow missed the study upon study that shows without exception that homosexuals are endangering marriage? I admit its possible I missed them somehow.

So, anyone?

Bueller.....bueller......

I'm not aware of any claim that homosexuals are responsible for the high rate of divorce in America, which is what your debate question asked. It's a strawman question.

how is that a strwman Blackstone. the claim is marriage must be saved and that to do so gays cannot be allowed to marry.
Am I wrong? no I am not.
and divorce is not the question I have asked here Blackstone.

Once again for the cheap seats


VickWolf was kind enough to try and find anything, and all she found was the infamously overused and overabused report from Sweden.

So once again if you claim marriage needs to be protected and that gay marriage is harmful to it

please prove it with more than bias.

facts, reality and studies are all welcome.

Are you reading the same post I am? It's the only question you asked in your introductory post.

I would think the topic is quite clear, but I went ahead and added the question marks to the first part. I'd thought the whole first part would very clearly be recognized as a question(s) but whatever.
I of course apologize for the lapse of grammar.
Whenever you are ready Blackstone.

This is not documented evidence that has been cross referenced with other documented evidence. Just a thought: just some logic.

You are asking whether or not homosexual marriage endangers traditional marriage. The answer is, of course, yes, though you are asking for proof of this knowledge. To my knowledge, there is no proof. To your knowledge, there is no proof. In addition, without there being any proof as of yet I can only imagine that that means there is nothing I could say to persuade you that gay marriage is a danger to traditional marriage. In which case I must ask before I ramble; do you want to hear my side, or are you here simply to post your views, irrespective of other's views? And please realize I do not mean to insult anyone... yet. I just do not know how else to word the question.

Aedron Ia Scott

Well, if, to your knowledge, there is no proof, then you can't really say that the answer is "of course, yes", can you? You can have your thoughts on it, certainly, your views, your beliefs as to why you feel it endangers traditional marriage. But, being that homosexuals are an incredible minority, same-sex marriage would have to change the practices of those who believe in traditional marriage in order to endanger it. I wasn't under the impression that those who so passionately argue for it's protection would suddenly decide to toss traditional marriage aside if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. In fact, I find that hard to believe. Those who believe in traditional marriage would still be able to practice it if they so choose.

I am sorry for your misinterpretation of my foreign wording, entspeak. So far, everything on this forum topic but the quote about Sweden has been personal beliefs. So it stands to reason that we are continuing on this path. In addition, in my first sentence I blatantly said: "This is not documented evidence that has been cross referenced with other documented evidence. Just a thought: just some logic." And I can say that the answer is "Of course, yes." because talking about our personal beliefs and leaving my previous (not very clear, I admit) disclaimers of "just a thought," and "this is not documented evidence..." kind of concludes that you may not take the following for fact but I do.

In response to your other comments: nothing has to change in the current practices of marriage to endanger traditional marriage. It has not been endangered for the current generation but for the future generations. The biggest threat to traditional marriage is not wholly THAT gays can marry, but what rights they hope to achieve that are entailed in marriage. Most specifically paternity. The children of these homosexual couples have a much higher chance of turning out as homosexuals. In broader thought, the children of these homosexual couples will have a much wider view of options for sexual orientation. As their "parents" are going against the flow of more common belief, these children may very well grow up with the same resilience. What if these children continue the resistance and some start deciding they want to marry their dogs, cats, or livestock? Would you support their decision to fight for the right to marry their animals? What if your child (theoretical child) decided to join the fight for animal-to-human marriage rights? I will leave it at that for now.

"I wasn't under the impression that those who so passionately argue for its protection would suddenly decide to toss traditional marriage aside if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. In fact, I find that hard to believe. Those who believe in traditional marriage would still be able to practice it if they so choose."

I will go ahead and assume that this is your own random personal belief on the subject because it has little to nothing to do with my last comment... However, I completely agree with you in this respect. Those who believe in traditional marriage would indeed still be able to and would still practice traditional marriage.

Thank you for the conversation.

Aedron Ia Scott

I have never heard anyone make the claim that gay marriage will lead to less heterosexual marriages, or more heterosexual divorce.

What I have said was that it will ruin Western Culture as it is today by destroying sex roles in the minds of children who will grow up confused.

These are two very different things.

I hestitate to extend a point that is somewhat offtopic, but there is an interesting and lengthy piece in today's NY Times science section suggesting that people's sexuality doesn't have much to do with their nurture as children and adolescents -- if I read it correctly.

But as for the rest, I think that there exist few opponents of gay marriage on this or any rational basis who do not personally disapprove of homosexuality. This convinces me that supposedly rational bases for opposition to gay marriage are either hypocritical or self-deceptive, and that the real reason for most people's opposition is their dislike of homosexual conduct in others. There are, I admit, some homosexuals who don't want to pursue marriage as a political objective, but that isn't the same thing as opposing gay marriage in principle.

Thus I would ask, is there a single person here who can sincerely say that he does not disapprove of homosexual relations between consenting adults, yet opposes gay marriage?

Finally ontopic, I've been married 38 years, and I can't imagine how marriage between homosexuals could possibly affect our welfare -- or undermine "Western" culture either. Gad, as if homosexuality weren't firmly rooted in Western culture, from times of Socrates on down. Hadrian openly had a gay lover, for crying out loud. That isn't Western?

I don't dissapprove of homosexual relationships at all. Two guys or two girls being together doesn't bother me one bit.




I never railed against homosexuality, only homosexual marriage. Please note: lovers are not married couples. In many societies, western and eastern, homosexual relations are commonly accepted where marriage between same sex partners was not.

Start with post #26 on the "How does gay marriage, adoption, military service affect the individual" thread (or whatever it's called".

Sources and links for both sides are detailed in subsequent post.

Then, perhaps, a more accurate response would be, "Of course, yes, I believe so."

As regards Sweden, same-sex marriage is not legal in Sweden. As such, any evidence pointing to increased "divorce" - how can one divorce someone you are not married to - is false.



Well, there's not any evidence of that at all, I'm afraid.



If you mean that they might become more open-minded when it comes to their acceptance of other sexual orientations, I don't think that's such a bad thing.



Well, being that marriage is a legal contract and that one must be able to consent in order to engage in a legal contract, I don't see that happening. Unless, of course, we all become Dr. Doolittle to the point that it can be reasonably determined that a cow would consent to a marriage with a human.



I'm glad we can agree on that.



Just the legally recognized ones.

Entspeak,



You're attempted one liner insults don't bother me. I'm not the person you'd be comfortable thinking I am.

dang,

this idea doesnt want to die around here...

no matter HOW you go about it ...

same sex marriage WILL lead further down the path of societial decay.

50 years ago those in the civil rights movement would have thought it ludicrous to think that it could be used to back a homosexual agenda, but look where we are.
To think that same sex marriage will not be used to further plural marriage, incest, pedophilia ( no not directly but give energy to those fighting for it) and anything else is blind.


ENT we have been through this before and i will not rehash old arguements. You don't want to acknowledge that people like me who are concerned that same sex unions will lead to other things have a valid viewpoint, even if you disagree with us. I know what you want but i think you are misleading yourself to think it will stop there.

It wasn't an insult. How could that statement be perceived as an insult. Did I say anything about you personally with that statement? It is a statement of fact... you disapprove of legally recognized homosexual relationships, do you not?



Well, you have yet to prove that the sky will fall.

The problem is that until things start to fall you will dismiss those who say openly that intend to make it tumble.

what will it take for you to realize that there are people who will use this to further their own goals

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...9-00109-cr.html

if you dont know how lawrence v texas will work in the favor of those seeking more just read it.

more links for your reading pleasure.

http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html

here is a very good & footnoted review of what lawrence v texas may change.

http://new.stjohns.edu/media/3/2a8ac3d3da0...f96de61a1d1.pdf

I have read it.

People can try to use Lawrence to get their marriages validated, but... even same-sex couples can't use Lawrence to get their marriages validated... so I don't see how they'd be successful.

These debates are meaningless. There are no definitive answers from science or statistics, and any point can be argued. It all boils down to whether you believe homosexual behavior is right or wrong and whether you believe the source of your belief is transcendant or not, true or not.

The gay activists in the US are a rebellious, vocal, and determined minority. They destroy anyone in their way with vicious slander and personal attacks. We will get gay marriage, gay vacation packages, gay auto interior colors, gay retirement planning, gay health insurance, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The answer as to whether the proliferation of gay behavior will destroy traditional marriage and our culture with it will be played out in front of us. We already have a tremendous peversion of heterosexual behavior and heterosexual marriage anyway, so its time we moved on to fresher pastures...

"They exchanged the truth... for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator....

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

We'll get our answer in good time. If only people had eyes to see and ears to hear.

Really? And just what "vicious slander" have I "destroyed" people with?




Oh, if only we could go into just how out of context this passage has been taken. But, alas, that would violate the rules here on . So, I guess you'll just have to be able to say it and we'll just have to read it.

What is the first step ?

decriminalization.... your entire arguement is that homosexual relations are not illegal so therefore we must recognize their marriages... lawrence decriminalized homosexual activity, and it will be used to decriminalize just about all "private" sexual activity... the first steps are always little ones.


You may disagree with him but scalia make the exact same point I do so there must be some legal basis for his opinion ( as well as mine ) I know this might fall under ipsi dixit but i have to believe that since he sits on the SC there is something to the arguement.

from the majority opinion in lawrence...



they are pretty clear,

the minority opinion is also clear.

Sortof. YOUR personal opinion on weither or not you LIKE homosexual marriages cannot change because of your own opinion of your own correctness (and this is certainly not unique to you), and its (apparently) biblical origin. However, as any decent lawmaker could tell you, the issues of what is or is not legal based on the traditions of a nation must be seperate from the opinions of what should or should not be moral based on one's personal experience. Again, that is why we codify laws.

In US society (to say nothing of the rest of the first world) the determination seems to have been made, contrary to your point, that homosexuality is NOT wrong. It has been decriminalised all over. It is disingenuous to say that this change is due to the 'rabid and awful' gay right activists, firstly because the change is reflective far more of the changing society, and secondly because I will match the 'rabid and awful' anti-gay demagogues (mostly Religious far right) against the gay rights activists any day.



In your humble opinion. Yet the drama of gay rights is playing out around the world, and it seems that once again, the extreme-conservatives are wrong, just as they have been wrong in opposing almost every positive social change in the last century. In nations which have gay marriage, marriage rates are static, or in the case of several Scandinavian countries, actually INCREASING. Society has not fallen apart, and the real fact is once the change in the law is made, the truth becomes obvious: 96% of the population are totally and completely unaffected, and in fact would likely never even KNOW the law had been changed if they had not been told it in the media.



It would be an amusing historical excersise to track back through the last few hundred years the use of the word 'perversion' by the Christian far-right. It seems it is thrown out to describe everything theydisapprove of. When the Christian far-right in the US strenuously objected to votes for women, it was a perversion. When bully-pulpit pastors railes against interracial marriage it was a 'perversion'. Heck, go back far anough and anything other than sex in marriage in the misionary position and only for procreation was a perversion.



I think quoting scripture, espcially cherry-picked old-testament scripture to support an opinion clearly violates the AD rules on invoking religion in debate.



Amen to that.

Well, GuardianAngel,



Not the entire argument. There is also nothing in the marital contract necessitating that marriage be between a man and a woman. Nothing, apart from the lifting of the restriction, needs to change.

But, accepting, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, you can't really blame Lawrence. Perhaps you should blame those who removed laws banning sodomy between married couples... sodomy between heterosexuals. Had those laws remained, Lawrence wouldn't even be an issue.

In reality, Lawrence also clearly states:



So, while the removal of sodomy bans opens the door to same-sex marriage, it does not guarantee that laws banning it are unconsitutional - the court acknowledges that there may be other reasons that exist beyond mere moral disapproval. The court does not make a determination, but they don't want this decision to be considered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage... understandable. Marriage is a different issue and should be decided on its own merits.

They didn't want this opinion to be used as an argument, in and of itself, for same-sex marriage. Besides, most States had repealed their sodomy laws long before Lawrence.

In addition, there is a flaw in Scalia's reasoning. The reason that sodomy law's were unconstitutional were because they were not being applied equally (a violation of the Equal Protection Clause)... it was okay for heterosexuals to engage in sodomy, it was okay for married couples to engage in sodomy... the only people being punished for sodomy were homosexuals. So, it wasn't just because it's based on moral disapproval... it is because that moral disapproval was being aimed only at homosexuals.

we have gone over this before... have we not ....

barring criminalization for morality what basis does the state have to ban plural, incestuous (yes in know it isn't illegal in all states) or even prohibitions based on age ( which in the opinion of some are discriminitory and unconstitutional. )

please give me an arguement more than "because i think it is icky ..."

Well, read what I wrote. I never stated that the government couldn't bar acts simply because they were immoral. I stated that they must do so in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause... they must be applied equally. If you ban sodomy, you must ban it for everyone.

If you are going to remove a ban on sodomy because of "privacy" issues, it must be removed for everyone.

Science is definitive that homosexuals are well-adjusted individuals who can and should enjoy any and all privileges that society allows heterosexuals. I've posted hyperlinks of all three major medical organizations in a previous post that states so unequivocally. Yes, any point can be argued, that doesn't mean that they are all valid. People will argue that the earth is flat, that the lunar landing was s Spielberg production, and that Elvis is alive and well. Disagreeing with what modern science says does not immediately make that point valid. In fact, it shows that bias, beginning from an already predetermined point of view, is significantly flawed. We have overwhelming evidence from science on this matter, though what we also have is the ignoring of it on the part of those who have an agenda to keep their private beliefs no matter what the evidence is.



And getting back to to the topic, what does this have to do with marriage? None of those things effect my marriage of what will be eight years in December. Also, it is a given right to agitate for change. It is not wrong and under that line of thinking, we would've never had a Boston tea party as it would have been "rebellious." You can't seriously argue that not being obedient to a societal wrong is something that should be encouraged.

Hey Mr. Nebraska29,

“Science is definitive that homosexuals are well-adjusted individuals who can and should enjoy any and all privileges that society allows heterosexuals. I've posted hyperlinks of all three major medical organizations in a previous post that states so unequivocally.” – Nebraska29

Science is far from that and I just looked for your links in this thread and they are non-existent.

“Yes, any point can be argued, that doesn't mean that they are all valid. People will argue that the earth is flat, that the lunar landing was s Spielberg production, and that Elvis is alive and well.” - Nebraska29

...or that “[s]cience is definitive that homosexuals are well-adjusted individuals"...

“Disagreeing with what modern science says does not immediately make that point valid. In fact, it shows that bias, beginning from an already predetermined point of view, is significantly flawed.” - Nebraska29

The American Psychiatric Association was the first to remove homosexuality from it’s lists of mental disorders in 1973. Please share with us what new medical breakthrough, scientific fact, incontrovertible psychiatric study led them to do so.

Careful…I already know the answer to this one…

“We have overwhelming evidence from science on this matter, though what we also have is the ignoring of it on the part of those who have an agenda to keep their private beliefs no matter what the evidence is.” – Nebraska29

Ohhhhhh, geeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz…

“Also, it is a given right to agitate for change. It is not wrong and under that line of thinking, we would've never had a Boston tea party as it would have been "rebellious." You can't seriously argue that not being obedient to a societal wrong is something that should be encouraged.” – Nebraska29

Fine. I’m game.

But that “right to agitate for change” gives me the right to resist, prevent and protect.

Really, part-time grasshopper? You know about Freedman's study in 1971? This study concluded that homosexuality was not a pathology in and of itself. Perhaps you can post what you know about this study... since you "already know the answer."

Oh, please. Do indulge me and provide your links as evidence.

Pretty please...

Oh, but part-time grasshopper,

I would hate to deprive you of your much needed education, Mr. "Careful, I already know the answer to this one." You claim you know the answer: Please... indulge us. I'm tired of doing your homework for you. You claim you already know the answer... These studies exist. If you already know the answer, that would mean you at least know something about them. Or do you not? I was already inclined to believe the latter... but, you being so "I know the mind of God" and all, here's your chance, p-t-g. Dazzle us with what you already know.

That's what I thought, bro.

Your as bad as CrusingRam when it comes to sources.

Let me know if you come up with something new.

So, you're saying you know nothing about those studies? Well, my friend that means that you don't already know... doesn't it. Not surprising.

It's called Google... it's a search engine... but, perhaps, you already know that, part-time grasshopper. Again... you made the claim that you already know. I can assure you that those people, in those years, played a role in the dropping of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Who knows, perhaps the military's study into homosexuality during WWII also had something to do with it. What do you think? I mean, you already know that they did a study, too, didn't you? Come on, part-time grasshopper. Back up your claim that you already know.

Let's see just how much you already know.

entspeak!

I gotta give ya credit, bro. I don't know where you came up with these studies. Most of them haven't been in circulation for...years.

Please tell, where did you find these?

And why did you list Siegelman? Also, I don't think Evan's study says what you think it does.

So now that I've given you your props. Please do provide the links. I'd love to see these.

I'm waiting...

And seriously, did you find these as footnotes in some obscure study somewhere? I really can't believe you found these, man!

Well, part-time grasshopper... you know nothing about me.



How so? Is it that you have a problem with the 15PF test? What about it do you disagree with?


I don't recall asking you for "props," part-time grasshopper.

Hey entspeak!

"I included Siegelman because he published a paper in the British Journal of Psychology in May 1972 about homosexuality.

But, of course... you already knew that, didn't you, part-time grasshopper..." - entspeak

Well, if I remember correctly, Siegelman's work had more to do with the origins of homosexuality and didn't link them to genetics. But I haven't seen this in a loooooooonnnngg time. I may be confusing it with something else, but I think I'm right.

Regarding Evans, I've got a file on my computer at work. I'll send it to you. I really don't think it says what you think it does...

"I don't recall asking you for "props," part-time grasshopper." - entspeak

You seem a bit hostile tonight, entspeak.

Maybe you should go and have a beer--try to relax.

Right after you send those links...

But in the meantime...


Hey Mr. Nebraska29,

"The American Psychiatric Association was the first to remove homosexuality from it’s lists of mental disorders in 1973. Please share with us what new medical breakthrough, scientific fact, incontrovertible psychiatric study led them to do so.

Careful…I already know the answer to this one…" - Dale

And here it is...

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academic...14_2kaufman.PDF

After you finish reading this, you may wonder, "Well! If the APA is a 'scientific' organization, just what are they doing with a 'Committe on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues'?"

Good question!

http://www.aglp.org/pages/chistory.html

It's their link...

Of course you do, part-time grasshopper... of course you do.



Is it the study 1970 study I referred to?



As I've stated before, you know nothing about me. All I stated was that I didn't recall asking for props. Nothing hostile in that, part-time grasshopper. So, how about you stick to backing up your assertions... and doing some of your own homework... you know... try something new.





Three? He mentions three studies?



That's the answer you already knew? You knew that this guy only mentioned three studies that could've led the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973?

Of course, there were more than three studies done on the subject prior to the 1973 decision, part-time grasshopper.

just a quick glance, but he mentions 14 different studies including kinsey.

Well, perhaps you should take more than a quick glance and then read what I posted again.

He mentions, specifically, only three studies that might have led to the 1973 APA decision.

Hey entspeak!

I can’t believe it.

You really don’t have the links, do you?

I was just kidding when I said you must have seen them in the footnotes of some obscure study somewhere, but that’s what really happened, isn’t it? Did you come across that Homosexuality is Not a Disease--or whatever it’s called--“study”?

This is hilarious.

“He mentions, specifically, only three studies that might have led to the 1973 APA decision.” – entspeak

“…might have led to the 1973 APA decision.” - entspeak

And you don’t even know what these studies say, do you?

Anyway, entspeak, all I was saying to Mr. Nebraska29 is that the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders due to political pressure. Not from the discovery of any new fact, medical or psychological evidence. So yea, “I already know the answer.”

And you know footnotes!

But I tell ya what, buddy, if you ever have anything new (like links!!!!) to bring to be debate, please do.

What problem do you have with the the study conducted by Evans in 1972, part-time grasshopper?

I asked you earier a very specific question regarding a study that if you already knew the answer to your question, you would be very much aware of.

I'm getting the impression, however, that you're not.



All you have provided is one document that merely mentions three studies done prior to 1973. It claims that these studies have been refuted. It then goes on to talk about 14 studies reviewed by Philip Belcastro. Well, part-time grasshopper, if you knew anything about that review, you would know that it only reviewed studies published after 1975. So, none of the 14 studies reviewed by Belcastro lend any support to your argument.

So, if that is the "answer" you already know... it appears that you know very little. Again, not suprising, part-time grasshopper.

So, again, please comment on what you feel about Evan's 1972 study and why you think it doesn't provide psychological evidence that might lead to the APA's decision?

And, if you think I'm going to simply give you the answers that you so arrogantly claim you already know, part-time grasshopper... well, I've said it before... you've got another think coming.

Back up your claim that you already know the answer, part-time grasshopper. We know that the document you provided is not sufficient to do that.

Hey entspeak!

Okay, bro, just because I like you I'll play along.

Evans created / administered a personality quiz. It was given to both hetero and homosexuals and compared and contrasted the two. If I remember correctly, the sampling method was criticized. But like I said, it was a comparison of both hetero and homosexuals orientations and not some in depth all-conclusive study that I think you're trying to prove some point with.

Other studies have contradicted Evans findings (although I can't remember the names of them off the top of my head).

Of course, this can all be cleared up the moment you provide the links.

Why hesitate any loger?

You'll back up your assertions simply because you like me? I would think that you would do it simply because it's what you do when you make assertions. If you're going to ask a question and then warn everyone that you already know the answer to your question, you should be able to back that up, part-time grasshopper.



Eh, wrong... Evans didn't create the test. It was a common test, created long before 1970. In fact it is still used. But of course, you already know that, don't you, part-time grasshopper.



I never claimed that it was some "in depth, all-inclusive study," did I? You see, I never made that assertion.



Of course, you don't, part-time grasshopper... of course, you don't.

entspeak!

“You'll back up your assertions simply because you like me? I would think that you would do it simply because it's what you do when you make assertions. If you're going to ask a question and then warn everyone that you already know the answer to your question, you should be able to back that up, part-time grasshopper.” – entspeak

Nope. I’ll play along ‘cause I like you. I’ve already backed my assertions up.

“Eh, wrong... Evans didn't create the test. It was a common test, created long before 1970. In fact it is still used. But of course, you already know that, don't you, part-time grasshopper.” – entspeak

Really? I thought she helped create it. Gee, could you pass along your link for that…along with all the others!

“I never claimed that it was some "in depth, all-inclusive study," did I? You see, I never made that assertion.” – entspeak

Well, I just beg-your-pardon! I was under the impression that you were throwing it out there as being something a bit more than it actually was.

“It's called Google... it's a search engine... but, perhaps, you already know that, part-time grasshopper.” – entspeak

“Really, part-time grasshopper? You know about Freedman's study in 1971? This study concluded that homosexuality was not a pathology in and of itself. And these?

Evans-1970,
Siegelman-1972
Hopkins-1969
Wilson-1971
Thompson-1971

Perhaps you can post what you know about these studies... since you "already know the answer." - entspeak

Guess what I did during lunch today? Yep, jumped on this whole “Google” deal. And guess what I found, bro?

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

Yep. It’s the link to the site in which you found all of your footnotes from that you listed above as if you had some idea of what these studies had to say. And what about that, entspeak, you’ve listed them in the same order as they appear on the link (except for Freedman, which you listed separately).

Can you believe it, entspeak, the same order!

Oh, I know. You'll tell us it's just a HUGE coincidence.

Sure, buddy.

But, anyway, the funny thing about all this, entspeak (and your gonna get a laugh outta this one), in your original post in which you listed “Freedman”, you also listed “Hooker 1957” which you’ve edited out now.

The funny thing is that I thought that the “Hooker” study was your idea of a joke. Ya know, have me Google something like “Homosexual Hooker Study”.

But, silly me! According to the footnotes you’ve used there actually was a Hooker 1957 study!

I’m so embarrassed…

and your stone-cold busted…

Have a nice day, bro.

Apparently not...



The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire was created in 1949 by Raymond Catell. And, it is the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. But, you already knew that, didn't you, part-time grasshopper. I just bet you did.

But Evans used it and, according to page 215 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Vol. 34, No. 2 published in, oh, April of 1970... aw, heck... why don't I just quote it for ya, bucky...



Now, this may not be the be all and end all of studies regarding homosexuality as a psychopathology, but it does provide some evidence, at least, that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, doesn't it? And the APA would've had access to this study... I mean, being that they publish that journal and all (but, of course, you already knew that as well, didn't you. ).

Now, you mentioned some studies that specifically refute Evans' consclusions in this study?

Oh, by the by, I don't believe Ray is a woman's name, but having never met Dr. Evans, I can't be sure of his or her gender. There are those people who use male names as pseudonyms, however... George Sand, for instance. Perhaps this is one of those cases? Perhaps you should contact Dr. Evans to clear up your gender confusion... According to the article Dr. Evans works at Loma Linda University in California. Of course, that may have changed in 37 years.



Yes, that is where I got the list.



You just discovered today that there was a study done by someone named Hooker? I find that astonishing. Perhaps you should read more. Might I recommend that you start with the document you provided to support your claim that you already know the answer, okay, genius?

So you don't have a problem with two people of the same sex fornicating, for pleasure's sake. But if they actually love each other enough to want a legal committment, then you have a problem?

I feel the exact opposite. I am not keen on homosexual activity UNLESS it is coupled with a committed, loving relationship.