Alabama and Nullification:

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another comment on that Hooker thing. Her point was apparently to say there is no link (association) between homosexuality and other problems. But she started off by carefully selecting only people who showed no indication of problems in her study. Meanwhile, it's pretty well known that there ARE associations between being homosexual and having problems. Suicide and attempted suicide rates are good to look at in that regard because it's clear black and white. There's no psychological test of questionable precision involved. You either attempt suicide or you don't. You either succeed or you don't.

And it is well known that suicide and attempted suicide rates among homosexuals are notably higher than they are for the general population. You could Google and find lots of stuff but here is one article:

http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/glbt ... t-suicide-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;–-a-serious-issue/

So what if somebody starts off by selecting 30 homosexuals and 30 heterosexuals who have never attempted suicide, compares the attempted suicide rates (0), sees no difference between 0 and 0, and declares, "Obviously there's no connection between homosexuality and suicide." What is the point of that? Does it really show anything?

And how is it that Hooker's paper really shows anything when we know that if you just look at the populations mental health problems appear to be more prevalent among homosexuals?

[JohnStOnge]

A nice take on the issue from a psychologist who is old enough to remember what happened:

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.c ... went-away/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the crux:

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

You can believe that or you can opt not to. But the point is that my perception in that regard is not unique. It's not something that just popped into my head. I am old enough to remember seeing objections to what was going on. But as time goes on things slip into established orthodoxy. Today's students going into fields related to mental health see "homosexuality is not a disorder" in their textbooks. It's what they're taught. It's the received wisdom.

But the perception that "science is on the side' of those in the normalization of homosexualilty movement is, I think, false. Science is not what prompted the decision. Political pressure and philosophy did.

[houndawg]

Here's another comment on that Hooker thing. Her point was apparently to say there is no link (association) between homosexuality and other problems. But she started off by carefully selecting only people who showed no indication of problems in her study. Meanwhile, it's pretty well known that there ARE associations between being homosexual and having problems. Suicide and attempted suicide rates are good to look at in that regard because it's clear black and white. There's no psychological test of questionable precision involved. You either attempt suicide or you don't. You either succeed or you don't.

And it is well known that suicide and attempted suicide rates among homosexuals are notably higher than they are for the general population. You could Google and find lots of stuff but here is one article:

http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/glbt ... t-suicide-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;–-a-serious-issue/

So what if somebody starts off by selecting 30 homosexuals and 30 heterosexuals who have never attempted suicide, compares the attempted suicide rates (0), sees no difference between 0 and 0, and declares, "Obviously there's no connection between homosexuality and suicide." What is the point of that? Does it really show anything?

And how is it that Hooker's paper really shows anything when we know that if you just look at the populations mental health problems appear to be more prevalent among homosexuals?

What is your point? That the more prevalent mental health problems that homosexuals are alleged to experience are because they are homosexual and not because of the negative connotations society places on being homosexual? Looking for an aura of scientific respectability to veneer some fundamentalists beliefs with?

[JohnStOnge]

What is your point? That the more prevalent mental health problems that homosexuals are alleged to experience are because they are homosexual and not because of the negative connotations society places on being homosexual?

No, my point is that Hooker's paper is nonsensical. Yes, it's reasonable to hypothesize that the greater incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals is due to how people around them respond to them. But what Hooker did has nothing to do with that. She basically concluded that increased incidence of adjustment problem is not associated with homosexuality after carefully selecting her subjects to ensure there was no obvious evidence of adjustment problems among them. That is pretty much absurd.

I guess maybe her objective was to show that it's POSSIBLE for a homosexual to take the test she had the two guys apply and score as well adjusted. But if so it wasn't even necessary to include heterosexual subjects. If all she wanted to do was show that it's possible for homosexuals to score that way on that test all she needed to do is find some homosexuals who scored that way on that test.

I've got to believe you can see what I'm talking about.

[houndawg]

What is your point? That the more prevalent mental health problems that homosexuals are alleged to experience are because they are homosexual and not because of the negative connotations society places on being homosexual?

No, my point is that Hooker's paper is nonsensical. Yes, it's reasonable to hypothesize that the greater incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals is due to how people around them respond to them. But what Hooker did has nothing to do with that. She basically concluded that increased incidence of adjustment problem is not associated with homosexuality after carefully selecting her subjects to ensure there was no obvious evidence of adjustment problems among them. That is pretty much absurd.

I guess maybe her objective was to show that it's POSSIBLE for a homosexual to take the test she had the two guys apply and score as well adjusted. But if so it wasn't even necessary to include heterosexual subjects. If all she wanted to do was show that it's possible for homosexuals to score that way on that test all she needed to do is find some homosexuals who scored that way on that test.

I've got to believe you can see what I'm talking about.

Its just doesn't seem very relevant to much of anything.

Not all scientific papers are good. Got it.

What I don't get is why you spend this much time worrying about homosexuals.

[JohnStOnge]

What I don't get is why you spend this much time worrying about homosexuals.

I'm not absolutely sure but I don't THINK I've ever started a thread on the homosexuality issue. If I have it hasn't been often. Normally I'm just responding.

And if you notice what really disturbs me more than anything is the role the courts play. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if it becomes standard practice through the process of a self-governing people deciding to do it such as has been the case in some States that's fine.

What's bad is when Courts force the practice upon populations of people. And in most States where homosexual marriage is legal now it's because forced the practice upon the people of States.

It goes way beyond this one issue. We allow the Judiciary way too much power. As I said in an earlier post, we've allowed government by oligarchy. Unelected, unaccountable life term officials shouldn't be making decisions like this for the society.

And of course the other thing is stuff like forcing Christian florists to service homosexual marriages. But that's a broader issue to me as well. I don't think anyone should be forced by government to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction regardless of the reasons. I do not think government should be telling a private business it HAS to do business with anybody. I think the Civil Rights Act is an abomination in that regard.

This country is supposed to be about freedom. And if someone if you're telling people that a condition of them making a living by doing business on the selling side they can't pick and choose who they do business with they are not free.

[D1B]

What I don't get is why you spend this much time worrying about homosexuals.

I'm not absolutely sure but I don't THINK I've ever started a thread on the homosexuality issue. If I have it hasn't been often. Normally I'm just responding.

And if you notice what really disturbs me more than anything is the role the courts play. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if it becomes standard practice through the process of a self-governing people deciding to do it such as has been the case in some States that's fine.

What's bad is when Courts force the practice upon populations of people. And in most States where homosexual marriage is legal now it's because forced the practice upon the people of States.

It goes way beyond this one issue. We allow the Judiciary way too much power. As I said in an earlier post, we've allowed government by oligarchy. Unelected, unaccountable life term officials shouldn't be making decisions like this for the society.

You continue to miss the primary issue.

You're blinded by bigotry.

[houndawg]

What I don't get is why you spend this much time worrying about homosexuals.

I'm not absolutely sure but I don't THINK I've ever started a thread on the homosexuality issue. If I have it hasn't been often. Normally I'm just responding.

And if you notice what really disturbs me more than anything is the role the courts play. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if it becomes standard practice through the process of a self-governing people deciding to do it such as has been the case in some States that's fine.

What's bad is when Courts force the practice upon populations of people. And in most States where homosexual marriage is legal now it's because forced the practice upon the people of States.

It goes way beyond this one issue. We allow the Judiciary way too much power. As I said in an earlier post, we've allowed government by oligarchy. Unelected, unaccountable life term officials shouldn't be making decisions like this for the society.

And of course the other thing is stuff like forcing Christian florists to service homosexual marriages. But that's a broader issue to me as well. I don't think anyone should be forced by government to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction regardless of the reasons. I do not think government should be telling a private business it HAS to do business with anybody. I think the Civil Rights Act is an abomination in that regard.

This country is supposed to be about freedom. And if someone if you're telling people that a condition of them making a living by doing business on the selling side they can't pick and choose who they do business with they are not free.

Bullsh*t. It really is. More fundamentalist nonsense by the ever-the-victim crowd.

[kalm]

What I don't get is why you spend this much time worrying about homosexuals.

I'm not absolutely sure but I don't THINK I've ever started a thread on the homosexuality issue. If I have it hasn't been often. Normally I'm just responding.

And if you notice what really disturbs me more than anything is the role the courts play. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if it becomes standard practice through the process of a self-governing people deciding to do it such as has been the case in some States that's fine.

What's bad is when Courts force the practice upon populations of people. And in most States where homosexual marriage is legal now it's because forced the practice upon the people of States.

It goes way beyond this one issue. We allow the Judiciary way too much power. As I said in an earlier post, we've allowed government by oligarchy. Unelected, unaccountable life term officials shouldn't be making decisions like this for the society.

And of course the other thing is stuff like forcing Christian florists to service homosexual marriages. But that's a broader issue to me as well. I don't think anyone should be forced by government to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction regardless of the reasons. I do not think government should be telling a private business it HAS to do business with anybody. I think the Civil Rights Act is an abomination in that regard.

This country is supposed to be about freedom. And if someone if you're telling people that a condition of them making a living by doing business on the selling side they can't pick and choose who they do business with they are not free.

You get checked by reason and then waste pages trying to convince.

He who attempts to justify, often does not convince.

- some pointy bearded Chinese dude

[kalm]

Hey John,

Should the state be able to tell the church no in this instance?

The biggest Presbyterian Church organization in the US will now include same-sex marriages within its churches, the Huffington Post reported.

The change to the “Book of Order” for the 1.7 million-member Presbyterian Church (USA) will take effect in June after being approved by 86 of its 171 affiliated regional governing bodies. The measure, Amendment 14-F, will change the group’s definition of marriage from being “between a woman and a man” to “between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/we-a ... marriages/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

I'm not absolutely sure but I don't THINK I've ever started a thread on the homosexuality issue. If I have it hasn't been often. Normally I'm just responding.

And if you notice what really disturbs me more than anything is the role the courts play. I think the idea of homosexual marriage is absurd. But if it becomes standard practice through the process of a self-governing people deciding to do it such as has been the case in some States that's fine.

What's bad is when Courts force the practice upon populations of people. And in most States where homosexual marriage is legal now it's because forced the practice upon the people of States.

It goes way beyond this one issue. We allow the Judiciary way too much power. As I said in an earlier post, we've allowed government by oligarchy. Unelected, unaccountable life term officials shouldn't be making decisions like this for the society.

And of course the other thing is stuff like forcing Christian florists to service homosexual marriages. But that's a broader issue to me as well. I don't think anyone should be forced by government to engage in commerce on either side of the transaction regardless of the reasons. I do not think government should be telling a private business it HAS to do business with anybody. I think the Civil Rights Act is an abomination in that regard.

This country is supposed to be about freedom. And if someone if you're telling people that a condition of them making a living by doing business on the selling side they can't pick and choose who they do business with they are not free.

You get checked by reason and then waste pages trying to convince.

He who attempts to justify, often does not convince.

- some pointy bearded Chinese dude

He who eat jellybeans before bedtime fart in Technicolor.

[kalm]

You get checked by reason and then waste pages trying to convince.

He who attempts to justify, often does not convince.

- some pointy bearded Chinese dude

He who eat jellybeans before bedtime fart in Technicolor.

He who go to bed with itchy butt, wake up with sticky finga!

[JohnStOnge]

Hey John,

Should the state be able to tell the church no in this instance?

The biggest Presbyterian Church organization in the US will now include same-sex marriages within its churches, the Huffington Post reported.

The change to the “Book of Order” for the 1.7 million-member Presbyterian Church (USA) will take effect in June after being approved by 86 of its 171 affiliated regional governing bodies. The measure, Amendment 14-F, will change the group’s definition of marriage from being “between a woman and a man” to “between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/we-a ... marriages/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I'd like to see is government out of the marriage business at this point because we no longer have what we used to have: A general agreement with respect to what marriage is. I think the Presbyterian Church should be completely free to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies and consider people to be married from the standpoint of their Church.

But at this point we should eliminate the concept of government involvement, licensure, etc.

[kalm]

Hey John,

Should the state be able to tell the church no in this instance?



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/we-a ... marriages/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I'd like to see is government out of the marriage business at this point because we no longer have what we used to have: A general agreement with respect to what marriage is. I think the Presbyterian Church should be completely free to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies and consider people to be married from the standpoint of their Church.

But at this point we should eliminate the concept of government involvement, licensure, etc.

Then we agree.