Here, without amendment, is the original post I sent to the Huffington Post in response to this article on Chick-fil-A (Note: I’m sending the response I tried to get posted, which I had to edit a tad at the end, because apparently they have a word limit; nothing significant is changed from what I wrote. At the end, I am going to add a short explanation of something I wrote, for those who perhaps have not been long acquainted with my blog or my views on the subject, Further, I would really recommend you read the article first, if you haven’t.):

Possible responses I considered:
1. Because I work for Chick-fil-A and agree with this particular position, I am a bigot. Fine. You are a pervert. Now, let’s each take a few minutes and revel in our moral superiority. Or, we could each grow up and have a rational conversation.
2. So, it’s not enough for one (me) to have agreed with many of the equal rights objectives espoused by the gay rights community; one has to agree with every single one, including redefining marriage, or one is a “bigot”. No room for disagreement, no room for thinking. So that’s how it is…
3. Hmmm…one is a “bigot” for holding a position regarding marriage that was held by, effectively, everyone in the United States fifty years ago. OK, name your favorite liberal person fifty years ago, and begin to think of that person as a bigot. Oh, and Darling Obama was a bigot six months ago—and when you voted for him.
4. I trust you also support other forms of “marriage” that may be/have been proposed, such as polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like. Fine. Oh, you don’t? Bigot!
5. Thankfully, we have tolerant folks like Ms. Wilke to point out our intolerance by calling us “bigots”. Love that tolerance, Ms. Wilke!
6. Dealing with people as they actually are might have made for a nice, reasonable article, but building up, and then knocking down, pretty little straw men is just so much darned fun, isn’t it, Ms. Wilke?

I could think of more, but that’ll do for now; I have to get to work at Chick-fil-A. It’s a free country, Ms. Wilke, and on that point we agree, and as you defend Mr. Cathy’s right to believe as he does, I’ll defend your right to eat sub-par chicken sandwiches because you disagree with Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay marriage (even if you have imagined all sorts of other corollaries about what Chick-fil-A believes and doesn’t—I must commend your amply-fertile imagination!). Thanks for revealing your “reasoning”; it confirms again to me the basic mindset of contemporary liberalism. And makes me thankful for the mind God has given us.

OK, I’ll post now and brace myself for the barrage of ad hominem name-calling that constitutes most that passes for liberal “argumentation” today…

That’s what I wrote, and what one of Arianna’s minions apparently deemed unworthy of making the esteemed pages of the Post. I’m guessing it was the “pervert”, though a careful read will reveal that I wasn’t actually calling anyone that, but using that term to make a point about the word “bigot” and how ridiculous it is to use it in this context. Anyway…

Let me take a moment and elaborate on point 2, wherein I say that I agree with many of the “equal rights objectives” of the gay rights community (because I recognize that apart from a bit of explanation, this is a red flag to some). I consider myself a “libertarian conservative” (“libertarian” is an adjective here, and “conservative” a noun). As such, I have argued (contrary to some of my less-libertarian conservative friends) against laws that make consensual behavior between adults a crime. Further, I supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” back when that was considered a good thing by the gay rights community, and since my only issue with gays serving their country is military preparedness, I’m very open to arguments that our new policy doesn’t compromise that (i.e., I’m not all wrapped around the axle about gays serving openly, if the military experts assure us that our effectiveness isn’t compromised). I don’t believe it’s anybody’s business whom one person has at their deathbed in their time of need. I am appalled at some of the ways people refer to homosexuals as is they are worse sinners than the rest of us, or as if we can use whatever derogatory names we want in speaking of them. I can name some other instances of my agreement with the objectives of the gay rights community, but since I don’t buy the argument that “gay marriage” is about equal rights (search this blog; it’s easy to find), then I don’t stand with them on this one.

That’s enough for now…

41 responses »

  1. Billy Birch says:

    Byron,

    Great brief piece! You mean the “tolerant” liberals were INTOLERANT of your views? I’m beside myself. Surely, your comments were not posted because … oh, please, we all know why.

    The liberal double standard has been par for the course for too many years. Liberals have taught me one main principle: they’re only “tolerant” of people whose views match their own. I’m glad you responded publicly here.

  2. Laurie says:

    Oh Byron, that is priceless! Love how your response was clever and factual, with a little sarcasm thrown in to add some spice! Of course they didn’t want to post your comments – you make too much sense!

  3. ken says:

    I don’t assume people who don’t support gay marriage are bigots. And I would never call them bigots just because they don’t support gay marriage. However, their is a difference between someone who doesn’t support something and someone who actively opposes something.

    It is because of that opposition, and the reasons they give for it, I would label someone a bigot. When people equate homosexuality to incest (as you did), or pedophilia or bestiality, they display their ignorance about sexual orientation, and the bigotry that it breeds

    Also, I would point out, Dan Cathy has supported more than anti-gay marriage groups. He has donated to (although those donations appear to be minor compared to the anti-gay marriage donations) to anti-gay groups besides anti-gay marriage groups. Exodus and FRC were specifically mentioned.

    • Byron says:

      I would say that the term “anti-gay” is pejorative in nature. On a side note (not that this affects Dan’s donation, of course), are you aware of some of the changes in thinking on the part of Exodus International? For the record, and if it’s any consolation, I agree with the different direction that Alan Chambers is taking.

      Further, I’m not sure that the difference between “not supporting” and “opposing” is a difference in anything but degree. Merely voting for Romney and actively campaigning for Romney are different ways of “opposing” Obama, but as I see it, the difference is only in degree; the practical effect is exactly the same. If I were drawing a line, it would be between those who don’t support/oppose something, and those who oppose it with an obvious hatred, or dehumanization, say, of those on the other side of the coin. But I might be persuadable on this point.

      Further yet, (though if you can give me the actual quote to prove otherwise, I’d be happy to retract this) my recollection of my “equating” homosexuality and incest wasn’t to equate them, per se, but merely to make a point about potential other forms of “marriage”. They are different, and I oppose them on different grounds.

  4. ken says:

    yes, I’m aware of what is going on with Exodus. Esp. the fact that several member ministries have withdrawn because of that new direction and are forming a new group to stay the course.

    “not supporting” and “actively opposing” is far more than a matter of degree. Not attending someone’s wedding is VERY different than standing outside the ceremony with a sign that is condemning it or trying to prevent the marriage.

    finally, when you continuously bring up 2 or more topics together, you are equating them. Just like if someone constantly brings up the topics of drug dealing or gang-bangers whenever the topic of african-americans is discussed.

    • Byron says:

      I wasn’t aware that I brought up the two topics continuously, Ken, though perhaps you’re right. I recall making an analogy (and that, in my thinking, to a limited degree); maybe I reiterated that analogy, I suppose, but I don’t think I equated the two in more than that context.

      And OK, I get your point about the difference between “not supporting” and “actively opposing”, and I see where you’re coming from. I still think that’s a funny place to draw the line. Here’s why: as I’ve said before, I’ve supported some of the “gay rights” initiatives that have been generally opposed by other conservatives. I have written on my blog and in other places about my support. But I candidly and vehemently oppose the redefinition of marriage. Granting that you didn’t per se call me a “bigot”, why would opposition to one particular facet of the agenda not only negate support for other parts of it, but further, earn one such a derogatory title, in your eyes? That makes no sense to me at all.

      What does make sense, I submit, is that when one speaks with hatred, when one dehumanizes, when one calls names, etc., one perhaps at that point right earns the title of bigot. Using a different example, it used to steam me when folks like me were dismissed as “Clinton-haters” (or I guess now, “Obama-haters”, though for some reason I don’t hear that term as much as the former. Interesting.). I never hated Bill Clinton (nor do I hate Obama). I wish for them long, happy lives, with good marriages, lots of grandkids, health, and eternal peace with God. That sound like a hater? What I very much opposed, vocally and in every way possible, was Bill Clinton’s agenda (though now, frankly, I’d take him back over the current occupant of the White House). I very much opposed him serving as president, and if/when I ever crossed the line, I was wrong. Interestingly, a couple years ago, a friend of mine called me out about some things I’d written about the president on my blog. I reviewed them, and ended up agreeing with his concerns, changing the wording on some of the things I’d written, and posting about it on the blog–and that has made me more careful not to write things that could be easily interpreted as crossing a line into “hate”, because I don’t want to be misunderstood. But I regularly write and say things that clearly indicate my opposition to most of Obama’s agenda; I just don’t think that earns me the title of “bigot”–nor ought my opposition to changing what marriage is all about, particularly in light of some of my other stances toward homosexuals.

  5. ken says:

    Byron said:

    But I candidly and vehemently oppose the redefinition of marriage. Granting that you didn’t per se call me a “bigot”, why would opposition to one particular facet of the agenda not only negate support for other parts of it, but further, earn one such a derogatory title, in your eyes? That makes no sense to me at all.

    Let’s take a look again at what I said about bigotry (with an emphasis on the point you appear to be missing):

    “It is because of that opposition, and the reasons they give for it, I would label someone a bigot.”

    Let me give you a different example dealing with racism rather than homophobia. Assume John is opposed to affirmative action. That fact alone doesn’t mean he is a racist. However, what if this was his argument against it:

    “I don’t have a problem with black people. I support their rights even. but I don’t agree with giving inferior people scholarships they don’t deserve. I realize it isn’t their fault that they aren’t smart enough to make it on their own, it is just part of who they are. But that doesn’t mean more qualified white people should be held back to their level and denied a college education. to deny a better person the opportunity to go to college to give it to someone who is mot likely to drop out before getting his degree is just wrong. You don’t see me crying and saying I should be given more points when applying for basketball or football scholarships do you?

    John isn’t racist simply because he says he is opposed to affirmative action. It is the reasons he gave for why he is opposed to affirmative action.

  6. Esdraelon says:

    “I don’t have a problem with black people. I support their rights even. but I don’t agree with giving inferior people scholarships they don’t deserve. I realize it isn’t their fault that they aren’t smart enough to make it on their own, it is just part of who they are.”

    I understand the point but I’m curious upon where the comment is founded, or is it simply a ‘what-if” scenario to espouse a point?

    Allow me to change it a bit: “I don’t have a problem with black people. I support their rights, but I don’t agree with giving them, or any person, an advantage over another because of race, and that emphatically doesn’t mean more qualified people should be held back or outright denied a college education or promotion simply because of the institution of racial quotas. Etc.

  7. Esdraelon says:

    First of all, and I believe This is also something to consider, is that the average person could care less about what constitutes a ‘bigot’. I have probably used it a handful of times in my life and not once to imply the case to another persons person. It is a term used by a small vocal minority pushing an agenda the same way ‘racist’ is used in the United States Congress, etc, to attain ends that cannot be attained in the general debate. If one does not support something, it strains credibility to assume that if it is an issue that hits close to heart of that person that such person will not ‘actively oppose it’.

    There is opposition and there is opposition as well as there are reasons and reasons. Is the argument there that one would cease being a ‘bigot’ if they could be ‘educated’ about ‘sexual orientation’? Personally I don’t care who one is. I don’t care what their worldview is, what their compulsions are, or what their ‘sexual orientation’ is. Just keep it to themselves and out of my face: in other words, in your home, in your bedroom, in other words In Private which is exactly where ‘sexual orientation’ is supposed to be kept .

    So Dan Cathy has donated to anti-gay marriage groups or anti-gay groups. So? Again, that is HE personally and NOT Chick-fil-A as an entity. If the suggestion is being made that the corporate owners of the company should not be allowed to use such profits because some of the paying customers disagree with their choices, I could say the same thing about the US Congress and my taxs…….

    Bigot? Well, he is, as I am, then in attendance with a long line of dating back to the Founding Fathers themselves. I wish all people well, in life and love, I simply will never change my own worldview, especially the institution of marriage as one man, one woman, to accommodate and legitimatize a lifestyle that I find, well, uncommentable.

  8. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Friday August 3rd 2012 at 8:54 pm

    “I understand the point but I’m curious upon where the comment is founded, or is it simply a ‘what-if” scenario to espouse a point?”

    The example I gave is an amalgam of comments I’ve actually heard people make in reference to affirmative action.

    Esdraelon
    Saturday August 4th 2012 at 6:09 am

    “Is the argument there that one would cease being a ‘bigot’ if they could be ‘educated’ about ‘sexual orientation’? ”

    In some cases yes. Bigotry is often based on ignorance about the “other.” Believing the worst about them, which breeds a sense of superiority and often anger and hatred. Keep in mind, not all bigotry is wearing white sheets and burning crosses.

    “Just keep it to themselves and out of my face: in other words, in your home, in your bedroom, in other words In Private which is exactly where ‘sexual orientation’ is supposed to be kept .”

    Except I bet you only care that gays “keep it in private”, not straights. When you see a man and a woman walking down the street holding hands do you admonish them to “keep it in private”? When you see an office worker put up pictures of him/herself with his/her opposite gender partner/spouse do you admonish that person to “keep it in private’? Do you write letters to the editor of newspapers (any that still exist) with your disgust about how they announce couples entering into sexual relationships (i.e. the “Weddings announcements”)?

    Why is it people only seem to want sexual orientation “kept in private” when it comes to gays, but not straights?

    • Byron says:

      THIS REPLY IS FROM ESDRAELON, who emailed it to me, since his response was for some reason automatically rejected by my spam filter (see, Ken, apparently the confounded thing is an equal opportunity filter, at least politically). Wish I knew why this often happens (Esdraelon’s first few, “wordy” comments, made it through).

      ken

      Friday August 10th 2012 at 10:35 am

      Ken said: “The example I gave is an amalgam of comments I’ve actually heard people make in reference to affirmative action.”

      Then allow me to suggest that, in my opinion, such is being somewhat selective with comments as rarely have I heard enough such comments, in general, to create such an amalgam.

      Ken said: “In some cases yes. Bigotry is often based on ignorance about the “other.” Believing the worst about them, which breeds a sense of superiority and often anger and hatred. Keep in mind, not all bigotry is wearing white sheets and burning crosses.. ”

      With all due respect, with regards to same sex marriage, or whatever gay, I would suggest that 100% of the population (perhaps stretching the point by a few percentage points) knows that an overreaching desire for a person of the same sex is unnatural. A certain percentage of them may want to be ‘tolerant’ and bend over backwards to accommodate the gay lifestyle, but still know it is unnatural. Another percentage does not care one way or the other, and basically follow the ‘anything goes’ dictum. I suggest the larger percentage; simply refuse to be browbeaten by political correctness into accepting the gay lifestyle as a ‘natural alternative’ lifestyle, or whatever semantics is used to describe a gay relationship at the moment. These people simply are not willing to sit back and allow an extreme minority to dictate the change of an entire human ethical instinct simply to promote ‘equality’.

      Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am totally for ‘equal rights’, but that is within the present playing field, and this certainly will not equate to tilting the field to convey legitimacy onto unnatural same sex relationships as if, by some stretch, they are on the same moral plane as heterosexual relationships. Most see the demand for such marriage ‘rights’ as simply a way to achieve legitimacy in society for such unnatural unions and lifestyle.

      Personally I believe that such ‘rights’ as those enjoyed by married couples are conveyed by society, by and large, to encourage marriage and family. There are general rights though, that could easily be conveyed to same sex couples without a wholesale altering the concept of marriage as society, in general, sees it. Such legislation could easily be brought before the United States Congress, and likely most people would support it, but instead of such passage of legislation As Directed By The Constitution, gay rights activists are trying to sneak it through courts that no longer uphold the Constitution actually says but only what they construe it says at any given moment. However, no amount of ‘educating’, i.e., indoctrinating, is going to change society’s perception of man-man, woman-woman as opposed to man-woman. The last resort of calling someone a bigot is simply self-illuminating.

      Ken said: “Except I bet you only care that gays “keep it in private”, not straights. When you see a man and a woman walking down the street holding hands do you admonish them to “keep it in private”? When you see an office worker put up pictures of him/herself with his/her opposite gender partner/spouse do you admonish that person to “keep it in private’? Do you write letters to the editor of newspapers (any that still exist) with your disgust about how they announce couples entering into sexual relationships (i.e. the “Weddings announcements”)?”

      Ken said: “Why is it people only seem to want sexual orientation “kept in private” when it comes to gays, but not straights?”

      You win the bet. The antics of ‘un-straight’ couples in your ‘pride’ Mardi-Gras parades and even those ‘protesting’ outside Chick-fil-A, etc, french-kissing, tonguing , and basically slobbering all over themselves in public is anathema to any human sensibility. Yeah, “keep it in private” or get a blooming room! I am 59 and I have NEVER seen heterosexual couples in public doing the things homosexuals were doing in their Chick-fil-A ‘responses’.

      With regards to your office worker, I suspect you are becoming a little disingenuous; if an office worker wants to put up some photos of themselves and their partner, that’s perfectly acceptable as long as they are not photos showing the ‘couple’ in the throes of passion, etc, but things you expect to see in any ‘normal’ office workers work area. No I don’t write letters, and if some ‘wedding; announcement is published, more power to you, I don’t see it, nor read it. Same goes for holding hands in public, etc, go right ahead, but I’ve seen the proclivity of a lot of homosexuals to walk down the street with their hands firmly clasped upon each others butts to give some ‘separation’ between the traditional holding hands of heterosexual couples and the ‘In Your Face’ homosexual mentality.

      It’s almost as it homosexual couples needs Must draw attention to themselves with such antics, generally not considering that simply being a same sex couple draws enough attention in, and of, itself.

  9. ken says:

    Before i reply to ESDRAELON comment, I’d like to ask Byron if HE can see the inherent bias in ESDRAELON’s last reply.

    Then I’ll reply tomorrow.

    • Byron says:

      Quick answer: I see a certain amount of bias in everyone’s words, including my own. That said, I’ll let the two of you have at it!

  10. ken says:

    (once again I’m in “spammy” purgatory so this post as been broken in 2.

    ESDRAELON (via Byron)
    Tuesday August 14th 2012 at 4:59 am:

    “I would suggest that 100% of the population (perhaps stretching the point by a few percentage points) knows that an overreaching desire for a person of the same sex is unnatural.”

    If that were true (it isn’t) then nearly 100% of the population would be wrong. Homosexuality is natural (i.e. it occurs in nature). Further, according to most medical/psychological associations (in the US at least), it is a normal variation of human sexuality.

    “A certain percentage of them may want to be ‘tolerant’ and bend over backwards to accommodate the gay lifestyle”

    what is “the” gay lifestyle? do you seriously believe that every gay person lives his/her life in the same way?

    Not sure where you got your “percentage” information (but I suspect you just made it up). However, more recent polling shows a (slim) majority of americans support gay marriage. Polls have shown a fairly consistent increase over that last 15-20 years of more and more americans supporting gay marriage. Although, the majority supporting it has only shown up in the more recent (within the last couple of years) polls.

    “Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am totally for ‘equal rights’,”

    No, no, you are supposed to start with, “I’m for equal rights but..” then go into the homophobic diatribe.

  11. ken says:

    (part 2)
    ESDRAELON (via Byron)
    Tuesday August 14th 2012 at 4:59 am:

    “I am 59 and I have NEVER seen heterosexual couples in public doing the things homosexuals were doing in their Chick-fil-A ‘responses’. ”

    I have, and more. I’ve also seen it in movies, on TV, in internet videos. don’t believe me check out the documentary of the Woodstock festival: “Woodstock”

    And I suspect your “I’ve never seen heterosexual couples…” comment is more a matter of selective memory than a true statement.

    I believe your problem is that you can’t get past the “icky” sexual things that gay men do, to be able to see gays as human beings that are the same as straights, the only difference being who they are attracted to (both physically and emotionally).

  12. Esdraelon says:

    Caught in ‘spamyland’ again, so in limbo…………..

    • Byron says:

      Just email it to me…again. I looked yesterday for a way to “loosen up” the spam filter, but so far, I haven’t found it.

  13. Shane Ryans says:

    I do agree that this whole fiasco could have been handled better.

    • Byron says:

      Again from Esdraelon (this spam filter is getting OLD!):

      Ken said: “If that were true (it isn’t) then nearly 100% of the population would be wrong. Homosexuality is natural (i.e. it occurs in nature). Further, according to most medical/psychological associations (in the US at least), it is a normal variation of human sexuality.”

      LOL! Do you notice you’re ‘inherent bias?’ 🙂

      Yes, homosexuality occurs in nature, though the fact that it occurs in nature in no way makes it ‘natural’. It’s an aberration in nature as well as in humanity, moreover, the US medical/psychological associations bowed to homosexual and politically correct dogma to re-define what was once considered a mental illness.

      ‘the’ gay lifestyle? No, I don’t believe every homosexual lives their gay ‘lifestyle’ any more than normal people live the ‘same’, ‘normal’, lifestyle.

      Whatever movies you prefer, and most TV, Internet videos are nothing if not a caricature of reality, so such examples are baseless. The doped-up culture of Woodstock, ages ago, is another. The average person generally notices what is ‘normal’ and chooses not to notice what is not normal.

      “Not sure where you got your “percentage” information (but I suspect you just made it up). However, more recent polling shows a (slim) majority of Americans support gay marriage. Polls have shown a fairly consistent increase over that last 15-20 years of more and more Americans supporting gay marriage. Although, the majority supporting it has only shown up in the more recent (within the last couple of years) polls.”

      I don’t disagree with that, however, when put on the referendum to a states vote, such homosexual marriage bills fail dismally. Of course polls have shown a ‘fairly consistent’ increase, the only way they can go is up, The very polls in the states that overwhelmingly voted down homosexual marriage were stating that a ‘slim majority’ favored it just before the elections. Those qualify as famous last words. The courts may legislate it, and the legislatures may legislate it, but when American citizens themselves are called to vote on it, it crashes and it burns.

      Yes, homosexuals are human beings ‘same as straights’, the only difference is that they have an unnatural proclivity for the same sex physically and emotionally.

      That ‘sex’ thing, as well as, ‘if you’re against homosexuals you might be in the closet yourself” thing, is simply semantics attempting to force a desired conclusion and is basically a point which cannot make up its mind upon which side of absurdity it prefers to stand…

  14. ken says:

    Again from Esdraelon (via Byron
    Friday August 17th 2012 at 6:53 pm):

    “Do you notice you’re ‘inherent bias?’”

    Nope, perhaps you can be more specific (if it is in the paragraphs that follow however, don’t bother I’m about to address those comments).

    “homosexuality occurs in nature, though the fact that it occurs in nature in no way makes it ‘natural’.”

    the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature (homosexual behaviour has been observed in many different species), means it is natural: by definition. i.e.:

    (from the Oxford Dictionary)

    1 existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:

    “It’s an aberration in nature as well as in humanity”

    And you have determined this how?

  15. ken says:

    (reply continued):

    “, the US medical/psychological associations bowed to homosexual and politically correct dogma to re-define what was once considered a mental illness. ”

    Sound like you’ve been using NARTH as a source of your info on sexual orientation. Or more likely NARTH filtered through the likes of AFA or Focus on the Family etc. The reality is that the change was made because of the research into sexual orientation. Initially started by Dr. Evelyn Hooker in the late 50s and early 60s.

    “‘the’ gay lifestyle? No, I don’t believe every homosexual lives their gay ‘lifestyle’ ”

    then what did you mean by: “the gay lifestyle” ?

  16. ken says:

    (reply part 3 – and final I hope)

    “I don’t disagree with that, however, when put on the referendum to a states vote, such homosexual marriage bills fail dismally. ‘

    Not all of them. the 2006 Az vote failed. As I said, the tide is turning on gay marriage. While polls have there flaws so to votes, since not all of the population votes. Esp. younger people who are more likely to support gay marriage.

    “but when American citizens themselves are called to vote on it, it crashes and it burns.”

    And the same would have likely been true 60 years ago if inter-racial marriage was put to a vote as well.

    “‘if you’re against homosexuals you might be in the closet yourself” thing,”

    I never said nor implied that.

  17. Esdraelon says:

    Ken said: “(reply part 3-and final I hope)”

    Actually animals in nature can go out of their minds within their growth environment same as humans……..and of course, politically correct ‘studies’ generally have one means to an end….they start with a premise and interpret data to prove said premise….happens in all realms of ‘science’…especially the ‘psychology’s’…

    However, since it appears you are holding your breath in your hopes, I’ll grant your wish. 🙂

  18. Esdraelon says:

    I do agree with you, however, that young people are more likely to support same sex marriage.

    • Byron says:

      Parenthetical note to Ken and Esdraelon: it appears as though posting in shorter segments is the way to get past the spam filter. Ken seemed to learn that some time back; Esdraelon, being new, seems now to have confirmed it to be true, with these shorter segments. Wish it weren’t that way, fellas!

  19. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Saturday August 18th 2012 at 1:48 pm

    “.and of course, politically correct ‘studies’ generally have one means to an end ”

    Have you actually studied the science behind why sexual orientation was removed and found flaws (a warning don’t trust NARTH’s “re-interpretation” of the results), or are you just trying to knock something you don’t understand because it gaves results you didn’t like?

  20. Esdraelon says:

    Since you appear to want to keep the commentary going, here is as follows:

    For decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues letting sexual politics trump science and logic).. The APA has little credibility nowadays. It’s been compromised.

    (And there is evidence that the APA has been corrupted, not only by sexual politics, but by money. From “Who’s Behind the Bible of Mental Illness” by Kent Garber, which was in the Dec. 31, 2007/Jan. 7, 2008 issue of U.S. News & World Report (page 25): The “American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years producing a new edition of…The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders….[It] is hugely influential because it determines what is and is not a mental disorder….

  21. Esdraelon says:

    The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated with shyness, for example, became symptoms of ‘social anxiety disorder.’ And drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems. Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the drug industry.” We shouldn’t rely on this seriously compromised group to tell us what is and is not a disorder.)

  22. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Sunday August 19th 2012 at 1:04 pm

    “Since you appear to want to keep the commentary going, here is as follows: ”

    Apparently there is some confusion about my “hopefully final” comment. I just meant I had hoped I wouldn’t have to break my comment into 4 parts (instead of 3). It was not meant as in indication I wasn’t interested in continuing the discussion.

  23. Esdraelon says:

    Actually, I welcome the discussion, but really, having to split a post into three pieces is a bit tedious.

  24. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Sunday August 19th 2012 at 1:04 pm

    “For … (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues letting sexual politics trump science and logic).”

    And your evidence for your claim about why homosexuality was removed as a disorder is what? I hope it isn’t an article full of innuendo about drug company influence 20 years after the fact? Do you know anything at all about the research into sexual orientation that was presented to the review board in the late 60s/early 70s?

  25. ken says:

    (reply part 2)

    And there is evidence that the APA has been corrupted, not only by sexual politics, but by money. From “Who’s Behind the Bible of Mental Illness” by Kent Garber

    No, Garber doesn’t provide evidence, merely innuendo. What Garber doesn’t bother to mention in his article, is that while those psychiatrists did work with drug companies, they also worked with people suffering from mental illness. Specifically people for whom those medications may have helped, and thus would also be in a good position to report on whether there was or was not a separate category of mental illness. but rather than show any real evidence of corruption, he (and you) decide to just use innuendo rather than evidence to accomplish your goal (his in selling magazines yours in maligning an organization you don’t understand or like because they did something you didn’t like).

  26. ken says:

    (repost to test spam filter)

    ” a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues letting sexual politics trump science and logic).”

    And your evidence for your claim about why homosexuality was removed as a disorder is what? I hope it isn’t an article full of innuendo about drug company influence 20 years after the fact? Do you know anything at all about the research into sexual orientation that was presented to the review board in the late 60s/early 70s?

  27. Esdraelon says:

    The web is full of links relating to the matter, both pro and con. In the matter of global warming, for instance, the warming maniacs are screaming that the ‘science’ is ‘settled’ and there should be no dissension as to the contrary, however, it is not by any means ‘settled’ ‘science’. The same can be said for your ‘innuendo’, there may not be any glaring ‘evidence’, but the money trail is quite easy to follow.

  28. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Monday August 20th 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “The same can be said for your ‘innuendo’, there may not be any glaring ‘evidence’, but the money trail is quite easy to follow.”

    Really, can you demonstrate this money trail? Can you show that the science was flawed in some way? What you are doing is maligning an entire field because you don’t like what they have to say. I’ll admit I think too many psychiatrists rely too much on medication, but that doesn’t mean I’ll accuse them of being in someone’s pocket w/o proof.

    It is becoming quite clear you do not understand how the sciences (including the medical and psychiatric fields) advance knowledge. It certainly isn’t perfect, but it is a reliable and self-correcting method. So before you starting claiming it doesn’t work because of some example about where it may have failed (and there are, but I don’t believe this is one of them), perhaps you should educate yourself better on how it actually does work.

  29. Esdraelon says:

    Money trail? Anyone with common sense can follow such a trail and others more dedicated to the hunt have shown ‘proof’ of such, only to have such rejected out of hand. I know perfectly well where I stand and have no desire to do the research for someone else.

    The psychiatric field is NOT ‘science’, there is NOTHING in the field of psychiatry that is duplicable and falsifiable in relation to the human mind. One might be able to stretch a point and label it as pseudo-science, maybe even ‘junk’ science, but it is totally a matter of individual opinion which is exactly why there is still so many in the field of psychiatry who STILL decry the APA decision of 20 years ago.

    You have the last word. and thank you.

  30. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Monday August 20th 2012 at 9:48 pm

    “Money trail? Anyone with common sense can follow such a trail and others more dedicated to the hunt have shown ‘proof’ of such, only to have such rejected out of hand.”

    Maybe because your “proof” wasn’t any such thing. Again the only “proof” you gave was innuendo. No evidence of bribes or any other improper influence. Yes, drug companies fund research, and there may be undue influence, but suspicion is not proof. And none of this has anything to do with why homosexuality was removed from the DSM (or why it was there in the 1st place – another argument you haven’t bothered to consider).

    “The psychiatric field is NOT ‘science’, there is NOTHING in the field of psychiatry that is duplicable and falsifiable in relation to the human mind. ”

    While psychiatric experiments are not repeatable in the same way that other hard science experiments are (ex. chemistry or computer science etc) the same is true of medicine and many other fields. That, however, doesn’t mean it isn’t science. Science is the observation and study of nature. Experiments are controlled observations meant to help with that study. Your argumenta depict a lack of understanding of how knowledge and understanding of various fields (esp. psychology) advance. Instead you resort to heresy and innuendo to knock a group whose results you don’t like. Comments I suspect are originating from anti-gay christian groups like FRC or AFA etc.

  31. Esdraelon says:

    As you noted, Science is the “observation and study of nature”. I find it interesting that by that same criteria, creationism is NOT considered ‘science’. There is overwhelming and observable evidence in nature of the hand of God, yet, I suspect you rely on your science of astronomical, random ‘chance’ to supply truth to the fact that you live and breathe today. Since you have a supreme interest relative to the positive personal outcome of ‘sciences’ conclusions as per the ‘homosexual mentality’, That is your ‘inherent bias’, even if you have shown you are blind to the fact.

  32. ken says:

    Esdraelon
    Wednesday August 22nd 2012 at 11:34 am

    “I find it interesting that by that same criteria, creationism is NOT considered ‘science’”

    Creationism isn’t a science because it doesn’t follow the basic scientific principles. Creationist start with a premise that the bible is an absolute truth and anything that contradicts that is “wrong.” That isn’t science. While scientific theories do have a “belief” component (the hypothesis), if the observable facts contradict the hypothesis it is thrown out, altered or negated. Creationism refuses to do that, which is why it is not a science.

    “Since you have a supreme interest relative to the positive personal outcome of ‘sciences’ conclusions as per the ‘homosexual mentality’”

    I believe you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions here. What do you mean that I have a “positive personal outcome” wrt to whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not?

    “That is your ‘inherent bias’, even if you have shown you are blind to the fact.”

    I recognize I have a bias towards gay rights (and many other minority rights as well), but that bias doesn’t change the facts about research into sexual orientation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s