Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

y'know, I keep hearing cries to show that homosexual behavior is risky, and when data is provided to support this, why does the name-calling start?

please point to the data that shows that all "homosexual behavior" is risky thanks.

[Rían]

when you stop misquoting, and extrapolating from what people say to make something they never said, then I'll start talking

(otoh, you might never stop doing that! so I'll probably start talking sooner!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1996;105(3):440-445.

Are they aroused more than homosexuals or non-"homophobes" are? If they weren't aroused at all, I'd say it's a safe bet they were dead.

Interesting idea! I'd like to see the study. What's the control? I'd also like to see their def. of "homophobe". Certainly, IMO, a valid thing to look into.

[The Gaffer]

The control was "non-homophobic" heterosexuals. They were aroused less (according to "objective" measures of arousal - I think I don't have to spell out exactly what that was) than the homophobes. Interestingly, they self-reported more arousal, indicating an absence of denial.

The study was repeated elsewhere, can't remember where so can't find the reference. But it found the same result.

Far from conclusive but food for thought.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you really think that inked wants to "prove all homosexuals are disease infested sex crazed ignoramuses" ??

If so, please provide references

i really don't want to dig through all his posts... but will if i must

my issue is with his continued failure to distinguish between "homosexuals" and the act of "homosexual sex"

there is little doubt that unprotected anal intercourse is the most-likely to cause aids transmission, for the simple fact that blood contact is more likely... that said, the same is true with that kind of contact among heterosexuals

and protected sex, of any kind, is safer than unprotected

and lesbian interaction is safer than all of them

the point is that it is about how you practice sex, not what type of sex you practice... homosexual males have less room for error, so, even if they practiced unprotected sex to the same degree as heterosexuals, their transmission rates would be higher, since the unprotected ones would have a higher chance of transmitting... and if they are more likely to have multiple partners, etc., it gets worse

but there are homosexuals who practice safe sex and do not have multiple partners... so it is NOT the lifestyle... it is how it is practiced by some

this is where interpretation comes in

on the bigger issue... facts are not just about data, but what you choose to present... if there was a thread about catholicism, and every few weeks all i posted was "facts" about clergy abuse... people would probably (and rightly) accuse me of trying to discredit catholicism in general

no one could argue that the incidents were indeed "factual"... i've even seen studies online that say child abuse is more frequent among priests as a proportion of the general male population... but they could argue that by me constantly harping on only one aspect that i was skewing the picture

i don't judge a category of people by the "bad eggs", even if one can prove to me the the "bad eggs" are in fact a majority of the said population... and if i see someone else doing it, you can bet i will comment on it

that kind of categorizing clouds issues tremendously and takes the focus off the real issues at hand

[Insidious Rex]

Well posted.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well posted.

Agreed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The control was "non-homophobic" heterosexuals. They were aroused less (according to "objective" measures of arousal - I think I don't have to spell out exactly what that was) than the homophobes. Interestingly, they self-reported more arousal, indicating an absence of denial.

The study was repeated elsewhere, can't remember where so can't find the reference. But it found the same result.

Far from conclusive but food for thought.

Yes, very interesting! A good idea for a study. I think fear and hate often go together.

I would still like to see their definition of "homophobe" - do you have it anywhere?


(and a minor off-topic comment - sadly, I think if Inked posted a study with this date, there would be all sorts of comments along the lines of "is that all you have? That was almost 10 years ago! What about more recent studies? Sounds suspicious to me!" IOW, I often see an anti-data prejudice ("how can I discredit this without thinking about it?") by some people on your "side", Gaffer, which should make one think...)

[The Gaffer]

Glad you agree. We are all capable of prejudice and we should be reflective about it. In the study, it was a questionnaire-based instrument that they used to categorise people as homophobic or not; don't know the detailed content though.

I see what you are saying, and it's true that some people on "my" side have that prejudice, as do some people on "yours", or "anyone else's".

However, when I read the considered responses of people like brownjenkins and Insidious Rex, what I see are people who can accept the data on face value but question the interpretation. No-one argues that gays aren't a high risk group for HIV!

What we do object to is this data being misrepresented, selectively quoted or used to "support" irrelevant arguments, such as gays are inherently diseased and therefore "gay is wrong". Afro-Caribbean men have a higher risk of prostate cancer compared with white men, but that doesn't mean they are "wrong". We should study these things, monitor them and do what we can to help people to lead a healthy lifestyle (which many gays do, including close friends of mine) but as soon as we start judging them we are treading a path towards fascism.

[Nurvingiel]

I haven't made any comments about Gaffer's study.

But what you said about homosexual sex etc. Brownie... I've been trying to phrase that issue, but you really said it well. Bang on.

[Andúril]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Bang on.

*snigger*

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The control was "non-homophobic" heterosexuals. They were aroused less (according to "objective" measures of arousal - I think I don't have to spell out exactly what that was) than the homophobes. Interestingly, they self-reported more arousal, indicating an absence of denial.

Maybe the "homophobes" were excited by the fact that homosexuality is a bit off the limit for them. What is forbidden and the fear that they can be caught being aroused are two things that might be highly arousing

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Health issues! ..... Again!

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1


Data, too!

Well, you know, it is on the Family Research Council page. I am not even going to read it.
We all know that the "research" of the Family Research Council is homophobically motivated.
There has been tons of discriminatorially motivated "research" against Jews, Blacks... (and there still is) that does not mean that I have to waste my precious time reading it

[Rían]

good thought, Jonathan - it's nice to see some openminded thinking on this subject. I think both yours and Gaffer's interpretations are reasonable ones to consider.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Well, you know, it is on the Family Research Council page. I am not even going to read it.
We all know that the "research" is of Family Research Council is homophobically motivated.
There has been tons of discriminatorially motivated "research" against Jews, Blacks... (and there still is) that does not mean that I have to waste my precious time reading it

WORD!!!!!!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

good thought, Jonathan - it's nice to see some openminded thinking on this subject. I think both yours and Gaffer's interpretations are reasonable ones to consider.

Nurvingiel, however, was completely out to lunch.

[inked]

And TWFM and BJ and IR and Nerdanel are all open-minded people who would *never* be guilty of prejudice, too!

And, BJ, cow manure can also be a food group..........if you are a fungus!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

everyone's favourite is back (ahem, me, obviously) - what's new on the moot glb scene?

[Insidious Rex]

same old same old as you can clearly see

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

everyone's favourite is back (ahem, me, obviously) - what's new on the moot glb scene?

AAAHHHHHHH! Welcom back