Would you support Rainbow on Hockey Unis for Sochi?

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That's one old ass study. I'd be shocked if the percentage of straight men reporting being sexually abused is higher since that 2001 study. 7% of heterosexual men reported being molested. Sadly that number is probably much higher.

"Discrediting study. Speculation. Using fact from previously discredited study. Speculation"

Speculation in response to a study. Great.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by strombad

Just as an aside while you folks debate individual posters instead of the actual discussion (here's lookin at you WilderPegasus!), I wanted to point out something interesting.

Pointman harped endlessly about how this fine was "only" 150 dollars (157 Canadian to be exact). Which is fine and dandy, until you consider this:
Canadian minimum wage (we'll call it the average): 10.25/h (CAD)
Russia minimum wage: 0.94/h (CAD)

Meaning, if you make minimum wage or near it AND working 40 hours a week, you are making 150.40 (CAD) a month in Russia, compared to 1640.00 in Canada.

It's not definitive or overly telling, I just thought it was worth pointing out so that Pointman's casual insistence on "150" was taken in a different light, as unlike in Canada, there is a very large stretch between those making a little and those making a lot in Russia. All told, the average monthly wages are similar, but this law could have a detrimental financial effect on some people there.

Even someone earning the average monthly wage in Russia would be significantly impacted by a $150 fine.

The average monthly wage in Russia is $841, in Canada the average monthly wage is around $4000 (I saw a few different numbers but that seems to be pretty near the standard), making this the equivalent of a $720 fine in Canada. Certainly there are adjustments that would need to be made for tax rates etc., and not everyone would be equally impacted, but that gets you in the ballpark of just how onerous this fine could be.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage

http://www.workopolis.com/content/ad...ges-right-now/

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by korzym12

"Discrediting study. Speculation. Using fact from previously discredited study. Speculation"

Speculation in response to a study. Great.

At least he didn't ignore your post like everyone else. Right?

It isn't a very exciting study. The conclusion of the abstract is "Suggestions for future research were offered.". Hurray.

What exactly were you hoping to prove by bringing this study forward? That being gay is a result of molestation 44% of the time? And 64% of the time it is a result of magic?

meh.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by Wolven

At least he didn't ignore your post like everyone else. Right?

It isn't a very exciting study. The conclusion of the abstract is "Suggestions for future research were offered.". Hurray.

What exactly were you hoping to prove by bringing this study forward? That being gay is a result of molestation 44% of the time? And 64% of the time it is a result of magic?

meh.

The study confirmed that relationship.

Even if people claim that they're "born with it"....what about serial killers that are "born with it", it's ok for the first group to engage in sexual sins - while the other group actually isn't "normal and beautiful the way they were born"? I feel both groups are a harm to a society. Gays have elevated levels of STDs, while serial killers..well that's an obvious one.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by korzym12

The study confirmed that relationship.

Even if people claim that they're "born with it"....what about serial killers that are "born with it", it's ok for the first group to engage in sexual sins - while the other group actually isn't "normal and beautiful the way they were born"?

I mean, I know you're a bigot, but do still not see the problem with comparing gay people to serial killers?

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, I know you're a bigot, but do still not see the problem with comparing gay people to serial killers?

Both are born with tendencies. The comparison is completely valid. The excuse that they're born with a tendency doesn't make it moral to engage in sexual sins.

So what name could I call you now? I really don't care.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by korzym12

The study confirmed that relationship.

Even if people claim that they're "born with it"....what about serial killers that are "born with it", it's ok for the first group to engage in sexual sins - while the other group actually isn't "normal and beautiful the way they were born"? I feel both groups are a harm to a society. Gays have elevated levels of STDs, while serial killers..well that's an obvious one.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html


An article discussing the error in classifying pedophiles as homosexual or heterosexual. It states many pedophiles are neither, since they are not capable of maintaining a mature adult intimate relationship with either sex. I tend to agree with this thinking, as it is my limited understanding that pedophilia is more about the feeling of power and control over someone than the sexual release.

I would also speculate that a heterosexual male is a lot less likely to admit to being molested as a child, and that would skew the results, especially in the time your study was conducted.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Both are born with tendencies. The comparison is completely valid. The excuse that they're born with a tendency doesn't make it moral to engage in sexual sins.

So what name could I call you now? I really don't care.

But do you not see how the comparison makes you completely ridiculous? You're basically doing mental gymnastics to equate homosexuality with murder.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with those kind of comments?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by korzym12

The study confirmed that relationship.

Even if people claim that they're "born with it"....what about serial killers that are "born with it", it's ok for the first group to engage in sexual sins - while the other group actually isn't "normal and beautiful the way they were born"? I feel both groups are a harm to a society. Gays have elevated levels of STDs, while serial killers..well that's an obvious one.

That is a moronic statement. Trying to invent a connection between Gays, STDs and serial killers is absurd.

Furthermore, the study didn't confirm anything. The abstract suggests that there is a larger number of homosexual people being molested than heterosexual people. It doesn't provide any form of conclusion to go with those numbers.

- It could suggest that Heterosexual males are simply not reporting being molested (which is supported by many stories, such as the Graham James one).
- It could suggest that these people were molested because they were homosexual.
- It is also likely that this study is suggesting that people are gay because God made them that way.

Unfortunately, I am not willing to pay the extra money to see if they actually spit out any real conclusions but I highly doubt that the study provides the "fact" that you are trying to invent. Besides, if I felt motivated I am sure I can google a number of gender relations studies that say pretty much the opposite of this one anyway.

For me, I think closed minded bigots that speak from a position of fear and hate are a much bigger threat to society than the LGTB community. I bet there is a study out there with an analysis of why Gays have "elevated levels of STDs" and the conclusion is that closed minded bigots force gays to live a life of secrecy that causes them to have increased risks that they would not have if they could just live a normal open life free of hate and persecution.

Ranking closed minded bigots against serial killers is debatable.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Both are born with tendencies. The comparison is completely valid. The excuse that they're born with a tendency doesn't make it moral to engage in sexual sins.

So what name could I call you now? I really don't care.

We're you born a bigot or was that taught to you?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

However, to make a good point, a valid and strong point, you have to debilitate the defendable aspects on the other side of the argument. One defendable aspect: cheap fine! How do you debilitate it? Point out how relatively expensive it actually is

I guess my point is that the proper response to "one defendable aspect: cheap fine!" is "the cheapness of the fine is immaterial". One of the major problems with arguments on social issues is attempts by one of the participants to bog the discussion down in details that skirt the heart of the issue.

your argument isn't going to catch much ground with the "other" side. Just a heads up.

We appear to have different goals. I don't particularly expect that any "other" side represented in this thread is likely to be swayed. If they are, and the basis for that change of heart is "oh, well I thought this law was fine but now that I see it imposes financial hardship that crosses the line that exists in my mind with respect to what is an acceptable amount to fine someone for telling people that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable thing, I'm now opposed", the point has been missed and they haven't altered their views in any meaningful way.

Incidentally my post was intended to echo yours with an addendum, rather than contradict it, so this is probably not a very important point of contention.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html


An article discussing the error in classifying pedophiles as homosexual or heterosexual. It states many pedophiles are neither, since they are not capable of maintaining a mature adult intimate relationship with either sex. I tend to agree with this thinking, as it is my limited understanding that pedophilia is more about the feeling of power and control over someone than the sexual release.

I would also speculate that a heterosexual male is a lot less likely to admit to being molested as a child, and that would skew the results, especially in the time your study was conducted.

There are also some pretty serious issues with that study to begin with. It was non-clinical (the sample of homosexual respondents was gotten by setting up a booth at a gay pride parade and handing out questionnaires) and there are huge issues with the collection of data.

Probably the biggest issue is that the questionnaire said nothing about molestation, but rather "sexual contact" with someone 5 years or older than the respondent up to the age of 16. So a 21 year old and a 16 year old having "sexual contact" (which could mean just about anything) would count as molestation in the study.

And when you combine the number of people in the study who had already identified as homosexuals prior to the sexual contact (nearly 70%) with the fact that most people begin to recognize same sex attraction in their early teen years, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the "molestation" was teenagers having sexual contact with young adults. That doesn't mean it's OK, but lumping in a 6 year being molested with a 16 year old kissing a 21 year old makes little sense.

Given all that, the following statement isn't particularly surprising:

Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that homosexual teenagers are more likely to have sexual contact with an older person of the same sex at a higher rate than heterosexual ones are.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by korzym12

"Discrediting study. Speculation. Using fact from previously discredited study. Speculation"

Speculation in response to a study. Great.

Well, it's hard to comment on a study that's hiding behind a paywall. However, I will say that perhaps you have cause and effect backwards, i.e. it's entirely plausible (having not paid money to actually read the study) that gay youth are more vulnerable to sexual predators, perhaps even because of laws like the one you're defending, and that's why they report higher molestation rates.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Which solution?

The ultimate resolution that we would hope for is for Russia to reform its ways and correct its stance on all human rights issues. They could even become a world leader in human rights and start setting the example for the rest of us to follow.

The best way to get to this resolution isn't a "black or white" option, the issue is that Russia will not take the best path to get to the desired goal as they are currently taking steps that move them in the wrong direction. Hopefully having the spotlight pointed directly at them will give them pause and help them start moving in the right direction again.

the thing about solutions is finding the right way to get there.

You can't just say "I want this outcome" and poof have it come true. The grey area lies in finding the right way to that outcome.

You can say they need to change the lay, but until you change the thinking behind the law it really won't change a whole lot. If fact if the majority is so against the law, I fear that the vigilantism could get worse if they feel that the law is just.

[polak]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Both are born with tendencies. The comparison is completely valid. The excuse that they're born with a tendency doesn't make it moral to engage in sexual sins.

So what name could I call you now? I really don't care.

You're a bad person.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

the thing about solutions is finding the right way to get there.

You can't just say "I want this outcome" and poof have it come true. The grey area lies in finding the right way to that outcome.

You can say they need to change the lay, but until you change the thinking behind the law it really won't change a whole lot. If fact if the majority is so against the law, I fear that the vigilantism could get worse if they feel that the law is just.

The way you talk, it still sounds like this is some abstract and alien concept where you are still trying to figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg. Do you change the law (chicken) or do you change the way of thinking attached to the law (egg)?

The answer is you do both because it doesn't matter which came first, what matters is that the two are linked. Eliminating the law will change the way people think. Just like how creating the law changed how people think.

You are worried that there will be more vigilante attacks if the law is removed but the reality is that the number of attacks already went up when the law was created. People felt validated that their hate was supported by the government and by the police and thus they could get away with displaying their hate more openly.

A logical person would conclude that removing the law would see the number of attacks go down and return to where they were before the law was created...

Truthfully though, Russia will need to go way beyond revoking one law to fix the overal issues of prejudice and hate. All that really does is revert the backwards step that they took earlier this year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Both are born with tendencies. The comparison is completely valid. The excuse that they're born with a tendency doesn't make it moral to engage in sexual sins.

So what name could I call you now? I really don't care.

So who gets to decide what a 'sexual sin' is? Do you? Do I? (my guess is you're going to say the bible - good luck with that one)

Tendencies to sexual orientation are nothing like a predisposition towards serial killing.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So who gets to decide what a 'sexual sin' is? Do you? Do I? (my guess is you're going to say the bible - good luck with that one)

Tendencies to sexual orientation are nothing like a predisposition towards serial killing.

If we're going to go down the road of "the bible says _____ is a sin" then oh lordy, am I going to enjoy pointing out all the ridiculous things the bible says.

[Poe969]

If we go by what the Bible says, I'm in trouble!

And no, I wouldn't support a rainbow on the Canadian jerseys.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by strombad

If we're going to go down the road of "the bible says _____ is a sin" then oh lordy, am I going to enjoy pointing out all the ridiculous things the bible says.

On the contrary, I find it arrogant and ignorant for you to come out and act as an expert on the Bible, much less all the unknown facts about all creation.

But this is not a surprise. I said that this community has no tolerance for Catholics, yet they demand Catholics be tolerant towards them. I'm not dealing with logical people here.