Dear Janet E. Smith, I appreciate your reply, and I do hope that you or whoever is moderating this discussion will courteously permit me to respond to your reply.
You wrote, “There are some truths in Pace’s comments but little logic.” In charity, I read your statement as you saying that you find some truths in your interpretation of my comments but your interpretation is apparently faulty because you struggle with making full sense of your interpretation. You are speaking of your interpretation, your logic. It is good if your interpretation has some truth to it, because there is much truth to be found in a proper reading of what I have posted, but you may need to work more on making sense of it. I am here to help.
You wrote, “Pace is an expert at using the ‘false dilemma fallacy.’ This fallacy proceeds by asserting that if Y is true, X can’t be true. But the fact is, both Y and X can be true. It is no refutation of X to prove Y… The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning. Since Pace’s reasoning is driven by the false dilemma fallacy, Pace has difficulty assessing the strength of statements.”
Perhaps we are simply are not speaking the same language. I recognize that you are actually talking your interpretation, as faulty as it may be, of what you think I’ve said. For example, your notion about “if Y is true, X can’t be true” may be your notion of what you think I’ve said, but it is not what I’ve said. But since you have brought it up, I will point out that what you assert to be a fallacy can in fact be true, when, for example, X is “not Y”, for if Y is true, as the premise requires, then X which is “not Y” is not true, and can’t be true, as long as the premise holds. And thus, even what you profess to be a fallacy may not be a fallacy when more fully appreciated. If you were perhaps a tad brighter and/or humble, you might not make many of the mistakes that you make.
You wrote, “Clarify with your teenager that when a person says ‘many’ do X, that clearly suggest that others, perhaps even many, also do not. It is not a refutation of the claim that many do X to say that many do not.”
You needed to clarify your post, and it is good that you’ve made at least some minor attempt in that regard, especially since it was you who specifically spoke of the need for “sensitivity and clarity” in communication. My post to you was to point that out. You erred in your interpretation if you thought I was saying your “many” claims were all false. Rather, as I expressly said, “many” is vague, and the value of your “many” claims is questionable because “many” people, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual or whatever, do all sorts of things, including eating brussels sprouts. And so, “many” readers might glean from your airing of “many” dirty laundry items that parents are to tell their teens “bad” things about homosexual persons and not things like they eat brussels sprouts or “we” and our laundry are no better. In that light, it is not much of a “clarification” for you to subsequently post, “Clarify with your teenager that when a person says ‘many’ do X, that clearly suggest that others, perhaps even many, also do not.” Indeed, an astute reader may notice that your so-called clarification only alleges the “perhaps” in respect to those who do not, and that it is only a “suggestion”, perhaps implied rather than clear, and not an express statement. What’s more, it inserts the word “even”, which may be read as “in an extreme case or unlikely instance”. It thus leaves as an expressed “fact” that “many” of “them” do whatever, but only leaves it as a suggestion by implication that “perhaps” in an extreme many do not, and it continues to omit that “our” laundry is no better than “theirs”.
Your next “clarification” states, “Have them consider all the implications of the following claims: it is true that many who drink and drive get into accidents, but it is also true that many who drink and drive do not get in accidents.” In that, there is no express recognition that there are any, much less many, who do not drink and drive (no recognition that any, much less many, are abstinent), and by using a deliberate act of drinking, it makes their intoxication appear to be their own fault, which may be valid in terms of drinking but it is not valid in regard to sexual orientation. Similarly, your statement, “more accidents are caused by those who are not drunk than those who are” may be read as implying that those who practice abstinence are a bigger problem than those who do not. You then say, “We would nonetheless counsel everyone not to drink and drive”, but your original post didn’t counsel everyone; you only “counseled” ABOUT homosexual persons and that is and was your apparent intent. Your subsequent side dressing about heterosexual persons and “everyone” remains some sort of bandaid you’ve attempted to cover your wound.
You wrote, “To claim that heterosexuals behave the same way as homosexuals does not succeed in justifying homosexual activity. Pace thinks it a refutation of the claim that ‘homosexuals are wrong to do X’ to say ‘heterosexuals do X too’.”
Again, you apparently have trouble distinguishing between what you think and what I think. I don’t think or claim or try to claim that by “heterosexuals” doing something, whether that something is good or bad, that it “justifies” homosexual acts. Do you really think such absurd notions? It’s not charitable of you to think such a thing of me or of what I’ve posted. Don’t attach the name “Pace” to the nonsense you think I’ve said. Put your name on it. It is yours. The same goes with your repeated “fallacy” accusations. Though you talk of logical fallacies, you don’t realize that it is you who are making them. Why is that? Try to read with a pure and humble heart. Consider that you what you really know may be much, much less than what you think you know. As I said, I’m here to help.
You wrote, “Much of heterosexual sexual conduct is very bad and is, in fact, as I said, the reason why so many heterosexuals refuse to address honestly the morality of homosexual sexual behavior.” You not only call an opinion “fact”, but by alleging that it is “the” reason, you not only don’t admit any other reasons but also implicitly deny any other reasons. Surely, someone who sits in a “Chair” can recognize other reasons? You say, “those heterosexuals who are engaging in immoral sexual behavior are willing to be tolerant of homosexual sexual behavior because they do not want to subject their own behavior to moral analysis.” That might be so for some, but there are also “so many heterosexuals” who seemingly obsess over the IMmorality of homosexual sexual behavior while giving but a passing glance to everything else. Perhaps many of them do that “because they do not want to subject their own behavior to moral analysis.” So too, there may be “so many heterosexuals” who might have “subjected their own behavior to moral analysis”, but perhaps did so erroneously, whether innocently or not, and who might think their preaching passes the sniff test. And then there are “so many heterosexuals” who are perhaps aware of the incessant preaching about homosexuality that exists just about everywhere, and who do not choose to join in or to act in ways that would even give the appearance of being a party to that, perhaps recognizing that too much of something is not always a good thing. For some, it may be that they don’t have the “gift” of talking about such things in a way that helps more than hurts. Many others may recognize that the “immoral sexual behavior” of others is by and large respectfully not under their control. Even if some had the power to stop the behavior of others, some might read Romans 1 and ask themselves, did God “refuse to address honestly” the situation when he himself handed the people over to do as they pleased? Or they might look to the story of the adulteress, where the judgmental people, after they had “subjected their own behavior to moral analysis”, did not continue with their judgmental acts but left the woman alone with Jesus, who told her simply, and in private, “Go and sin no more.” Perhaps “many” are willing to leave “them” alone, to the privacy of one’s conscience, where one “is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” After all, there is the teaching, “Do unto others as you’d have done unto you.” And Jesus said, “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” There could be many reasons.
Speaking of passing glances, you wrote, “It is undeniable that most heterosexuals have engaged in at least one of the following immoral activities: masturbation, contraception, fornication, abortion, and use of pornography.” Let’s not forget adultery, prostitution, rape, incest, and also sexual acts with the same gender. And those are just sexual sins. Perhaps you can identify some more.
You wrote, “Not tiring of committing the false dilemma fallacy, Pace claims that perception of neglect by one’s father cannot be a cause of SSA since many of those who experience SSA were not neglected by their fathers.”
Apparently, you do not tire of false accusations. I did not claim that anything “cannot be a cause of SSA”, including even “perception of neglect by one’s father”. As little as we know, even birds tweeting might be “a cause of SSA” for someone, as meaning possibly a factor in the equation. Indeed, everything in the universe might be, even your postings. Or maybe even tiny dancing devils that we can’t see or immodest dress by the opposite sex might be “a cause of SSA” for someone. But that does not scientifically establish that it is in fact a significant factor or “cause” for anyone. Claims of “perception of neglect by one’s father” are stories told by someone later in life, which are related by the person in his/her current condition at the time he speaks. Thus, if we’re talking about a gay man, he would be recounting his past through, so to speak, “SSA” glasses or whatever brought him to see the therapist. He may be seeing a therapist because he has a mental issue which distorts his perceptions of the past, or because of religious teachings, family pressures, misguided feelings of guilt over experiencing the attractions, etc. All those things may affect his recollections. There is no proof that his “SSA” glasses are “caused” by his “perception of neglect by one’s father” rather than the opposite: his perception of the past being caused by the fact he’s seeing through “SSA” glasses, i.e. caused by his having SSA. And as I mentioned, his alleged perception of the past may also be caused by leading questions asked by a therapist with an agenda, or from simply wanting to agree with what the therapist suggests. Or his perception could be caused by something he’s read or something someone else told him. And, his father might actually have rejected him BECAUSE his son was already gay, and thus the rejection/neglect by his father did not cause him to be gay for he already was gay. Likewise, he may have even perceived neglect by his father both when he speaks to the therapist and even when he was a child BECAUSE he may have been made sensitive to it BECAUSE he was already gay.
And thus, even if “many” patients of therapists who promote your theories report such perceptions, it in no way establishes a “cause” of any kind whatsoever. Rather, it could help to establish a correlation between stories told by their patients (and/or by the therapists) and the alleged “SSA”, or with the particular therapy itself. Correlation is not causation and does not establish causation. They are not the same thing. That A and B may be correlated does not establish that A causes B any more than it would establish that B causes A, or that that something else C causes A and B.
Again, the American Academy of Pediatrics has expressly stated, “There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.” Likewise, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that, “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation.” So too, the American Psychiatric Association has stated, “Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.”
You wrote, “Many women who were raped distrust males for the rest of their lives. Other women who are distrustful of males were not raped. That does not falsify the truth that rape is a identifiable cause of some women being distrustful of males.”
Well, many women who got a short haircut are “lesbians” for the rest of their lives. Other women who are “lesbians” did not get a short haircut. Do you thus believe that, “That does not falsify THE TRUTH that getting a short haircut IS an identifiable CAUSE of some women being lesbian”? If so, when did it become “THE TRUTH”? When did it become a “cause”?
That X might “many” times precede Y does not establish X as a cause of Y. If “many women who were raped distrust males for the rest of their lives”, that doesn’t establish that rape per se is a cause of some women being distrustful of males. You claim something to be “the truth” but it is not proven to be “the truth”. It is an opinion, and you opine that it is “the truth”. Perhaps you might appreciate it if someone said, “That does not falsify the truth that you are going to hell.” It is not established to be “the truth” that you are going to hell. It might be that person’s opinion, perhaps after talking with you, and there might be as much evidence for it as there may be for rape being a cause of distrust, but it is not established to be “the truth”.
Yet another unproven leap would be to claim rape or distrust of males a cause of lesbian sexual orientation. Rape could indeed be a factor in why a woman might be distrustful of males, it might even be a cause of distrust of males, but distrust of males is not the same as a lesbian sexual orientation, and thus it does not establish rape or distrust of males as a cause of a lesbian sexual orientation. If her sexual orientation were bisexual, distrust of males might, for example, be a factor in why she might choose to engage in lesbian acts rather than heterosexual acts, if that were the case, but it does not establish that rape or distrust of males caused her sexual orientation. Again, one should not confuse correlation with causation. Even if many women who engage in lesbian acts report distrust of males, even if there were a correlation between reported distrust of males and lesbianism, it does establish that distrust of males is a cause of a lesbian sexual orientation.
You wrote, “The claims I make about the causes of homosexuality and the elements and consequences of the gay lifestyle are well substantiated”. It’s “well substantiated” that many lesbian women have short haircuts. That doesn’t mean it’s “well substantiated” to be a cause of lesbianism. And that goes for your and the CMA’s “causes of homosexuality”. It’s fanciful talk based on unproven theories “well substantiated” by poor research. You cited biased “sources” such as NARTH who are in the business of profiting from pushing the unproven theories, and you cited religious extremist political organizations like the FRC. It’s a biased, incestuous pool to which you invite people to drink. Relying on such sources may well be demonstrative of what the Catechism means by “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.’”
You wrote, “As for the number of sexual partners and the likelihood of fidelity, I used articles published in professional journals. Pace’s quarrel is with them, not me.”
No, it’s your quarrel with the truth and with yourself. You accepted what a biased, disreputable source handed you and then you spread it like an STD. You said, “it’s with them, not me”. Are you trying out for the role of Eve? It is YOU who has publicly claimed that your numbers represented “the average homosexual male”, and it is YOU who neglected to even cite your lame source. Now that you have cited it (the disreputable Family Research Council), it is precisely as I have said: The reality is that studies used which might cite such figures were based not on “the average homosexual male” but instead on convenience samples taken at STD clinics, “bath houses”, prisons and other urban locations where the select clientele is heavily biased toward promiscuity (or tall tales).
For example, your source (the Family Research Council) for your “average homosexual male” claim cites Paul Van de Ven’s study, but what your source doesn’t tell you is that his volunteers were recruited from “gay brothels, sex shops, beats, saunas”, “pornography outlets”, in a limited location, etc. and that he deliberately excluded everyone who wasn’t sexually active. Similarly, your source also used a “a survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre”, a NYC gay rag catering to clubbers, circuit partiers, etc. Need I say more? Likewise, your source also used a survey of exclusively very young (under age 30 only), sexually active (persons who were monogamous or very few partners were expressly excluded) gay men in Amsterdam that was deliberately weighted with HIV/AIDS patients. So too, your source used the Bell & Weinberg study which yet again recruited more sexually active people from bathhouses, sex clubs, bars, etc. That’s it. They are all limited convenience samples of sexually active sub-populations, with no attempt to be representative of “the average homosexual male”. Why didn’t you or your source make mention of that significant detail? Why didn’t you or your source choose studies that did not rely on convenience samples of promiscuous gay men? Take a guess. Your source told you it was “the average male homosexual” and you not only believed it but spread it as fact? How irresponsible of YOU.
You wrote, “Professional journals show a high degree of fidelity among married heterosexuals and marital infidelity that does happen is with a much smaller group of partners than among homosexuals.” Here you engage again in the fallacy of comparing apples and oranges. Not only are you comparing married persons to unmarried persons, but also comparing the behavior of culturally supported persons with the behavior of a despised minority. And you are doing it with biased numbers from your disreputable sources to boot.
Sometimes NARTH, FRC or CMA may cite peer-reviewed medical journals, and yes, those are “professional journals”, but the NARTH website, the FRC website and CMA pamphlets are not peer-reviewed professional scientific publications. Even when reading the peer-reviewed medical journals themselves, one needs to remain mindful that the studies in them are generally not attempting to study “the average homosexual person” but are interested in measuring effectiveness of condoms, anti-retroviral medications, improving therapeutic responses for people with mental disorders, etc. among particular at-risk groups and therefore the researchers may deliberately seek sub-populations where they can measure what they’re looking for. They will often note in the study paper their methods and that it is not representative of homosexual persons (or whoever) at large, but groups like the FRC don’t respect that. And you join with that disrespect for the truth by posting their propaganda as if it were the truth.
You wrote, “Nothing Pace says falsifies the claim that if sexually active gays hope in any way to simulate normal sexual intercourse, they must engage in degrading and implausible acts.” That is the first time you made that claim. What you claimed in your previous post was that “lesbians must use artificial devices and males must violate bodily parts”, which is false, even if they’re sexually active, and that is what I said.
You wrote, “As far as the increase incidence of anal cancer among male heterosexuals, that data also can easily be accessed”, but the article you cited neither pertains to “male heterosexuals” nor does it provide data on the “increase” incidence. The article mentions a particular physician by name and says “he’s been screening and treating gay men for anal cancer for several years and has found that 2.5% of these men have the disease”, but what the article doesn’t tell you is that he is a specialist who treats anal/rectal disorders and his gay patients are likely AIDS patients, and are NOT representative either of AIDS patients in general or of gay men in general. The article says that “the number of cases of anal cancer is rising in gay men”, which is of course not only related to AIDS but also due to the fact that screenings of gay men are increasing. And thus it may be more properly said that the number of detected cases is rising in gay men, most particularly those with AIDS, and the same can be said of heterosexual persons too. I will remind that you previously claimed a “huge incidence of anal cancer”. And I will remind that anal cancer is relatively rare, including among homosexual men. That we may find it more commonly in AIDS patients does not change that. It remains that the available data is scarce, vague, unreliable, and often confounded with other factors such as drug use, AIDS, HPV, etc. Your citation demonstrates exactly what I’ve said. There is NO proof that any act of homosexuality per se causes anal cancer, nor do most educated persons believe that any act of homosexuality per se causes anal cancer.
You wrote, “If one wanted to find priests who are sexual abusers, a good place to look would be Gay Pride parades since most (80%) of the sexual abuse committed by priests was with males.” According to the data, all the incidents to which I presume you’re referring were all with underage persons, and two-thirds of whom were of the “age 13 and under” variety which is within the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing. Thus, you might want to look elsewhere for such priests as there might not be many children at a gay pride parade to interest him. Perhaps you might try a Rapist Pride Parade instead. But perhaps the best place to “find priests who are sexual abusers” would be to look in the church. There’s perhaps a far higher percentage of such persons to be found there than at anywhere else short of a parade of priests.
You wrote, “I think it undeniable that Gay Pride parades reveal something true about the gay lifestyle”. I refer you to my comments to Dan about “gay lifestyle”, if the moderator kindly publishes them. In addition, such comments as yours can also be said of the “heterosexual lifestyle”, “priest lifestyle”, etc. and it would be just as deficient.
You asked, “I am sure that there are homosexuals who are repulsed by the antics displayed at Gay Pride parades, but do any of them protest these parades like some heterosexuals protest the sexual immorality in the media?” Most behavior at the parades is rather boring and doesn’t get talked about or need to be objected to. And there is no need to object to the “parades” when objecting to objectionable behavior itself will suffice, but yes, there are many who object to the parades and/or objectionable behavior of some participants. You say, “I haven’t seen it”, but you perhaps have and either didn’t recognize it for what it was (just like you don’t recognize every homosexual person with whom you speak), didn’t take note of it, or you don’t choose to recall it.
You wrote, “while Pace’s claims about all of us having difficulty with some kinds of relationships are true, it is also undeniable that some experiences and conditions make relationships more difficult. Homosexuality is one of those experiences. (False dilemma fallacy alert!)”
That’s your opinion, and thank you for reminding us of your fallacies, for while your opinion might be undeniable to you, it’s not to other people. Other people have shared other opinions. I respect each person’s opinion as his/her own. I also respect that Psalm 119:71 says, “It was good for me that I was afflicted”. And I respect that Dan said, “I thank God I live with SSA, since it reveals to me like nothing else ever has or could that I can do no good without Christ who strengthens me.” Many people have shared with me that it’s something to give thanks for. That said, I wonder what condition it is that you might suffer from that makes you unable to appreciate that you have erred in your relationship with me and all readers of your posts? Hopefully, your condition is temporary, and you may apologize for your false accusations and make public amends for your public wrongdoing, whether on this forum or elsewhere as life may lead you. In replying to your mess, I’ve already done much of the cleanup for you. I do hope you appreciate it, if not now, later.
You wrote, “Studies show that children raised by single parents and divorced parents have a higher incidence of divorce when they marry… the fact is that being raised by single or divorced parents contributes to one’s likelihood of getting divorced”. It might contribute to it (for some people), but that does not establish it as necessarily a “cause” for anyone. As to likelihood, statistics pertaining to groups do not establish the likelihood with respect to any selected real person, only for an imaginary random person yet to be selected from the past research cohort used in the particular study. And so, scientifically and statistically, rather than being a “fact” as to the “likelihood of getting divorced”, it is a speculation. It could be that for some persons it contributes to those persons getting divorced, or it could contribute to those persons NOT getting divorced, or it could be that it doesn’t change things one iota, etc. No one can say for sure. We cannot even say with certainty what is likely. It is speculation.
You talk of the difficulties “many” (but not all) homosexuals have with relationships, but there is no scientific proof that the difficulties (other than, for example, to enjoy sexual intimacy with the opposite sex, which of course, would apply in the converse if one were instead heterosexually inclined) are due to homosexuality per se rather than, for example, attitudes and behaviors such as yours. That is the expressed reason why the APA removed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder and continues to say it is not a psychiatric disorder. You wrote of “warning people about the risks of immoral sexual behavior” and you cited what you perhaps thought are scientific studies in support of your views, but none of the things you’ve cited have scientifically established risks due to homosexuality per se rather than risks due to other things which are not homosexuality, such as viruses, the effects of social contempt, etc. Of course, everything everyone does has a correlated risk connected to it, including driving to church, even breathing. What exactly the risks are vary from person to person, circumstance to circumstance.
You wrote, “To engage in obfuscating reasoning like Pace’s deprives people of information that may help them make good decisions and information that would prevent them from making bad decisions, decisions that often lead to heartbreak, disease, and shortened lifespans.” I don’t deprive anyone of information, and you struggle to perceive and to understand even what I say, much less my reasoning. You blundered and falsely accused me of your wrongdoings. It is forgivable.
You wrote, “I invite people to test my reasoning and the studies I cite and to do the same for Pace’s comments.” Sadly, you flunked. But there is hope that you will do better. There is hope for us all, I hope.
You wrote, “I am not going to get into an extended exchange with the anonymous Pace”. Truly, I am no more unknown to you than you are to yourself.
You wrote, “To prove that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove the some children do NOT like Brussels sprouts. The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning.”
What fallacy is that? You have written a statement (“that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove that some children do NOT like Brussels sprouts”) and then referred to “this fallacy”. If the “some children” who like brussels sprouts are not the same “some children” spoken of in the second instance, then the statement may be true. But if the two groups of “some children” are the same children, then it may be false. If that was not your intent, you might reword it more clearly by saying, “that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove that OTHER children do NOT like Brussels sprouts.” As I said, I’m here to help.
Again, your original post alleged “various causes of homosexual orientation” but then you presented generic vague issues that can and do apply to “many” people whether they have a homosexual orientation or not, yet you asserted them only in respect to homosexual persons. For example, you spoke of distrust, perceived neglect by a parent, promiscuity, infidelity, relationship problems, public misbehavior, feeling like an outsider, not feeling normal, feeling inferior, etc.
I point out that there is no credible research that “proves” that any of your listed things “causes” a homosexual orientation, or that any of those things is caused by a homosexual orientation or homosexuality per se. I don’t say that those things couldn’t ever possibly be a factor or cause for anyone. I say anything and everything, including short haircuts, might possibly be at least a factor if not a cause for someone somewhere. For as they say, “anything is possible”. But that’s not a good reason to believe a homosexual orientation is in fact caused by a short haircut, or by seeing fireflies, touching a toad, rape, or perceived neglect by the father, or eating brussels sprouts. And so I do not claim it to be “the truth” that such things “are causes” of a homosexual orientation, not even if “many” homosexual persons were forced to eat brussels sprouts by their neglectful father and domineering mother. But if you get some peer-reviewed scientific studies together to prove your brussels sprout theory, it might sound less like superstition and old wives tales.
You wrote, “Such typos are… humbling.”
We may hope.