Comments on: “Defamatory statements” – or the politically incorrect truth?

By: Hollie

Hollie — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:05:30 +0000

I am with Bob. Why are you so obsessed with gay people. Most people that have something against gay people know absolutely nothing about them. They are real feeling human beings. They are not monsters with an agenda. They run businesses, they are in the work force working regular jobs,and alot of them try to hide who they are due to the oppression and discrimination by groups like the FRC propagate. There exists real HATE for gay people due to the narrow upbringing most people have had. You paint pictures of the gay community that can also be mirrored by the staight community. There are always going to be devients in the world, no matter what sexual persuation you are.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:58:07 +0000

Yes, and the ‘most pedophiles are homosexuals’ claim is misleading too. The statistics are correct, but it’s comparing apples to oranges. The sexual desires of pedophiles are messed up to begin with – they have no interest in secondry sexual characteristics at all, because there arn’t any before puberty, and it’s those that distinguish male from female where sexual attraction is concerned. So… boy, girl, more or less the same thing. Applying the gay/straight classification to pedophiles just doesn’t work – they fall outside of those categories entirely.

It would be more meaningful to consider how many male pedophiles are also attracted to *adult* males. I don’t have the statistics to hand, but no more than in the overall population, I have read elsewhere.

Besides, it’s irrelivent for civil rights. Statistically, black people have a higher rate of violence towards children. Unpleasant fact, but true. Does this mean that children must be protected from blacks? It’s untidy to just judge everyone based on statistical probabilities.

Not that I expect the FRC to listen to any of this. It’s just too easy to use the guilt by association attack – repeat the concepts for ‘homosexual’ and ‘pedophile’ often enough and people will come to subconciously associate them, no matter how tenuous the actual connection.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:37:17 +0000

Having seen the episode now, I sense ‘non-bias bias’ – the form of bias introduced by an attempt to present both sides fairly, when the sides are not equal.

For an example, a program producer might make a program on the history and benefits of vaccination. During production, they will discover that there is an anti-vacceine movement which claims vaccination is ineffective and dangerous. The producer, sensing contriversy, attempts to present both sides of the argument fairly and equally: Both sides are given the same amount of time for their respective arguments to be given, and the program takes no position. Both sides are allowed to present their evidence.

The problem with this is that one side is actually wrong. Not just potentially wrong, or contriversial – absolutly, facturally, demonstratably, wrong. Vaccination has eliminated diseases, and almost eliminated others. The autism link was found in one study, now discredeted, and repeated attempts to duplicate the finding met with failure. In any scientific evaluation, the anti-vaccine position would be laughed at.

The non-bias bias, then, is the tendency of documentory makers to give crackpots, cranks and quacks the appearance of being equal to respectable positions in order to avoid appearing to take sides.

I am fairly sure that is what happened here. 30 days is intended to present two competing positions as opposites, giving each one fair and equal presentation. This means that if the gay couple get to speak about how loving their family is, they must be countered by an anti-gay representative. Even if the anti-gay is making claims that a little research could show to be completely false, for the program producer to challenge the claims in any way would mean taking sides – an action strictly forbidden.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:51:59 +0000

Why are you folks so obsessed about gay people?

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:40:16 +0000

For me, the issue isn’t whether or not Sprigg’s assertion that: “Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse,” is TRUE, but rather, that even if it IS true, as the research you sites shows, the direction of the relationship is most likely not the one implied by the statement he makes. By that I mean that to the extent that it may be possible to observe higher rates of sexual promiscuity, STI’s, substance abuse, etc. etc. among the LGBTQ population, this is most likely a function of our long-standing discrimination and oppression, rather than the reason to continue that oppression.

The reason I think this is the important argument to make is because it not only counters Sprigg’s assertion, it undermines and destroys it. It’s comments like his that contribute to a homophobic culture where the suicide and self-injury rates among queer youth are consistently above that of their straight peers. That’s the counterpoint I’d like to have seen incorporated into the show.

By: Laura Morales

Laura Morales — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:10:06 +0000

If being gay is not a choice, but a biological difference in the brain causing homosexuality, it very well may be that this biological difference also creates a predisposition for the other negative behaviors as the survey points out.

By: Ron Hartikka

Ron Hartikka — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:08:30 +0000

It’s probably not hard to compile a list of problems like this for other minorities. That FRC chooses to point it out in the case of gay men says more about FRC than it says about gay men. You blame the victim instead of helping. And, no being gay is not a choice.