A history of 'worthless fluff' courtesy of the anti-gay industry
Two days ago, Matt Barber (Concerned Women for America) dismissed a 2001 letter from six researchers. The researchers had complained the anti-gay industry was distorting a 1997 study they conducted in order to say that gays have a short life span.
Among other things, Barber said the letter was "worthless fluff."
I will not speculate how Barber, who has no training in such matters, can dismiss the complaints of researchers about the misusage of their work.
I want to examine the history of "worthless fluff."
In this case, "worthless fluff" is defined as all the times legitimate researchers and physicians have complained that the anti-gay industry has distorted their work.
Let's take a trip down the timeline:
1998 - Pediatrician Robert Garafalo complains that the anti-gay industry distorted his study regarding at-risk behavior amongst gay youth. He said the groups omitted the part of his study that said the at-risk behavior is the result of a homophobic society. Curiously enough, Robert Knight (Barber's predecessor in Concerned Women for America) dismissed Garafalo's complaint, calling him a "thrall of political correctness."
- Assistant Professor of Sociology Lisa Waldner tells Frank Rich of the New York Times that the anti-gay industry is distorting a study she wrote while in 1992 in order to claim that lesbians relationships have a high rate of domestic violence.
2001 - Patrick Letellier complains that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association cherry picked passages from his book (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them) in order to assert that domestic violence is high in gay relationships. Years after this, the book continues to be cited by the anti-gay industry in the same way Glenn cited it.
- Robert Spitzer publishes a study that says a small number of people can change their sexual orientation. The anti-gay industry cites the study as proof that homosexuality is a choice. Spitzer complains as to how his work was being used, even publishing a piece in the Wall Street Journal complaining about how his work was being distorted.
2002 - A. Nicholas Groth writes a letter to the Family Research Council claiming that the group distorted his work in a study to prove that gays molest children at a high level. Groth, in 1983, complained that anti-gay researcher Paul Cameron had done the same thing. The study published by the Family Research Council is almost similar to the one published by Cameron.
2006 - Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc of the University of British Columbia complains that Focus on the Family distorted her study on lesbian teen suicide.
- Dr. Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry in the Yale Child Study Center and School of Nursing accuses Focus on the Family head James Dobson of distorting his work.
- New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. writes Focus on the Family head James Dobson a blistering letter accusing him of distorting her work.
Gotta love the "worthless fluff."
Sooner or later, it will be the very thing that exposes the anti-gay industry for the liars they are.
UPDATE: Definition of pitiful
A commentator disagreed with what I said. And he took it upon himself to try and correct me.
What makes it so funny is that he repeats the same error that Gary Glenn made when distorting Patrick Lettelier's work.
Apparently he wasn't aware that I have in my possession a letter by Mr. Letellier outlining just HOW Gary Glenn distorted his work.
It's all in the comments section of this post.
First Kevin McCullough's flimsy defense of his ENDA lie and now this.
These so-called "Christians" can't accept the fact that their beliefs can't turn their bullshit into facts.
27 comments:
Quick, grab the violins to provide background music for this sad song.
Here's what the guy who Matt Barber dismissed wrote in his study, published by the International Journal of Epidemiology:
"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
Pretty plain English. But Black Tsu is right. The same guy later whined when those who say (correctly) that homosexual behavior is accompanied by negative health consequences dared quote his study.
Similarly, here's what homosexual activist Letellier wrote in his book, "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them":
"It is likely the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population. As many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year." (Page 14)
Letellier estimate battery occurs in 50 percent of homoesexual male couples (page 12), while "we believe [heterosexual domestic abuse] is closer to 20 percent." (page 50).
Once again...plain English.
But whaddaya know, he too complained when those who point to the various pathologies associated with homosexual behavior quoted him.
Guess if they don't want the truth to be quoted, they should quit putting it in writing.
If this is what you call "distortion" -- accurately quoting what the authors actually wrote -- you should apply for a job with the next Romney for president campaign.
Remember him? He's the guy who said YouTube videos of his own words coming out of his own mouth were also "distortions."
Laying heavy odds that you won't actually publish this, Tsu.
And you would lose those odds.
Apparently you didn't read my post two days ago in which I printed the ENTIRE letter where the authors complained about the distortion of their work. The researchers clarified what their work was meant to do.
But just in case you missed it, let me give you the link - http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
NOW, regarding Mr. Letellier, it seems that you repeated Gary Glenn's distortion.
But let me put it in Mr. Lettelier's words. This is what he said:
“Instead of making use of current literature or statistics, Glenn selects two passages from our book, from pages 12 and 50, and links them together (I quote him verbatim here, the mis-use of quotation marks is his): ‘Island and Letellier also estimate that ‘domestic violence may
effect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay couples, while ‘we believe[heterosexual domestic abuse] is closer to 20 percent.’
In fact, as we clearly state in our book, the 50% figure is an estimate provided to us by an anti-violence project, and in the paragraphs following our mention of that figure, Dr. Island and I refute it and come up with what we believe is a more reasonable—and significantly lower—estimate of about 21%. Sometimes context really is everything. What Glenn also fails to mention is that the estimate of 20% that Dr. Island and I make (regarding heterosexual battering) was a challenge to other researchers who claimed that as many as 80% of heterosexual
men batter their partners. Here’s the whole quote: ‘We disagree. No body of data supports their contentions. We believe that far too many husbands in America are violent, but their proportion is closer to 20% than 80%.'"
My friend, if you read credible work, you should try to do more than to glean bits in order to enhance your own prejudices.
You end up with less egg on your face.
And one more thing. it is apparent that your citation of Letellier's work did not come from him. Yet you tried to pass it off as such.
Maybe you need a re-education on "plain English" and out-right misinterpretation of facts.
Tsu, having read all that you provide, it's clear that the authors are merely upset that someone accurately quoted them.
Should come as no surprise that Letellier, editor of the National Lesbian & Gay Domestic Violence newsletter (according to his book) would object to someone critical of his lifestyle quoting his book (accurately) in such a way as to indicate that domestic violence is higher among homosexual partners than it is among heteros. That is precisely what he wrote. I got the book right here in front of me, and he can complain all he wants, it won't erase the plain English right here in black and white.
Similarly, the Canadian study guys published a scientific work stating that 20 year old men involved in the homosexual lifestyle were found to have a much shorter lifespan.
Nothing they write in their non-scientific complaint letter -- which was obviously nothing more than political commentary -- can undo the fact that they wrote precisely what they did in their scientific study.
The best they can do in their political complaint letter is speculate (non-scientifically) that if they were to repeat the study today, the results would be more positive. While I appreciate their more scientifically-informed than most speculation, that's exactly what it is, speculation, and nothing more.
But the scientifically-documented work that was published by Oxford said what it said. And in plain English.
Now, given that the Lesbian & Gay Medical Association also reports the multiple elevated health hazards among those who engage in homosexual behavior, as compared to heteros, is teh LGMedAssn also guilty of "distorting" medical findings? Is the Lesbian & Gay Medical Association "anti-gay"?
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=185
Pink News, a "gay" website in London, reports that "in 38 low- and middle-income countries, men who have sex with men have an average 19 times greater chance of being infected with HIV than the general population." Is Pink News "anti-gay"?
Will the LesGayMedAssn and Pink News now complain that somebody's quoting them as evidence that homosexual activity is medically high risk?
If they're like Letellier, the Oxford study guys -- and you, Tsu -- of course they will.
"In fact, as we clearly state in our book, the 50% figure is an estimate provided to us by an anti-violence project, and in the paragraphs following our mention of that figure, Dr. Island and I refute it and come up with what we believe is a more reasonable—and significantly lower—estimate of about 21%."
--
So anonymous and anti-gay ilk attribute the 50% statistic-itself to the authors of the book, when in actuality they were refuting the claim.
Way to lend credibility to your cause anonymous.
So when it looks at if Lettelier reports something that ENHANCES your view of homosexuality, he is credible.
But when he corrects the distortion of his work, all of the sudden, HE is in the wrong. Okay, I get it.
And your explanation attacking his characer detracts from the facts. Letellier clearly said two parts were cherry picked out of his book to make an assumption. Also, part of the quote cited was omitted in order to give a different connotation as to what he actually said.
That sounds like a distortion to me.
And regarding the six researcher, the letter said in part:
"In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. "
Now regarding that Pink News article, you committed a bad distortion there. You said - "Pink News, a "gay" website in London, reports that "in 38 low- and middle-income countries, men who have sex with men have an average 19 times greater chance of being infected with HIV than the general population."
Here is the thing - you didn't give a reason why. In these countries, what are the HIV prevention methodologies. I would be interested in seeing the entire article.
I say this because of the Robert Garafalo mess. The anti-gay industry used his study to demonize at-risk gay youth, but they omitted the reason why these youth were engaging in such behavior (i.e. isolation because of a homophobic society.)
Now you did leave a link for your other citation. Were you the one who tried to cite it earlier?
Here is the deal and danger - nowhere in that article does it say that gays should try reparative therapy i.e. "stop being gay."
Your connotation is that homosexuality is a lifestyle that causes danger. The connotation actually given in this article (by trained medical professionals) is that gays (just like every one else) need to observe tenents of good health. Observing these tennets, they can be gay and live healthy and happy.
What you did with this article is no different than what a racist would do with an article explaining how blacks could observe good health in order to dehumanize their race.
Lastly, even if you could explain away Lettelier complaint and the complaint of the six researchers (which you did not), you still have the complaints from Robert Garafalo, Lisa Waldner, Kyle Pruett, etc. etc.
anon said...
"Tsu, having read all that you provide, it's clear that the authors are merely upset that someone accurately quoted them.
Should come as no surprise that Letellier, editor of the National Lesbian & Gay Domestic Violence newsletter (according to his book) would object to someone critical of his lifestyle quoting his book (accurately) in such a way as to indicate that domestic violence is higher among homosexual partners than it is among heteros.
That is precisely what he wrote.
I got the book right here in front of me, and he can complain all he wants, it won't erase the plain English right here in black and white.
[…]
Nothing they write in their non-scientific complaint letter -- which was obviously nothing more than political commentary -- can undo the fact that they wrote precisely what they did in their scientific study."
--
Unbefreakinglievable. You can’t trust gay researchers because they’re gay -- unless their scientific study says something negative about gays.
If you can’t trust them because they’re gay, HOW can you trust anything they research?
Even if what you say is accurate (which it’s not, as has been amply demonstrated), why would you cite a source which you yourself believe cannot be trusted?
And to the point, you didn't refute anything!
BT quotes Lettelier as saying this:
"Glenn selects two passages from our book, from pages 12 and 50, and links them together (I quote him verbatim here, the mis-use of quotation marks is his): ‘Island and Letellier also estimate that ‘domestic violence may effect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay couples, while ‘we believe[heterosexual domestic abuse] is closer to 20 percent.’
In fact, as we clearly state in our book, the 50% figure is an estimate provided to us by an anti-violence project, and in the paragraphs following our mention of that figure, Dr. Island and I refute it and come up with what we believe is a more reasonable—and significantly lower—estimate of about 21%."
--
Lettelier gives the very pages used for distortion, then explains precisely how those two passages were misused in order to make a refutation sound like an affirmation, and then you have the presence of mind to assert that just because "I got the book right here in front of me," that that somehow makes your own promotion of this intentional distortion true?
Good God man, if you have the book right in front of you, explain to us please how "in the paragraphs following" their mention of the 50% figure, they did NOT refute it, as Lettelier, THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, claims they did.
--
"Tsu, having read all that you provide, it's clear that the authors are merely upset that someone accurately quoted them."
Enlighten our ignorance anon, so we can all put this story to bed. You hold the book in your hands, you hold the power..
Bottom of page 12:
"The Director of the Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project at the Community United Against Violence in San Francisco stated that domestic violence may affect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay male couples."
There are no paragraphs that follow disputing that figure, and the only reference to a figure close to the alleged "21%" appears on page 13, but referring specifically to "wives who are abused by their husbands," i.e., hetero, not homosexual.
Page 14: "As discussed further in this section, we postulate that gay men's domestic violence may occur at a greater rate than domestic violence in the heterosexual community."
"The probability of violence occuring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple."
"It is possible, therefore, and likely for all of the above reasons, that the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population. Because of that possibility, we believe that as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the U.S. This is the figure we propose is at the high end..."
Page 15: "In conclusion, we believe that a midpoint estimate of 500,000 annual victims of gay men's domestic violence represents a likely, reasonable, and non-speculative estimate."
Page 50 refers only to hetero violence, i.e., husbands abusing wives: "We believe...that their proportion is closer to 20%."
Clearly, in plain English, Letellier makes the point, over and over, that domestic violence is more prevalent in homosexual reltionships than in hetero; he expressly writes that it's "likely" that it's "double."
Any after-the-fact claim to the contrary is, simply false.
And no, it doesn't leave unanswered all the other complaints by "gay" researchers or their supporters, because they're all cut from the same cloth.
They produce this research, often times to argue in favor of some public policy position, i.e., some new law or additional govt. or foundation funding for one thing or another.
Then, because of their POLITICAL agenda, they're understandably upset when someone ACCURATELY quotes their work to support an alternative public policy agenda.
(A la Mitt Romney, who called YouTube videos of his own words "distortions.")
And yes, it is precisely because of their obvious political bias that I don't trust their political agenda or the conclusions they draw from their research, but I do trust the research itself. Because of their bias, the fact that many times they themselves are involved in the homosexual lifestyle, I trust that they know -- better than someone who's not -- what they're talking about when they admit the negative.
If the Gay & Lesbian Med Assn admits the risk of various diseases is higher among individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, it's their very bias that makes the admission credible. Since, if they'll admit as much as they do, given a bias in favor of portraying such behavior as normal and healthy, it's reasonable to assume that the health consequences are actually even worse than they'll admit.
Ditto with Letellier.
Similarly, hat tip to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force chief of staff who recently admitted that HIV is "a gay disease" (his words).
That is, after spending years condemning critics of the lifestyle for saying the exact same thing.
First of all,
you are going to have to cut out the Mitt Romney thing. This is NOT about Mitt Romney. If you don't adhere to the subject of the post, I will block you.
I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask.
Now about your hinting as to what Matt Foreman said, Julian Bond of the NAACP and Phil Wilson of the Black AIDS Institute BOTH referred to HIV as a black disease. I suppose if you were a racist, you could blame African-Americans for spreading AIDS because of their words.
Foreman's comments were a challenge for the gay community to take more of a responsibility to combat HIV, as where Wilson and Bond's comments towards the African-American community.
Really, I think it speaks less about gays and more about your homophobia as to how you are cherry picking comments from Foreman.
And don't worry, I have saved the best for last.
Letellier in his letter has pointed out just how his work had been distorted. I printed part of that letter here in these comments. I think it speaks to your stubborness in the face of facts that you continue to repeat the SAME error.
Repeition does not take the place of truth.
Also, I find it sad that when you are faced with the facts, you attack the researchers; people whose work you use to demonize lgbts. I echo a commentator on this page when I ask, if you feel these researchers are biased, why do you cite their work in the first place?
If Letellier is lying, what makes you want to cite him for accuracy in the first place?
Lastly, I have an idea of who you are. And if you are the person whom I am thinking, then that makes you a huge liar. I thought u told me earlier that you don't take my page seriously.
It is apparent by your pathetic platitudes here that you do.
Why, all the scientific research in the world is insignificant fluff, unless that research has a sentence that can be used to support one's bigoted worldview. But when the researchers complain the extract was misused their research and opinions again become insignificant fluff. Don't expect them to stop misusing the quotes that support their bigoted worldviews, though.
"I echo a commentator on this page when I ask, if you feel these researchers are biased, why do you cite their work in the first place? If Letellier is lying, what makes you want to cite him for accuracy in the first place?"
Since you echo the question, I'll echo the answer (from the post above):
"It is precisely because of their obvious political bias that I don't trust their political agenda or the conclusions they draw from their research, but I do trust the research itself. Because of their bias, the fact that many times they themselves are involved in the homosexual lifestyle, I trust that they know -- better than someone who's not -- what they're talking about when they admit the negative. If the Gay & Lesbian Med Assn admits the risk of various diseases is higher among individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, it's their very bias that makes the admission credible. Since, if they'll admit as much as they do, given a bias in favor of portraying such behavior as normal and healthy, it's reasonable to assume that the health consequences are actually even worse than they'll admit.
Have no clue who you think I am, but having never posted here or communicated with you before, I've never told you I do or don't take your blog seriously. You've got as much right to a blog as anybody else, and obviously my approval isn't required.
But this whole thread, frankly, is a source of amusement because of the very pattern you yourself note, i.e., how often -- when pro-homosexual researchers' plain English findings are quoted to advance a public policy objective other than the one they're pushing -- they deny that they wrote what they wrote in the first place and accuse others of "distortion."
It doesn't matter what Letellier says after the fact. I quoted you what he plainly wrote, and it says exactly what it says. His or your repeating his ridiculous disavowals of what he plainly wrote does not change one word of the original findings he clearly and understandably reported.
First of all, thank you for adhering to common courtesy and respecting what i asked you to do regarding mitt romney.
now then, it seems to me that you are now talking in circles and ignoring the question at hand. If these researchers are "pro-gay" or gay themselves, why do you have cite their studies in the first place?
Letellier clearly laid out why his work was being distorted. As did Garafalo, Spitzer, Waldner and several others. And frankly I choose to believe them.
I find it ugly that when these credible researchers complain as to how their work as been distorted (and also show proof of said distortion), all of the sudden they are attacked as being gay or having a pro-gay biased. I doubt that you know many of these researchers other than something you picked up about them and their affiliations online.
It is a very immature thing to do and unfairly distracts from the subject at hand.
But then I get the feeling that such actions is intentional on the part of yourself and others who share your beliefs about homosexuality.
They did not deny what they wrote. They tried to clarify what their research was and what it actually said. Anon admitted to accepting research when it seems to be negative only. How scientific! One wonders if you read the entirety of it or just the bits you liked.
I really wonder if he read it at all. I think he gleaned the bits from an anti-gay industry "study."
3rd time it's been asked:
"If these researchers are 'pro-gay' or gay themselves, why do you have cite their studies in the first place?"
3rd time I've answered, but since the first two times apparently weren't comprehendable, I'll try fewer words:
Because their pro-"gay" bias makes their SELF-indictment all the more credible.
And as I posted earlier, I took Letellier's comments straight from his own book. Not from any study.
THAT, my friend, is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard since Bill Clinton's definition of "is."
And the question was not what was in Letellier's book, but what was omitted.
What proof do you have that all of these researchers had a "pro-gay" bias other than the fact that they complained about the distortion of their work and that one is a member of a gay rights group?
As far as I know, you have absolutely no training in the work these researchers do. You cite their words incorrectly. And when they complain, you attack them, rather than admit that maybe there is a problem.
I laid out eight examples of cherry picked and distorted work. Eight different examples. So, you are telling me that all of these eight researchers have a pro-gay bias?
If the anti-gay industry is truly losing this "cultural" war, then your behavior here demonstrates why.
There is no humility. There is no admittance of wrong doing. There is just this self-righteous attitude of "I am right, even when I lie and finagle to make the lie seem true."
You are not interested in truth. You are not interested in accuracy. You only seek to beat someone down with your argument by repeating it over and over again, even as it continues to be refuted.
To me, that's just sad.
Matt Barber is the expert on all things homosex and all things kinky - just like his best buddy Peter LaBarbera.
That should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.
Experts on homosex are homos themselves.
Speaking of which, "worthless" and "fluff" are two words which describes Matt Barber to a T.
"Because their pro-"gay" bias makes their SELF-indictment all the more credible."
--
I have to agree, that's pretty good. IOW, their pro-gay bias makes their self-indictment non-biased.
anyone here get the feeling that someone is trying to play three-card monte?
Patrick Letellier, co-author of the book: Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them:
"In fact, as we clearly state in our book, the 50% figure is an estimate provided to us by an anti-violence project, and in the paragraphs following our mention of that figure, Dr. Island and I refute it and come up with what we believe is a more reasonable—and significantly lower—estimate of about 21%."
Anonymous: "But whaddaya know, he too complained when those who point to the various pathologies associated with homosexual behavior quoted him."
--
Except they weren’t attempting to establish a connection between same-gender attraction and domestic violence. You are.
And after all you’ve offered, you still haven’t done so.
Furthermore, you haven’t even demonstrated that Letellier has denied anything factual. You interchange numbers with statistics, and then conclude with this:
"Clearly, in plain English, Letellier makes the point, over and over, that domestic violence is more prevalent in homosexual reltionships than in hetero; he expressly writes that it's "likely" that it's "double."
Any after-the-fact claim to the contrary is, simply false.
He didn’t make a claim to the contrary. Again, that’s your contention.
Between the pages in question -- 12 through 15 -- there are AT LEAST a dozen variables to consider while maneuvering through a maze of mathematical convolution.
A portion of which includes this little gem on page 13:
"In 1990, there were 250,000,000 people in the United States. Subtracting the 60,000,000 children under 18, there remain 190,000,000 adults. Assuming that 10 percent of the adult population is homosexual (19,000,000), there then remain 171,000,000 straight adults, 85.5 million men and 85.5 million women. American adults currently marry, or couple, at a rate of 64 percent. Thus, there are 55,000,000 wives and 55,000,000 husbands in America today."
--
"10 percent of the adult population is homosexual"
Anonymous: "but I do trust the research itself."
Their figures are based on the "assumption" that 10 percent of the population is gay, and you have the audacity to blithely assert that you trust their research - based on their bias?
Have you not been informed by your anti-gay resources that the "10 percent myth" is one of the top lies being spread by militant homosexual activists everywhere?
Actually, it was the Human Rights Campaign that filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence case (2003) testifying that about 3% of the American population engage in homosexual behavior.
Letellier, on the other hand, provides raw numbers, estimating at one point that somewhere between a high of 650,000 and a midpoint of 500,000 men involved in homosexual relationships are each year the victims of violence at the hands of their own homosexual sex partners.
If the percentage of the American population involved in the homosexual lifestyle is actually 3%, and not 10%, then obviously 650,000 or 500,000 cases of actual violence a year would be an even higher percentage of the total "gay" population.
The fact that 10% is an inflated figure means that the percentage of the homosexual population that's a victim of domestic violence is all the higher.
And no, I make no attempt to analyze all eight cases you offered. Not worth the time. Two I was aware of:
Letellier, who is openly homosexual, and the Oxford-published researchers, who in the letter you linked made clear reference to their bias if not their own orientation.
And Emproph gets it right when he writes:
"I have to agree, that's pretty good. IOW, their pro-gay bias makes their self-indictment non-biased."
When someone with an obviously pro-gay bias publicly reports scientific findings that reflect negatively on homosexual behavior, I figure it's AT LEAST as bad as they say, given their bias, and likely even worse.
Letellier's book was published in 1991. That was over 10 years before the HRC brief.
You cannot compare the two, especially seeing that the HRC brief (nor the thing you mentioned about the 10 percent of gays) have absolutely NOTHING to do with this post.
But I am curious as to the conclusion you make regarding domestic violence by citing these two pieces of work. I see you made the assumption without citing any credible data.
And Letellier has made it a point to say that more recent work has been done on the subject of domestic violence in the gay community. But the anti-gay industry continues to cite Leteller's book. And in some cases, they cite ONLY his book.
And my friend, you are continuing the same line of nonsense the other poster said.
If Letellier is biased, why cite his study in the first place. Why cite the study of the six researchers if they are biased in the first place?
It makes no sense. Neither you nor he gave a suitable answer; only some rhetorical finagling. How you can relate researcher better than the authors themselves?
Also, in regards to the six researchers, nothing they said gives any indication of bias on their part. Nor their orientation.
I am curious as to where you see bias on their part. Or where you can guess their orientation by their letter.
Throwing out phrases like "pro gay bias" and playing semantic word games only obscures the reality that the anti-gay industry consistently distorts credible research.
And when they are caught, they attack the people whose research they cite as credible in the first place rather than admit that they are wrong.
Black Tsu asks yet again:
"If Letellier is biased, why cite his study in the first place. Why cite the study of the six researchers if they are biased in the first place?"
I'm sorry you haven't been satisfied with my answer the first five times it's been asked on this page.
But I'm happy to answer again by simply cutting and pasting from the various times I've already answered on this page.
In order...
1. "Because of their bias, the fact that many times they themselves are involved in the homosexual lifestyle, I trust that they know -- better than someone who's not -- what they're talking about when they admit the negative. If the Gay & Lesbian Med Assn admits the risk of various diseases is higher among individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, it's their very bias that makes the admission credible. Since, if they'll admit as much as they do, given a bias in favor of portraying such behavior as normal and healthy, it's reasonable to assume that the health consequences are actually even worse than they'll admit."
2. "Because their pro-'gay' bias makes their SELF-indictment all the more credible."
3. "When someone with an obviously pro-gay bias publicly reports scientific findings that reflect negatively on homosexual behavior, I figure it's AT LEAST as bad as they say, given their bias, and likely even worse."
Would you like to ask me again, so I can cut and paste again?
My reference to the 10% myth was in response to Emproph's post. He brought it up, not me, but feel free to lecture him that talking about it is not related to this issue.
And the ten-year spread between Letellier's citation of the 10% myth and HRC's admitting it's far lower is irrelevant. The % of the U.S. population didn't use to be 10%, then drop to 2.8%. It's just that homosexual activists were inflating the figure before, but HRC later admitted the truth.
Now let me guess. You wanna know how come I dismiss homosexual activists' validity when they used to cite 10 percent, but accept homosexual activists' citation of the 2.8 figure.
Simple:
1. Because the 2.8% is accurate, and the ten percent is not (by homosexual activists' own admission).
And...
2. Re-read the first six paragraphs of this post.
Also, feel free, next time you feel compelled to ask the same question for the 9th or 10th time, to refer back to this post and choose whichever of the three enumerated "cut and paste" answers listed above that you dislike least.
Let me address a few things:
1. you keep coming back to the Gay & Lesbian Med Assn, but you continue to distort their words. They do not say that the lgbt orienation is indicative of diseases and the like. Their words are no different than any other medical association with other ethnic or cultural groups.
In San Diego, there is an organization called the San Diego Black Health Assocation. This organization says:
"Black people in San Diego suffer a disproportionately high rate of numerous ailments. Prominent among these health problems are hypertension, heart disease, cancer, drug addiction, low birth weight for newborns, and high infant mortality."
This organization serves to curb these problems.
My question to you is what is the difference between a racist taking the words of this group to claim that African-Americans are inferior and how you distort the words of the Gay and Lesbian Assn. to make the same claim about lgbts?
2. In making his point, Emproph did introduce the notion of the 10 percent thing. But you grabbed the ball and attempted to veer away from the subject of this post.
But let me bring it back.
You keep claiming that the only reason Letellier and the six researchers complained about the distortion of their work was because they are either gay or have pro-gay biases.
Dont' you think that's immature?
You haven't provided proof of this in either case.
I keep asking you the question about credibility because I think you should try and give a better answer; or at least an answer that doesn't come across as sour grapes.
You sound like a football team who has lost a big game:
"It's not us. The referee hated us. He cheated."
Rather than admit that there is a problem with the usage of research by folks on your side, you continue to play this rhetorical game of 3-card monte.
Your statments don't make sense on so many levels. But here is something important that hasn't been considered yet:
SOLELY in the case of Letellier, you have provided MOTIVE for him to be biased but you have not provided PROOF.
In a court of law, you cannot convict solely on motive. Saying that Letellier could be biased is not the same as proving that he is biased.
And in the case of the six researchers, you HAVE NOT even provided proof that they COULD BE biased.
What you are doing is engaging in pure conjecture and trying to pass it along as facts.
anonymous said...
"My reference to the 10% myth was in response to Emproph's post. He brought it up, not me, but feel free to lecture him that talking about it is not related to this issue."
Allow me to admonish myself…
You say: "If the percentage of the American population involved in the homosexual lifestyle is actually 3%, and not 10%, then obviously 650,000 […] would be an even higher percentage of the total "gay" population.
The fact that 10% is an inflated figure means that the percentage of the homosexual population that's a victim of domestic violence is all the higher."
Except that the 650,000 figure was based on a population inhabited by 10% gays.
Had that population consisted of 3% gays, then the amount of gay violence would be only 3/10ths of that 650,000 figure ~ or ~ 195,000.
Less, not more. Simple math.
You didn’t even go back to the book to refute any of this. All you did was apply a new-percentage to the same number. Arbitrarily.
Instead of a 10% gay population being responsible for 650,000 incidents of violence, you now say that it’s a 3% population that is responsible for 650,000 incidents of violence.
All you did was claim that Letellier’s 10% was 3%, and voila, now 3% of the population is responsible for 650,000 incidents of violence.
--
Point being, you presented yourself as an UNBIASED expert on the Letellier / Island research: "I got the book right here in front of me" and "Plain English"
Which is why I brought up the fact that Letellier’s 6.5K figure was based on 10%.
Something that any dedicated anti-gay activist would have immediately recognized as false.
--
"My reference to the 10% myth was in response to Emproph's post. He brought it up, not me, but feel free to lecture him that talking about it is not related to this issue."
1. It’s not about me bringing up the "10% myth" thing, it’s about the fact that a so-called militant homosexual activist like me is more familiar with your own propaganda than you are.
2. It’s related to the issue in that the Lettelier research that you yourself are citing -- as being reliable -- is BASED on this so-called myth.
----
And let’s just fix this next part for the hard of hearing while we’re at it:
"And Emproph gets it right when he writes:
"I have to agree, that's pretty good. IOW, their pro-gay bias makes their self-indictment non-biased.""
-
The following is what is meant by that statement, and by extension, what I perceive to be meant by the original statement of yours that I am mocking:
their pro-liar bias makes their confession of dishonesty, truthful.
Now, anonymous, is that what you’re agreeing with?
Quite amusing! As someone with rather intimate knowledge regarding one of the researchers mentioned in this blog entry...
Anony, you should demand better pay. You're nearly useless as a rhetorician, but you've been given a huge amount of time and consideration here, far beyond what your inadequate arguments and exemplary stupidity/obstinacy deserve. Props on your success.
Post a Comment