Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Cohen On Maddow: “Disavows All Relationship” To Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill

Jim Burroway

December 8th, 2009

I just finished watching Rachel Maddow’s interview with Richard Cohen, of the International Healing Foundation. It’s hard to know where to begin in understanding the huge gulf between what Cohen said and what is actually true, particularly with regard to IFH’s culpability in fueling the flames behind the “Kill Gays” bill that is currently before Uganda’s parliament. Fortunately, Maddow was well-prepared.

It is extremely rare to see television personalities so well versed in this particular topic. Kudos to Rachel and her staff for an excellent segment.

There was a lot of discussion over Cohen’s characterization of gays as predators, a characterization that is constantly repeated by those who are putting forth the bill and included in memorandum attached as a preamble to the bill itself. At the 5:10 mark, Rachel Maddow pointed out that Cohen’s book, Coming Out Straight — which Cohen has donated untold numbers to Uganda to support their Kill-the-Gays mission — portrays gays as predators. Cohen denied that, insisting that Caleb Brundidge, who was at the Uganda conference on IHF’s behalf, didn’t convey that message.

That is a lie. In a summer 2009 newsletter (PDF: 7MB/12 pages) from the International Healing Foundation, Brundidge writes about his travels to Uganda. Concerning the gays-as-predators rumors, Brundidge writes:

On the other hand, the word is out on the street to the young people: If you want to make good money, pretend to be “gay.” Why? Gay activists are recruiting impoverished young boys and girls, offering them money to impersonate homosexuals. “Just tell people you are gay and we’ll pay you money.” In this way, they are trying to skew the data regarding the numbers of people who are homosexual. Last year one school teacher was told this information by two young female students. They admitted that they were being paid to say they were gay. Additionally these girls recruited 13 more girls that year! This is happening throughout their nation. Gay activism is alive and a powerful force throughout the world. They are raising up the next generation to be gay activists, just as in the USA.

In this particular passage which Brundidge repeats without questioning its authenticity or illogic, he doesn’t say that gays are being sexual predators, per se. But he does imply it by suggesting that these young people would become “the next generation [of] gay activists.” After all, people don’t become gay activists just because someone pays them to do so. The entire context of this account is the supposed recruitment of young people into homosexuality, which in Uganda is seen as predatory by whatever means that implies.

Also in that newsletter, Brundidge says that Cohen “donated his books and Counselor Training Program CD series and manual to the Family Life Network. They will use these resources to study and learn how to help those affected by SSA and their loved ones.” (SSA, by the way, is the acronym he uses to describe what he calls “Same-Sex Attraction” — always capitalized. More on that later.) I haven’t shelled out any money for his CD series, but the book, Coming Out Straight, certainly pushes the gays-as-predators theme.

In the second edition, the one that Cohen donated multiple copies of for distribution in Uganda, Cohen dedicates two full pages on sexual abuse as a cause of homosexuality. The researchers he cited say that there are some correlations with sexual abuse and uncertainty over one’s sexual orientation, but no reputable researcher as been willing to pin child sexual abuse as a cause of homosexuality, despite Cohen’s distortion of those researchers’ studies.

And who does all of this molestation. For that anwer, Cohen turns to  Paul Cameron. Maddow read this passage from page 49 at the 6:15 mark. Cohen writes:

Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; forty (40%) percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage  in homosexuality.”86

Endnote 86 refers to a Paul Cameron study published in 1986 the pay-to-publish vanity press Psychological Reports, which is not a reputable journal. Maddow does a great job in recounting the many professional organizations who have denounced Cameron for his unethical behavior and fraudulent “research” over the years. Cohen claims that his forthcoming third edition of the book won’t have that citation. He doesn’t say whether his own mischaracterization of research by David Finkelhor, Patrick Dimock, Mike Lew, or many others will appear in that edition or not. (We covered much of that same material in our report, “Testing the Premise: Are Gays a Threat to our Children?”) At any rate, it won’t matter because it is present, plain as day, in the untold numbers of free books he has already shipped off to Uganda.

Cohen kept insisting that his whole effort was to preach of his “love” for gay people and not demonize them. Maddow refuted that rather effectively by repeating his own written words. She read loosely from that summer 2009 newsletter (PDF: 7MB/12 pages), this time from a piece written by Cohen himself:

For the past 40 years, members of the gay rights movement have been working to change the fabric of our culture. They have strategically and systematically been indoctrinating members of society, targeting the youth… As a result of their strategic plan, millions of innocent young children have been enrolled into this false teaching and led into a homosexual lifestyle.

If that’s not demonizing, I don’t know what is.

Maddow also read from Cohen’s 2008 book Gay Children, Straight Parents: A Plan for Family Healing, from page 75, on what supposedly “causes” homosexuality:

10: Other factors. Divorce, death of a parent, adoption, religion, race, rejection by opposite-sex peers.

Cohen reacted, “Race, that’s not in there.” But it’s right there in black and white, which led to the best line of the night: “I’m reading from your book, dude!” Cohen first tried to claim Maddow was reading out of context, but she continued reading passages before and after that line. Cohen was never able to explain how race could contribute to homosexuality. He also doesn’t explain it in his book. He finally had to tell Maddow that race has nothing to do with sexuality. Which means that he also acknowledged, in so many words,  that he — the guy who continuously promotes himself as an “expert” and “professional therapist” — has written two deeply flawed books. And that he shipped off a bunch of deeply flawed books to Uganda where his vilification of LGBT people has found fertile ground.

Cohen kept trying to convince Maddow that his organization doesn’t “cure” anyone, but he does use the word “healing” constantly and insist that people can “change.” To me, this is just semantics. What is “healing” if it’s not a cure? Furthermore, he constantly refers to homosexuality as “SSA,” or Same-Sex Attraction” — always capitalized. He used to called it SSAD, or Same-Sex Attraction Disorder, but he only stopped doing that when it became too untenable for him to call homosexuality a disorder after all the professional organizations insisted that professionals should not do so. On Maddow’s program, Cohen kept repeating his web site as ChangeIsPossible.com. But type that into your web browser and where does that URL redirect to? That’s right: GayToStraight.org, and in the program he kept referring to himself as being completely straight. If that’s not meant to be taken as a “cure,” then I wonder how Cohen would explain the difference.

So we have a man who says that gays molest children, then takes it back. He says that he doesn’t demonize LGBT people, has a passage he wrote just last summer demonizing LGBT people read back to him, and he has nothing to say. And he says that race is a factor, and then says, okay, it isn’t. And he doesn’t “cure” gay people, he just “heals” and changes them. And by the time the interview ended, he was left sputtering that the American Counseling Association disbarred him for life because they are anti-ex-gay. In fact, it was for ethical violations, and Maddow’s audience was left with numerous examples of Cohen’s lack of integrity by the time she was done with him.

But before we end this, we should note one positive thing on Cohen’s behalf: with all that, Cohen spoke out forcefully against Uganda’s proposal to legislate LGBT people out of existence. Whether he’s doing that because he has a new-found respect for gay people or because he’s trying to salvage his own tattered reputation, we don’t know — but I have my suspicions. At any rate, he said he is not only against executing LGBT people, he is also against imprisoning them. He’s a proven fraud, and an idiot to boot. But again, we’ll take what we can get.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

HappyCat
December 8th, 2009 | LINK

These right wingers try so hard to believe the garbage they say. They can sit there, lie through their teeth, claim they don’t want to harm anyone and at the same time work hard to have LGBT beaten or murdered.

Sadly their are way to many people who buy into their Bull Sh!t and sadly their are so many people harmed by the words they write and speak.

gar
December 8th, 2009 | LINK

This is why we love Rachel. Bravo!

Lynn David
December 8th, 2009 | LINK

Sounds like Maddow did it right. One might wonder why Cohen would speak out against the bill if he thought gays molest children. And Maddow could have asked him how many children he molested or how many those who he has counseled have.

Mykelb
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Rachel is my hero. This snake-oil saleman works for the anti-gay industry lining his own pockets with the money these sad, self-loathing, psychologically abused by Christians, men pay. It’s a sad comment on Christianity that they have to brainwash people in order to get them to comply. The brainwashing of children into the cult of Christianity begins at birth and until one is educated in how to think critically, they stay in it until death. Delusional, bigoted, hateful people.

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

You’re right. Sounds like this guy is talking in circles. He should just come out and say what he means. He has a lot of good points and he shouldn’t beat around the bush.

Oh, and Mykeld–”It’s a sad comment on Christianity that they have to brainwash people in order to get them to comply. The brainwashing of children into the cult of Christianity begins at birth and until one is educated in how to think critically, they stay in it until death. Delusional, bigoted, hateful people.”

I think you’re speaking about homosexuals there–always brainwashing, always “getting them while they’re young”. The indoctrination begins at birth, then is stayed until death. Of course, with homosexuals it isn’t enough to indoctrinate their own children. They indoctrinate OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN, against the will of their parents, through the public schools. (Talking about God in public schools is strictly prohibited. Talking about Heather’s two mommies, still okay)

Also, “delusional, bigoted, hateful people” is a pretty good description of the homosexual lobby.

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Oh yeah–can anyone think of a single reason why Rachel Maddow has a show? It’s not like anyone watches it. I think the show has about fifteen viewers–Rachel, her mom, her “partner” and twelve readers of the Boxturtle Bulletin.

If I had a show with ratings that were (a) as low as hers, and (b) declining, I would certainly have my show cancelled. Not Rachel! I think there’s some more special treatment for homosexuals going on here. Can anyone explain why MSNBC is sticking with such a loser of a show?

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Maddow’s tumbling ratings.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-show-25-54-demo-audience-down-more-than-50-since-october/17653

Emproph
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

“Maddow’s tumbling ratings.”

Irrelevant to the facts.

Désirée
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben can’t attack the facts so he attacks the show instead. Classic misdirection.

ZRAinSWVA
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben, using Cohen’s own ‘statistics’, “homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; forty (40%) percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality”, we are then left with the following ‘facts’:

- 75% of pupil molestations are perpetrated by heterosexuals; and,

- 60% of molestation assaults are perpetrated by heterosexuals.

So, who are the evil ones here?

I was not indoctrinated. I grew up on an isolated farm in a very small town, knew no other homosexuals, had two heterosexual parents, and yet knew I was ‘different’ in second grade. My sister is lesbian; however, my other sister is not. A number of first cousins—on both sides of the family—are either gay or lesbian, as was a great aunt and great uncle. How interesting that such pervasive indoctrination could occur within two separate family lines!

How interesting that the scientific community itself is still searching to identify what causes sexual diversity, while you’re so adamant that it’s a result of recruitment into the homosexual ‘lifestyle’. And need I remind you that sexuality is represented by a spectrum of desire, from totally homosexual to totally heterosexual with a diversity of bisexuality in between. My point being, Ben, that you have no point to make—besides expressing vitriol—because you know nothing except what you want to hear.

cowboy
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

I am trying to remember who indoctrinated me. I can’t remember who recruited me into homosexuality maybe because it was so long ago.

But whoever it was…I want to thank him.

mikeksf
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

One of the things that fascinated me most about the brilliant Rachel Maddow interview was Cohen’s smile. He looked just like The Joker. Then, I realized, he sounds like The Joker.
Thanks Rachel for journalism at it’s finest. I loved it when she asked him about his same sex attractions after he was married.
Ben’s provoker pose has become too passe. What is the point of his trolling this site other than to insight and distract? At first I thought it was irony. But we’ve heard it all before and seen the pathology too many times. Yawn

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Does anyone on this website ever try to understand what I’m arguing by reading what I say? Or do you just assume what I believe based on your own prejudices?

I knew someone was going to take issue with the idea that homosexuals and their “allies” want to indoctrinate small children. I don’t know why this point is the least bit controversial, but it is. Homosexuals and their “allies” always take offense when I say it.

Actually, homosexuals and their “allies” take offense at pretty much anything that is true. The truth hurts their sensitive feelings, you see. That’s why we need rules about what people can and can’t say. Not just rules, but CONSEQUENCES! Fire the bigot homophobes from their jobs! Off with their heads!

Let me remind you of the book that set off the David Parker religious freedom case. It’s called “Who’s in a Family” by Robert Skutch.

As Skutch mentioned during an NPR interview:

“The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parents] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there’s another way of looking at life.”

That’s the definition of brain-washing.

Jason D
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben, gays don’t have missionaries.
We don’t have parochial schools.
We don’t go door to door witnessing for homosexuality. We don’t stand on street corners preaching about the perils of heterosexuality, we don’t stand outside businesses trying to give people free copies of Cher’s latest album, We don’t stand around airport lobbies trying to give people rainbow flags for homosexuality. These are all the recruitment tactics of organized religion.

No, we don’t recruit. Little known fact is, all we have to do is stand in the sunlight and people come to us. Making accurate, positive information about homosexuality available to anyone who wants it (including children) is not recruitment. If you think otherwise, then I guess when you pass by a library you see a massive recruitment center for every group and philosophy in existence.

Awareness is not brainwashing, but your side often can’t distinguish because your facts, philosophy, and grasp on reality are so weak — so tenuous — so thin that any information that might in some way contradict you is suddenly “brainwashing”. Just an FYI, brainwashing is by force. No child has been forced to read “who’s in a family” but it has been made available.

wackadoodle
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

“Let me remind you of the book that set off the David Parker religious freedom case. It’s called “Who’s in a Family” by Robert Skutch.

As Skutch mentioned during an NPR interview:

“The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parents] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there’s another way of looking at life.”

That’s the definition of brain-washing.”

Hold on, let me get the world smallest violin so I can play a sad song for the poor bigot who’s not able to teach his kids blacks/women/jews/gays are inferior and should be treated like crap because of those damn schools and their books.

PS: feel free to start your pathetic attempts to pretend your bigotry is TOTALLY different from those other 3 forms of bigotry I listed.

ZRAinSWVA
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben wrote “Does anyone on this website ever try to understand what I’m arguing by reading what I say? Or do you just assume what I believe based on your own prejudices?”

Perhaps, Ben, you should read more carefully what you write if you feel we’re so consistently misinterpreting your intent. Linking to peer reviewed, scientific journals to support your opinions would also be appreciated. When you post personal opinion, though, your opinions are subject to debate. I would note, though, that your comments are not being censured, which speaks highly for the ethical standards of the community and Box Turtle Bulletin. Go BTB!

Ben in Oakland
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

And i’m stil waiting for Ben to rspond to the two pieces I wrote just for him.

Meanwhie, i’m just sondering if you owuld tell us why you are so obsessed with the subject? A little actual information owuld go a long way.

At least quo– assuming you are not one and the same– tells us why he hates himself so much.

AJD
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

“… Cohen spoke out forcefully against Uganda’s proposal to legislate LGBT people out of existence.”

AP also quoted Scott Lively as saying that the Uganda bill goes too far. What these guys are doing is trying to distance themselves from the bill and avoid taking responsibility for creating the climate that spawned it.

wackadoodle
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

“AP also quoted Scott Lively as saying that the Uganda bill goes too far. What these guys are doing is trying to distance themselves from the bill and avoid taking responsibility for creating the climate that spawned it.”

Notice how the apologies and denouncements only came AFTER the media spotlight was shined on them.

Gus
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Richard Cohen really did put on his Gallagher/NOM face didn’t he?

John
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

I will never understand why Cohen ever goes on TV. Every single time has been an unmitigated disaster. Clearly he isn’t someone who learns from experience.

Thomas Kraemer
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

I watched the high definition cable HDTV broadcast and noticed that Maddow’s chest blushed bright red in anger during her interview with Richard Cohen. I assume make-up on her face hid any facial flushing. In HD you could literally see the blood vessels popping on her chest. I posted a picture on my blog page Ex-gay turns Maddow red mad in HD (12/9/09)

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

David Parker isn’t teaching his children to hate anyone. If only I could say as much for the fanatical anti-Christain bigots living in his town. It is his right under federal and state law to do so.

“Peer-reviewed” literature? Oh, you mean like the global warming “consensus”?! Ha, ha, ha!

Global warming, second-hand smoke, the “gay” gene. When your ideas wreak of bullsh!t, just keep yelling “Science!” at the top of your lungs.

Just as I am more pro-constitutional rights than anyone else on this website, I also more pro-science. I demand that the scientific method actually be followed. If it isn’t followed, it isn’t science. (By the way, the “gay” gene is a great example).

Quo
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

If homosexuality is influenced by genetic factors, then obviously race may be relevant. Races differ from each other genetically. If there are genes that contribute that to the development of homosexuality, such genes may well be more or less widespread in different racial groups.

I don’t believe for a moment that Cohen has provided any scientific support for the idea that people of some races are more prone to become homosexual, but this doesn’t mean that that couldn’t be true.

People usually deny that possibility simply out of political correctness.

The last time I raised this issue, I was rewarded with a link to a CDC document from 1995 (“Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15–44 Years of Age, United States, 2002″) which purportedly demonstrated that blacks aren’t more likely to be gay than whites. That might seem convincing, but only if you don’t look at the fine print: the study omitted “persons who are incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized”, which includes a disproportionately large number of blacks.

Of course, the issue is very interesting in a Ugandan context, given that most people there are black. It might help Cohen establish his credibility if he could say whether blacks are more likely, less likely, or equally likely to become homosexual than people of other racial backgrounds. Equally, given that he is Jewish by background and his wife is Korean, one would like to know how prone Jews and Koreans are (or aren’t) to homosexuality.

Quo
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry, I meant 2005, not 1995. I don’t doubt a link to the document will be provided if anyone requests it.

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, if you talk to any geneticist they’ll tell you the genetic differences between the races are extremely superficial – underneath we’re all pretty much the same. Your wild guess that blacks might be genetically more likely to be gay is about as fringe an idea as it can get, not to mention the fact that you’ve gone out of your way to deny there is a biological basis to gayness. Pretty convenient of you to suddenly change your tune when its convenient to your agenda.

Your idea that the number of gays in the black population is underrepresented due to the high number of incarcerated blacks is similarly very far fetched. The vast majority of blacks are not incarcerated and in order to have a significant effect on the proportion of gays in the black population virtually all incarcerated blacks would have to be gay. While I’m not aware of any studies into what percentage of incarcerated blacks are gay, it is almost inconceivable that there’d be any reason for gay blacks to be more likely to be incarcerated than straight blacks.

You’re spinning some mighty wild tales, they just aren’t credible in the slightest.

Alex
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben,

Since you’re so pro-science, I guess you’re aware that nearly every known animal species on the planet exhibits homosexual behavior. Why do you think that is?

(P.S. it’s “reek,” not “wreak”)

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Alex…

Oh, the old “animals do it, so it must be okay” canard. Animals also have interspecies sex. That’s how we get mules. Is that “natural” too?

Also, I’d love to see who documented “nearly every” species exhibiting homosexual behavior.

(Animals also eat their young and throw poop at objects of hatred) . Sounds kind of like American Left.

And yes, I am pro-science. Real science.

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben, read “Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, not that the truth will have any impact on you.

Ben
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Hey Priya Lynn,

Bagemihl found no such thing.

“Scouring zoological journals and conducting extensive interviews with scientists, Bagemihl found same-sex pairings documented in more than 450 different species. In a world teeming with more than 1 million species, that may not seem like much.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813-1,00.html#ixzz0ZEfdvtaw

Even this sounds like politically-motivated science to me. Nonetheless, even if Bagemihl really got the science right, even he isn’t claiming that “nearly every known animal species on the planet earth exhibits homosexual behavior.”

Some snippy commentor demanded that I speak only about solid peer-reviewed science from reputable journals. As we’ve seen from the global warming debate, that’s usually a tactic to make people shut up. “You don’t have the credentials to form an opinion!” I mentioned science because I wanted to make known that I have nothing to fear from true science.

Quo
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

You tell us what any geneticist would say – are you a geneticist? What are you basing this on? (I didn’t deny that there is a biological influence on sexual orientaton, I only denied that sexual orientation is purely biological a simple distinction that seems to be too difficult for you to comprehend).

It’s hardly inconceivable that “there’d be any reason for gay blacks to be more likely to be incarcerated than straight blacks”, there is a perfectly obvious reason why that might be true: having a distant father or a bad relationship with one’s father might well contribute to both homosexuality and a willingness to commit criminal offenses.

Alex
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben,

I was not suggesting that “animals do it, so it must be okay.” I was simply pointing out the scientific fact that homosexual behavior exists among animals. This has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is right/wrong or moral/immoral.

While you were busy making strawman arguments and insulting people whose opinions differ from your own, you forgot to answer my question: why do you think animals exhibit homosexual behavior?

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “there is a perfectly obvious reason why that might be true: having a distant father or a bad relationship with one’s father might well contribute to both homosexuality and a willingness to commit criminal offenses.”.

And once again, you have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, you just pulled the idea out of your butt and its a damn dumb idea at that.

As I said, even if every incarcerated black man were gay (utterly implausible) that would have a negligable effect on the percentage of gays in the black population as a whole. Your idea is dumb and fringe from every possible angle, not to mention racist.

Quo
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

Ooooh, vulgarity! How impressive! Are you impressed by my sarcasm?

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Ben, other researchers have documented gayness in over 1000 species – in virtually every species that’s been looked at. Based on that, its a reasonable assumption that gayness will continue to be found in virtually every species that’s been looked and and as such, exists in “nearly every known animal species on the planet”.

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Yes, Quo, I’m sorry, “damn” was so vulgar. How unladylike of me. That clearly destroys the validity of everything I said – you win.

Quo
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Priya,

What you said has no validity in any case. Those following the other thread in which we’ve been arguing will know that there is evidence that supports the idea that sons having bad relationships with their fathers is part of the reason for homosexuality, Priya’s weird and incoherent attempts to deny this notwithstanding.

Do you have a problem with the idea that having a distant father, or a bad relationship with his father, might make a kid more likely to commit crimes?

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, you never presented any evidence whatsoever that distant fathers contribute to gayness, that’s a connection that only exists in the delusions in your mind. Correlation is not causation.

What I have a problem with is your absurd claim that gays are disproportionately represented amongst black inmates, a disproportionality that would have to be virtually 100% to have even a minor effect on the numbers of gays amongst blacks – that’s just a dumb and totally unsupported idea. That you’d keep comming here with such idiocy just proves you’re a troll and nothing more.

Ken in Riverside
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Let’s vote Priya and Quo off the island.

Timothy Kincaid
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn and Quo,

This thread will now return to the topic at hand. Future posts that do not relate to Rachel Maddow, Richard Cohen, Uganda’s Kill Gays bill, or a closely related topic will be removed.

Priya Lynn
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

Works for me.

Emily K
December 9th, 2009 | LINK

I’m glad Cohen is once again being put into the mainstream media. Every time that happens it only makes things better for the queer community. Also, I had no idea Global Warming was related to Homosexuality. LOL! There’s so much straw there that the Wicker Man is jealous.

Ben in Oakland
December 10th, 2009 | LINK

Quo– yeats in “The Curlew” might be helpful to you.

“No boughs have withered because of the wintry wind. The boughs have withered because I have told them my dreams.”

Jason D
December 10th, 2009 | LINK

Ben
said:

“Alex…

Oh, the old “animals do it, so it must be okay” canard. Animals also have interspecies sex. That’s how we get mules. Is that “natural” too?”

Yes. That which occurs in nature without the influence of man is, by common definition, “natural”.

Ben, your side often tries to label homosexuality as “unnatural”. In other words, something man made and artificial. A “choice” if you will. Evidence abounds that homosexuality occurs NATURALLY in many species. So yes, homosexuality is, indeed, natural. Humans aren’t teaching those penguins to pair off in same-sex pairs, they are doing so of their own accord, without signs of illness, or any other man-made cause.

Do not confuse “natural” with “moral” they are separate concepts.

Ben in Oakland
December 10th, 2009 | LINK

Jason: For this particular type of thinking, Humpty Dumpty is the best recourse:

“Words mean what I say htey mean. nothing more, and nothing less.”

Richard Rush
December 10th, 2009 | LINK

Jason D said:

“Humans aren’t teaching those penguins to pair off in same-sex pairs, they are doing so of their own accord, without signs of illness, or any other man-made cause.”

True, but those penguins may have had distant fathers.

Burr
December 10th, 2009 | LINK

Not to mention overbearing mothers, and maybe sexually abused too!

*rolls eyes*

Désirée
December 11th, 2009 | LINK

BTW Ben, you use of the term “real science” as a way to discredit any study that you disagree with is a logical fallacy often known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

(From AppliedAstronomy.com)It’s like this:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

This is an ad hoc
Ad hoc
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which means “for this [purpose]“. It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes….

attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.

A universal claim is of the form “All x are y” or “No x are y.” In the example above, the universal claim is “No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists.” (No S are BMR.) The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of “Scotsman” to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.

By redefining science to exclude any science you disagree with, you are committing a logical fallacy and thus any conclusions your reach are incorrect.

Priya Lynn
December 11th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy said “This thread will now return to the topic at hand. Future posts that do not relate to Rachel Maddow, Richard Cohen, Uganda’s Kill Gays bill, or a closely related topic will be removed.”.

What happened to that, Timothy?

Timothy Kincaid
December 11th, 2009 | LINK

Thanks Priya Lynn,

I see that I erred in using your name and Quo’s in my comment. So let me correct that mistake

TO EVERYONE

This thread will now return to the topic at hand. Future posts that do not relate to Rachel Maddow, Richard Cohen, Uganda’s Kill Gays bill, or a closely related topic will be removed.

cowboy
December 11th, 2009 | LINK

Why does it take Rachel Maddow to bring this to light? Why aren’t people in the industry of psychology making any public statements about the gross inaccuracies in what Cohen, et al are saying? Is there only Dr. Throckmorton?

Ephilei
December 12th, 2009 | LINK

@cowboy

While I’m not a professional psychologist, my thinking is that, like all scientific communities, are surrounded by crackpot experts and addressing them only implies legitimacy. Professional has puts lots of research into Cohen’s areas: why people are gay/lesbian, the affect of gay parenting, etc. That research is their response to Cohen, whether it has his name in it or not.

Don’t confuse scientists with politicians, journalists, and all the people trying to influence public ideas.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.