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.

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.

What happened to that, Timothy?

(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.

*rolls eyes*

“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.

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

“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.

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