Skip to main content

No, I'm not operating from a false premise

I have no idea where Jason PB got that idea from. A homosexual could only be excluded from natural reproduction by being exclusively homosexual. And once you get to tubing babies, the whole sexual orientation thing goes out the window anyway, except that (so far) you need a host mother for life support between conception and birth.

Having met several Catholic priests, and also Jason, I’d guess he would probably do a pretty reasonable job of the actual mechanics of priesthood, but I’d also guess that he has no real interest in doing so.

As to the hands-in-air screams of accusation, read the freakin’ post! I said I don’t know which way it would fall, and I also said that “conventional wisdom” by which if you want it unpacked a bit I intend to mean “this is the gist of the opinions that I have most often heard expressed” would tend to disfavour homosexuals (not that I would tend to disfavour homosexuals).

Jason, neither the first statement (an opinion) nor the second (an observation) accuses you or homosexuals in general of being child molesters. The phrase “could fall either way” means that I’m prepared to discover that exclusive heterosexuals molest more children per capita than exclusive homosexuals. Read it! Understand it! Believe it!

I am most definitely not going to be bullied into retracting an honestly held opinion, nor am I going to lie about what I’ve observed. I long ago gave up trying to please everyone, mainly because it’s literally impossible. I appreciate that you’re offended by what I wrote, and it saddens me that you should take it to heart so, but I did not write it to offend anyone. I believe that you’ve read meaning into it through your own fears and apprehensions which is not there.

I in turn find it really offensive that if I write anything but fulsome praise for homosexuals, somebody will jump on me for it. There is apparently no such thing as a neutral opinion. It is apparently not safe to disagree with the politically correct position or explore the issues except possibly in a protected forum, and that sucks. Not that I spend my life doing such things, but anomalous minefields like that really irritate me and I’m not going to spend my life tiptoeing around them.

As to the numbers on this and other fronts I’ll start believing some when I see repeatable studies not done by either people with a homosexual interest (like Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard) or people with a vested interest (real or percieved) in rubbishing homosexuals.

The most reliable numbers I’ve seen so far indicate about 2.5% homosexual males, about 1% exclusively so, and about 1.5% homosexual females, about 0.5% exclusively so. I’ve seen similar numbers from a variety of different, independent studies (e.g. Penn State University), including a couple of census runs which yielded much lower proportions but probably didn’t ask the questions very well. While I don’t regard them as any kind of Absolute Truth, I tend to give studies like the PSU one more credence than values an order of magnitude or so higher. Roughly the same ratios seem to hold for the USA, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

Think about, for example, the number of actors portraying homosexuals in movies and on television and you’ll see that under-representation of your viewpoint is no more of a problem than under-representation of American society and values on Australian screens.

If you have some reliable numbers which disagree with those, please tell me about them.

James Purser, thank you for your clarification, which is absolutely correct (the official change seems to have happened in 1973); “clinical” wasn’t the best possible choice of word, “medical” might have been better. Homo|sexual == same|intercourse. Someone who willingly has sex with a member or members of the same gender is a homosexual, regardless of the age of the other participant, regardless of whether they also have sex with a member or members of the opposite gender, and regardless of whether they have any lifestyle markers (like “attends Stonewall or Connections regularly” or “is in a civil union with another member of the same gender”) to go with it.

Despite what I said about not spending my life dodging people’s pet peeves, this is the last post from me on the topic here this year, regardless of any responses. I’m sure I’m about to get flamed again by PLOA denizens who are sick of the topic, and I’d much rather use the space to talk about more interesting things anyway.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...