Talk:Gay heroism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can an alcoholic be "just as good" as a non alcoholic, despite his alcoholism. Does a man who commits adultery become someone who is not heroic? Regan, for example, who was a great leader, was divorced. McCain who is a TRUE HERO to our country, had an affair on his first wife with his second wife. This didn't make him less tortured. This didn't make him less of a war hero. and this didn't make his post war service to our country any less worthy and truly "American". He was a sinner, like the rest of us. He was also a true hero. Homosexuality is a sin. But why are you making these sinners into something more evil than every other sinner in the world? Why are you demonizing the human aspect, and not just trying to help them change the sin?--JeanJacques 12:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

  1. Your comment flits around too much to have any merit. Were you using Reagan as an example of an adulterer? (Or do you think adultery and divorce are the same thing?)
  2. You are reading too much into my words. If you think I'm not trying to help them, you must not have seen my writings about reparative therapy. --Ed Poor Talk 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Of course adultery and divorce are the same thing. "And it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31-32, NASB)--JeanJacques 12:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)


Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.

So... you denounce these people merely because they make you uncomfortable, then you call them selfish?

The general idea you advance is correct: you shouldn't denounce people merely because they make you uncomfortable. But compare what you're saying to what you're doing: vandalizing an encyclopedia and ignoring an invitation to discuss the article.
I've bent over backwards to assume good faith, and you've done nothing but repeatedly vandalize the article - at our expense of other contributors who (like Hsmom) can't edit because the page was locked due to your vandalism.
Seems like your behavior meets the definition you quoted. --Ed Poor Talk 13:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I fully expect this message to be reverted, Conservapedia operating the way it does, however on the off chance you may glimpse it, Ed, I hope it will help you open your mind a bit more.
As a matter of fact I agree with you, I am a rather selfish person and make no effort to excuse my behavior. However, if my idea is correct, as you state, then you should not be above conceding some selfish traits as well.
It is plain to see, is it not? I'm selfish yet I am not homosexual just as you are selfish even though you are not homosexual. Selfishness is a human trait, not a homosexual trait. The external reference you supplied comes from a source whose mission statement claims " generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality". I hardly think a site founded on fabricating research with the aim of vilifying homosexuals can be trusted to provide an accurate and impartial source of information.
As for one person being more or less selfish than another, it is a matter of perspective. You believe that by comparison, I am more selfish than you because I have disrupted a project which you take pride in. Whereas I consider the (what I perceive as) slander of millions of people to be a much more heinous act. Relativity based on individual perspective is not fact, and hence should have no place in an encyclopedia.
I do not believe you have acted in "good faith", as doing so would hint that the account on which I made the initial comment was left open so that we may discuss this. It was not. I hardly consider an account block to be an invitation, and I certainly do not consider it "bending over backwards".
Good day, Ed. I hope one day you will see the errors of your intolerance, and will as a result become a stronger person.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
Matthew 5:44

You seem to confuse the generation of empirical research with "fabricating research". Does this mean you reject empiricism, or simply that you condemn in advance any attempt to disprove ideas you already believe?

The difference between close-minded people and open-minded people is that the latter are prepared to give up opinions when supplied with evidence that proves that reality is different from what they had maintained.

Please be open-minded. --Ed Poor Talk 16:13, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I assure you that I am not confusing anything, and my views on empiricism have absolutely no bearing on this issue. You seem to have misunderstood my statement.
Accurate and impartial research is conducted with the aim of determining a result. However, the mission statement of the site in question clearly states that they have a preconceived result they would like to see, and aim to create research that proves their result. Many institutions will not allow research to be conducted by parties with a preconceived result. For instance, the University of Northern Iowa's Office of Sponsored Programs states clearly in their Policies of Scholarly Responsibilities:
"It is inappropriate to selectively marshal evidence for a preconceived result. The faculty member's commitment to academic honesty must not be compromised."
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that you seem to be attempting to steer away from the main points of this talk. Instead of rebutting my prior contribution in any meaningful way, you merely accuse me of refusing to accept empiricism.

Ironically, you are (1) persisting in making personal attacks and (2) attempting to steer away from the main point of this talk, which is whether gay rights advocates have manufactured a gay heroism myth. That will be all. --Ed Poor Talk 18:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Can this page be unlocked?

<edit conflict> I've been looking some stuff up and wanted to add it, then realized the page was locked. Thanks. --Hsmom 13:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Paste it here Karajou 13:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks - I didn't realize the page was being vandalized - what a pain - I'll let it settle for a day or two until the page can be unlocked, then add my stuff - I'd rather edit directly - less work for all involved. Back to my laundry! --Hsmom 13:13, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Now that the vandalism is done, can we unlock the page? HelpJazz 15:00, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Unlocked. Karajou 15:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks! HelpJazz 15:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Background on Dr. Paul Cameron (author, ref. 1)

A little digging turns up some interesting facts. Highlights for the busy or lazy:

  1. 1983: Membership of American Psychological Association revoked for "a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists". [1]
  2. 1984: Nebraska Psychological Association "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality".
  3. 1985: In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).
  4. 1986: "The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research."

Heckuva guy! :) His fixation on teh evil bumsexers hits particularly funny heights here. (N.B. Not in any way family friendly - graphic descriptions within) --JohnZ 17:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

These citations are from a self-described "expert" on what he calls "sexual prejudice". He's a gay activist psychology professor at a liberal California college -- hardly the kind of person to have a level assessment of the scientific reputation of Dr. Paul Cameron. -Foxtrot 02:23, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Foxtrot you have a point - can you look further at his claims to see if they are true? They should be easy to verify or debunk. --Hsmom 10:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)
If, if this "expert's" points about Dr. Paul Cameron are true, they would be easy to find from more even-keeled sources, wouldn't you agree? Yet a search for "Dr. Paul Cameron" turns up an interesting pattern. The sites that present negative portraits of him, calling him a "crackpot" and a leader of the "Holy War on gays", are 1) Wikipedia, 2) gay activist sites, and 3) the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (a mirror copy of the ACLU). The sites that paint a positive portrait, including the Family Research Institute and, are all conservative and religious. Hmmmmm.... sounds like another case of the liberals and the gay agenda trying to smear someone who says truths they don't want to hear. -Foxtrot 00:00, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Well of course. One would expect that pro-gay sources would include this information, and conservative/religious sources would not. There aren't many even-keeled sources on this issue, I'm afraid. But the question is:

  1. Did the American Psychological Association revoke Cameron's membership?
  2. Did the Nebraska Psychological Association disassociate itself from Cameron?
  3. Did Judge Buchmeyer make the statements attributed to him?
  4. Did the American Sociological Association state their concerns about him?

And is there any evidence that these claims are false (besides the fact that they are stated on pro-gay sites and not stated on conservative/religious sites)? That is, do any of the conservative/religious sites counter these claims, or do they just not mention them? --Hsmom 09:29, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, none of this may matter. We have to go beyond yes or no and dig into the "why".

Did any of these authorities change their rules, from an evenhanded ideal of fairness, to a prejudiced concept that homosexuality is OKAY and that helping a homosexual transition to heterosexuality is BAD? If so, were their adverse decisions against Cameron made entirely on that basis? --Ed Poor Talk 10:00, 19 November 2008 (EST)

  • I've looked into it, and apparently they (1) accepted his resignation and then (2) voted to "drop" him from membership. This sort of contradiction is typical of liberals and particularly of homosexuals and gay rights crusaders.
  • In fact, the American Sociological Association specifically cited political reasons for calling Cameron "not a sociologist" - while not citing even one example of alleged distortion.
  • The psychological and sociological associations have alleged multiple violations of ethical or scientific principles, but then used the allegations as grounds for ruining Cameron's reputation. They are supposed to use evidence, and their failure to do so itself is a violation of the same ethical and scientific principles they claim to uphold.
  • Clearly, they are just going after him because they don't like what he is revealing. --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 19 November 2008 (EST)