LGBT News Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT People

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

link? what about traffic accident?

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

People believe these stuff because they think it supports their viewpoint. That being said, I'm getting real sick of political groups citing these sociological studies without pointing out the drawbacks and the lack of honesty regarding the sociology communities. In the end, it seems like one giant game of this study proves X or Y, so therefore this position is valid, and claiming that the other side has holes to their studies without acknowledging their own.

Now, before I go further, I want to make a disclaimer that I have no political inclination. I'm simply stating what I'm observing. I know I may have opened a can of worm, but hey, go ahead and say what you want.

It seems like many of those sociological studies that supports pro-lgbt and anti-lgbt are in fact flawed as they suffer from some forms of drawbacks such as small sample size, poor methology design, homogenous sampling, absence of comparison groups or proper comparison, contradictory data, limited scopes of outcomes, rigged datas, and lack of APA's urged statistical power. It seems like the pro-lgbt side has pointed to the problems of the anti-lgbt's cited studies and I have yet to see any actual criticism to the paper of 'no basis: what same-sex parenting studies don't tell us' that does not involve irrelevant arguments. That being said, if many of those studies no matter whose side they support suffers from those drawbacks, we are to conclude that there is no evidence to support either side. With everything said before here, there isn't any way you can design a sociological studies that takes tries to cover up holes as it is inefficient to try.

So, since there isn't any good amount of evidences that support either one of those sides, it is important to look into alternative arguments that does not take usage of sociological studies. Otherwise, you're putting yourself into a trap as your opponent can simply point out that these studies have these holes and rendering it invalid.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

Thank you for this,

Second-hand knowledge being quoted by people who don't know better is definitely a problem. Underpowered studies, poor endpoints, improper comparisons, post-hoc analyses, missing follow-up and God knows what else all make these types of studies highly suspect (on either side of the divide, unfortunately).

As Reptilian above stated, we'd be better off NOT using most sociological studies to support our arguments, first, because we're playing the opponent's game and second because they are flawed and laden with holes that a truck could drive through.

Even clinical research, using the gold-standard blinded, randomized trials are sometimes flawed (about 10 to 15%), and this is with measurable physical phenomena!

So what to say instead? Argue from the point of view of liberty, of insisting on loving who you see fit, and exposing those who would otherwise coerce us against our liberty.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

Tony Perkins and co. never fail to give me a good chuckle. At least now I know to be more careful next time I drive in case my gayness causes an accident!

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

I used to be a Christian and would actually listen to the FRC and to see what they have stated above does not surprise me. They are an organization who thinks homosexuality (or anything other than heterosexuality, I suppose) is an abomination; therefore, they're going to reach for anything they can to "sway" society away from accepting LGBT people and to try to help "convert" anyone who feels they may be anything other than hetero.

And just FYI, one of the men who did (still does?) a radio show for the FRC also stated that any form of birth control is a "sin" and he would often state how he and his wife have 8 children. Okay...every family needs to multiply like rabbits. That will do the world good.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

People actually believe this crap? Wow.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

not everyone have enough income and resource at home to feed many kids >_>

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

I have no idea who or what they surveyed to get this data

Not a single one of those "facts" applies to me.

I rarely drink, I am completely 100% drug free, and completely disease free. The only medical problems I have ever had are things that I have been born with (I know I was born gay but I am on about other things lol) .


The Traffic accident statistic made me snigger, how does someone's sexuality have anything to do with their ability to drive a car. I am 22, have never had a crash, a speeding ticket, I am a pilot! I passed all the exams and check-rides first time!!

"25 times more likely to commit suicide" - Maybe if people didn't come up with homophobic crap then we wouldn't suffer mental health problems usually induced by bulling and abuse for our orientation.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

Who on Earth is stupid enough to actually believe these types of "facts"?

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

you are 100% more likely to suffer from severe penis envy if you listen to the FRC.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

The Gay Bowel Syndrome is an outdated blanket term for diseases contracted from anal sex, so technically it can be HIV. But it's not a specific disease and it doesn't "attack the intestinal tract", and it was deemed obsolete decades ago. It appears that this group is about thirty years behind in their "research", and are obviously parroting what they heard from an outdated source (if they had actually read it properly they would understand that the "Gay Bowel Syndrome" isn't any specific disease).

Also, I had fun with the ratios. According to their ratios of gay-to-straight incidents, using the newest statistics I could find (ranging from 2005-12), out of the 31,306 suicides in the US in 2010, a whopping 31,306 GAYS COMMITTED SUICIDE. Of course the actual statistic is around 3:1, which still is bad. That same year, 14,748 people were murdered in the US, 14,601 of them were gay, and only 147 were straight! Guess what, the gays did it again! Out of the 25,580 deaths in motor accidents, 24,301 were of gay people!

Clearly these numbers are pulled out of hats. Ignore the morons and move on.

---------- Post added 7th Apr 2013 at 04:03 PM ----------

*deaths in motor accidents in 2005 in the U.S.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

Oh god, I'm pretty sure I know about a couple of these "studies" in question. They were debunked years ago, and here's why for one: the people they interviewed were in gay bars. So apparently a disproportionate number of alcoholics drink in bars, go figure. They then generalized this to all gay people instead of gay people who regularly drink socially. It's just bad science and long disproved. Citing this crap is irresponsible and undermines your own credibility.

 

Re: Family Research Council Defends Republican's Outdated Propaganda Against LGBT Peo

:***: Republicans!!

:tantrum::eusa_doh::bang: