Report from the Headsick Front.
Oh no.
Reading that was in fact one of the nastiest experiences of my recent life. It's the tone that does it; a horrible combination of faux-mid90's-skatertalk ("and a 'tude the size of New Hampshire"), nasty, nasty, wrong theorising about sexuality ("If you're a sissy, you end up gay 'cos you don't fit in and stuff"), really, really patronising down-talk, and Christian Fundamentalism.
I especially like "Hey, no wonder so many young people are struggling with their sexual identity!
It seems like many teens today haven’t experienced how awesome it is to be a guy or a girl. Have you? Do you realize your worth in God’s eyes?"
{insert wince here}
Nota bene also the "Hey, Bogus! Being Gay Kills You, Kids!" section, and the fact that despite the extensive bibliography, the Kinsey-refuting "more sophisticated research methods" are not referenced. I suspect that's because they're the sort of "sophisticated research methods" which involve listening to the little voices in your head or other such rigourous scientific techniques.
Perhaps the reason, O Family.org, that so many young people are struggling with their sexual identity is that organisations such as your good selves continue to spread misinformation and lies about the very nature of a large proportion of possible sexual identities?
[I'd really like it if someone with a better grasp of web-fu could come up with some refuting statistics, as I'm strapped for time at the moment...]
posted by Withiel @ 5:20 pm
11 comments
11 Comments:
American Psychological Associaton
Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
A good source, and refutes a large number of points in your fundie text. Why is it a good source? BECAUSE IT'S THE FUCKING APA. Yes.
It also should be noted that sites like this "family.org" tend to use data and findings from scientists that have been widely discredited by the rest of the scientific community.
Bastard link appears not to work.
Try this.
Excellent.
Are you not aware of the "edit comment" button, though?
I can't fucking see it.
You need to be logged in.
I am now logged in and can see only a "delete comment" button.
"Even if 95 percent of the population was addicted to alcohol, we still would not think of it as normal—or acceptable."
What the fuck?
Definition of normal "being approximately average" - I would say that 95% is a bit more than being approximately average.
Even though the term 'normal' has a very ambiguous meaning, I am sure that their understanding of the word is bollocks!
'Let’s face it: science is meant to be fact . . . not theory. So, when the media takes hold of false theories...'
What does religion count as?
Fact: 'Research has shown that men and women living homosexually are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder and nicotine dependence.'
Reason: Because they are terrified of fundamentalist shits like the ones that run family.org!
N.B. Does the 'research' mention involve putting 'benders' in concentration camps and seeing how they respond?
Actually, you're probably not wrong about that last point - see saney's first point. Also see the phenomenon of "de-gaying" camps. As to your other comments, yes. With bells on.
'Let’s face it: science is meant to be fact . . . not theory. So, when the media takes hold of false theories...'
This is a quote from someone who does not understand the meaning of the word "science" or the word "theory".
Post a Comment
<< Home