Schoolkids gets shut out: Vagina

[Dos Equis]

nothing is gay about learning how to use an iron

who said it was gay?

did you shower with your son so he could be sure to see that your penis was larger than his .... and therefore.... be straight?

I was joking about it being gay.  I've been ironing my own clothes (except for the stuff I take to the cleaners) since my sister taught me how to iron as a little kid.  I remember it used to take me 45 minutes to iron one set of BDUs when I was in the Army. 

And where did Dr. Dobson say you have to show your son your penis so he won't be gay? 

[Dos Equis]

who says there are just two? 

and how will we decide the hierarchy of value?

I know how I would but what if you don't agree?

I didn't.  If there is one method that is clearly superior to the other, then present the stronger method.  If there are legitimate questions about multiple methods, present them all.  If one is clearly junk science, keep it out.

What are we talking about anyway?  If the issue is censorship, the quote talking about debunking Kinsey is not censorship. 

[Straw Man]

I was joking about it being gay.  I've been ironing my own clothes (except for the stuff I take to the cleaners) since my sister taught me how to iron as a little kid.  I remember it used to take me 45 minutes to iron one set of BDUs when I was in the Army. 

And where did Dr. Dobson say you have to show your son your penis so he won't be gay?  

this is the link to Dobson's advice on how treat and (presumably even better) prevent homosexuality. 

It might be closer to 3/5ths than 1/2 down the page.  I don't know how to highlight it inside the link but I did excerpt the paragraph.   The rest of it is equally nutty (IMO)

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm

[Dos Equis]

I think Rib is hilarious and I love the sardonic sense of humor!

Btw... Beach Bum, isn't there reference in the bible to the unacceptability of "spilling one's seed on the ground?"

Found it:  Genesis 38:8-10.  Onan was told to sleep with his (I think) dead brother's wife.  He had sex with her but "spilled" his load on the ground and lost his life in the process.  Has nothing to do with masturbation. 

[Straw Man]

I didn't.  If there is one method that is clearly superior to the other, then present the stronger method.  If there are legitimate questions about multiple methods, present them all.  If one is clearly junk science, keep it out.

What are we talking about anyway?  If the issue is censorship, the quote talking about debunking Kinsey is not censorship. 

granted the excerpt from Dobson has veered off the point of conservative christians trying to "censor anything sexual"  

What if I think Dobson is just junk and not even science?

[24KT]

Nothing like taking a young boy into the shower and showing him a fully mature nude male body, and a fully mature male nude penis in all it's magnificent glory. Yep, ...nothing like creating questions, curiosity and fascination with the naked male anatomy at a very young age to drive all possible thoughts of homosexuality out of the lad. 

[Straw Man]

lol.  Tell me about it.    I listen to him all the time, like millions of other Americans.  I've read his books.  He's terrific.  I don't always agree with him (e.g., the Terry Schiavo matter), but he has been real blessing to me as a parent.  We're lucky to have him.  

I'm guessing this time you're serious

[Dos Equis]

this is the link to Dobson's advice on how treat and (presumably even better) prevent homosexuality. 

It might be closer to 3/5ths than 1/2 down the page.  I don't know how to highlight it inside the link but I did excerpt the paragraph.   The rest of it is equally nutty (IMO)

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000264.cfm

Okay.  I read it.  He doesn't say showing your son your penis will prevent homosexuality.

Great read though. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm guessing this time you're serious

This time?  I read the link with Dr. Dobson's discussion of homosexuality and his analysis makes sense to me.  I'm a big fan of his. 

[Dos Equis]

granted the excerpt from Dobson has veered off the point of conservative christians trying to "censor anything sexual"  

What if I think Dobson is just junk and not even science?

Then you think Dobson is just junk and not even science.  That was easy.   

[Straw Man]

This time?  I read the link with Dr. Dobson's discussion of homosexuality and his analysis makes sense to me.  I'm a big fan of his. 

yes this time becaue just a few posts earlier you were joking about ironing being gay

[Straw Man]

Okay.  I read it.  He doesn't say showing your son your penis will prevent homosexuality.

Great read though. 

BB - taken completely out of context you are correct.   Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis. 

However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS

Here's another gem from the same article:

The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14

He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called:  A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.

left "untreated"?

I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes.   I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole?  Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children

What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work.  What are they supposed to do. 

Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk

[ieffinhatecardio]

BB - taken completely out of context you are correct.   Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis. 

However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS

Here's another gem from the same article:

The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14

He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called:  A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.

left "untreated"?

I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes.   I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole?  Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children

What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work.  What are they supposed to do. 

Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk

This guy Dobson CLEARLY implies that showering with your son in order for him to see your larger penis is a means of prevention to being gay. How it can be interpreted any other way I have no idea.

He also says that rough housing and the ubiquitous "pound a square peg into a square hole" are means of prevention to being gay.

Your final sentence sums it up nicely.

Did you read that part about "prehomosexuality"?
Mark appears to have a condition we might call "prehomosexuality," and unless he and his entire family are guided by someone who knows how to assist, the probabilities are very great that he will go on to experience a homosexual lifestyle.

What do we know about this disorder? Well first, it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric Association.

This guy's a piece of work.

[Dos Equis]

yes this time becaue just a few posts earlier you were joking about ironing being gay

Isn't it?     I was joking about me teaching my son to iron being gay.  Maybe "sissy" is a better word.  I don't think sissy = gay.  But I do worry about that boy, because my wife constantly has him in the kitchen teaching him how to cook and all.     (I'm joking about him learning how to cook possibly causing him to be gay.)   

[Dos Equis]

BB - taken completely out of context you are correct.   Dobson does not expclicity say that in order to prevent your son from being gay you need to show him your penis. 

However - the title of article is - Can Homosexuality be TREATED and PREVENTED - and the part about showering with your son so he can see your adult penis is part of an overall prescription to affirm his maleness for the purpose of, presumably, the treatment and/or prevention of GAYNESS

Here's another gem from the same article:

The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen." [But] left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75 percent chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.14

He's of course referencing the highly scientific study called:  A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.

left "untreated"?

I wonder what the treatment is - maybe more time in the shower staring at your dad prick or perhaps more time in the workshop pounding square pegs in square holes.   I wonder if the treatment would work better or worse with a round peg in a round hole?  Maybe Dobson should contact Harvard Medical School to see if they can conduct a study on square vs round pegs in the treatment and prevention of homosexuality in children

What about the other 25% of those kids where the "treatment" doesn't work.  What are they supposed to do. 

Dobson would actually have to include some science in his stuff before he could even rise to the level of junk

Straw he believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not genetic.  I agree with him.  As do many others.  What is "junk" is the argument that homosexuality is genetic, because there is no science to support this belief. 

[Straw Man]

Isn't it?     I was joking about me teaching my son to iron being gay.  Maybe "sissy" is a better word.  I don't think sissy = gay.  But I do worry about that boy, because my wife constantly has him in the kitchen teaching him how to cook and all.     (I'm joking about him learning how to cook possibly causing him to be gay.)   

sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night.   I am a bit depressed to find out that you take Dobson seriously.   I find this guy to be a complete loon and I'm always baffled by seemingly intelligent people who not only give this guy a pass but actually take him seriously (no offense).

[Straw Man]

Straw he believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not genetic.  I agree with him.  As do many others.  What is "junk" is the argument that homosexuality is genetic, because there is no science to support this belief. 

so it's junk to believe that homosexuality is genetic therefore it must only be a choice? 

And that conclusion is not equally junk?

Do you remember when you chose to be straight?

btw - key word - belief

He starts with the proposition that it's a sin (based on his belief system) and then goes on to provide a very weird and down right creepy prescription to "cure" people.

who knows if it's genetic or not? Even if in the future this is proven conclusively do you think such proof would even matter to guys like Dobson?  Their beliefs seem to be immune to evidence.

BTW - my personal belief is that I couldn't care less if it's genetic or a choice.  It's clearly part of the human condition and as long as it's among consenting adults - Who Cares?  The same goes for heterosexuals - consenting adults, none of my business. 

If you're againts homosexuality then you clearly just have to choose not to be gay right?  If you're still having gay thoughts then just go shower with your dad and spend your evenings pounding square pegs into square holes and eventually you'll want to have sex with women (assuming you're a man of course).   I wonder if girls follow this advice if they'll want to strap-on and have sex with a woman.  I suppose that would have to be the subject of another scientific study

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread from it's original theme which I think was about vaginas.

We all know that it's OK to love vaginas (unless you're a girl of course - then you've made the wrong choice)

[Dos Equis]

sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night.   I am a bit depressed to find out that you take Dobson seriously.   I find this guy to be a complete loon and I'm always baffled by seemingly intelligent people who not only give this guy a pass but actually take him seriously (no offense).

Yes I take him seriously.  Like I said, I've read his books and listened to him on the radio many times.  This week in fact.  I don't agree with everything he says, but when it comes to child rearing he is pretty much right on the money.  I'd be surprised if you actually listened to him and came away believing he is a loon.  You probably wouldn't agree with what he says, but he's not by any means a nut.   

[Dos Equis]

so it's junk to believe that homosexuality is genetic therefore it must only be a choice? 

And that conclusion is not equally junk?

Do you remember when you chose to be straight?

btw - key word - belief

He starts with the proposition that it's a sin (based on his belief system) and then goes on to provide a very weird and down right creepy prescription to "cure" people.

who knows if it's genetic or not? Even if in the future this is proven conclusively do you think such proof would even matter to guys like Dobson?  Their beliefs seem to be immune to evidence.

BTW - my personal belief is that I couldn't care less if it's genetic or a choice.  It's clearly part of the human condition and as long as it's among consenting adults - Who Cares?  The same goes for heterosexuals - consenting adults, none of my business. 

If you're againts homosexuality then you clearly just have to choose not to be gay right?  If you're still having gay thoughts then just go shower with your dad and spend your evenings pounding square pegs into square holes and eventually you'll want to have sex with women (assuming you're a man of course).   I wonder if girls follow this advice if they'll want to strap-on and have sex with a woman.  I suppose that would have to be the subject of another scientific study

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread from it's original theme which I think was about vaginas.

We all know that it's OK to love vaginas (unless you're a girl of course - then you've made the wrong choice)

It is junk to advocate that homosexuality is genetic when there is no science to support this view. 

I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and Y, just like you. 

You may consider his discussion of a "cure" to be weird, but the fact is there are many people who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and subsequently left this lifestyle. 

I'm not "against" homosexuals.  I disagree with the lifestyle and do not support homosexual marriage (or "civil unions").  Most of the voting public agrees.  What many people do is equate a disagreement with the lifestyle to "bigotry" or "hatred."  Many Christians don't help this view by engaging in the "God hates f ags" rhetoric, etc.  People who truly follow Christ's teachings should not have a problem disagreeing with a lifestyle choice, but getting along with and working with those same people.  Everyone has issues (and I know not everyone believes homosexuality is an "issue").

I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.  I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government.  I'm going to start a thread about this one day, but our state government in Hawaii has done some wild stuff in this area, including redefining gender.     

[Straw Man]

It is junk to advocate that homosexuality is genetic when there is no science to support this view. 

I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and Y, just like you. 

You may consider his discussion of a "cure" to be weird, but the fact is there are many people who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and subsequently left this lifestyle. 

I'm not "against" homosexuals.  I disagree with the lifestyle and do not support homosexual marriage (or "civil unions").  Most of the voting public agrees.  What many people do is equate a disagreement with the lifestyle to "bigotry" or "hatred."  Many Christians don't help this view by engaging in the "God hates f ags" rhetoric, etc.  People who truly follow Christ's teachings should not have a problem disagreeing with a lifestyle choice, but getting along with and working with those same people.  Everyone has issues (and I know not everyone believes homosexuality is an "issue").

I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.  I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government.  I'm going to start a thread about this one day, but our state government in Hawaii has done some wild stuff in this area, including redefining gender.     

I'm not saying whether is genetic or not.  I have no clue. 

There are many many things that we can't yet (perhaps never) adequately explain.

I am saying that you can't use the lack of evidence of the cause as proof that it's a choice

The present lack of an irrefutable genetic cause does not in any way constitute proof that it's a choice

I'm not that versed on the science so maybe you can explain how being born with an "X and a Y" makes you straight.

Are you saying that being straight is genetic? - Seriously I dont understand your point here but I'm open to the science if you'd care to explain it to me.

All that aside - Dobsons recommendations are downright creepy and weird (IMO)

To your last point - about forcing certain lifestyle choices - I assume you're talking about the christian right trying to force their beliefs into secular society at large via the government.

I can't think of any other "special interest" group that has more power, influence, and organization prowess (and $$$$'s) than conservative christians.   

We've all seen the news stories of the Republican candidates trying to get the "blessing" of conservative religious leaders (if not - here's a sample: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150516/site/newsweek/) and we've all seen news stories about what the top evangelical leaders think of each candidate (another sample: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html and http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070216/25860_Social_Conservatives_Lack_Top_Presidential_Pick,_Says_Evangelical_Leader.htm)

[Dos Equis]

I'm not saying whether is genetic or not.  I have no clue. 

There are many many things that we can't yet (perhaps never) adequately explain.

I am saying that you can't use the lack of evidence of the cause as proof that it's a choice

The present lack of an irrefutable genetic cause does not in any way constitute proof that it's a choice

I'm not that versed on the science so maybe you can explain how being born with an "X and a Y" makes you straight.

Are you saying that being straight is genetic? - Seriously I dont understand your point here but I'm open to the science if you'd care to explain it to me.

All that aside - Dobsons recommendations are downright creepy and weird (IMO)

To your last point - about forcing certain lifestyle choices - I assume you're talking about the christian right trying to force their beliefs into secular society at large via the government.

I can't think of any other "special interest" group that has more power, influence, and organization prowess (and $$$$'s) than conservative christians.   

We've all seen the news stories of the Republican candidates trying to get the "blessing" of conservative religious leaders (if not - here's a sample: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150516/site/newsweek/) and we've all seen news stories about what the top evangelical leaders think of each candidate (another sample: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html and http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070216/25860_Social_Conservatives_Lack_Top_Presidential_Pick,_Says_Evangelical_Leader.htm)

Straw if there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, how could it not be a choice?

Being born with an X and Y makes you a male instead of a female, so yes I'm saying the fact you were born a male automatically makes you a heterosexual male . . . unless you choose to start having sex with other men. 

We have to agree to disagree on whether Dobson's views are "creepy."  That's hyperbole IMO. 

Christian conservatives are not trying to "force" their views on others.  They are using the electoral process, which is what most adult Americans have the right to do.  If you disagree with the legislative agenda and/or candidates supported by Christian conservatives, then go to the polls and vote.  That's how our democracy works.     


 

[Straw Man]

Straw if there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic, how could it not be a choice?

Being born with an X and Y makes you a male instead of a female, so yes I'm saying the fact you were born a male automatically makes you a heterosexual male . . . unless you choose to start having sex with other men. 

We have to agree to disagree on whether Dobson's views are "creepy."  That's hyperbole IMO. 

Christian conservatives are not trying to "force" their views on others.  They are using the electoral process, which is what most adult Americans have the right to do.  If you disagree with the legislative agenda and/or candidates supported by Christian conservatives, then go to the polls and vote.  That's how our democracy works.   




 

you're making a specious argument here -  Just because you can't prove a genetic cause does not prove it's a choice (nor does it even mean there aren't multiple and/or overlapping causes)

If I show you a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard and I claim that it works because there are no tigers in my backyard would you accept that as proof?

Let's take the argument in reverse

Please show me proof being gay is a choice - if you can't does that prove it's genetic?

I don't really know where to go with your second statement.  If I understand what you're saying it is that if you're born a male then are you automatically "straight" until the point that you choose to be gay.  Is that it? 

If so, again - you'll need to provide the proof of choice on it's own merit

would you agree that if it's OK for conservative christians to lobby for their interest then it's OK for any other group to do so. 

You did write " I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government"  - What's the difference? - other than you may agree with one group and not the other(s)

And - I did say that it was my opinion that Dobsons recommendations were creepy - to each his own.  I assume if you have a son you'll be spending some time together in the shower and also with the wooden peg board.   

[Dos Equis]

you're making a specious argument here -  Just because you can't prove a genetic cause does not prove it's a choice (nor does it even mean there aren't multiple and/or overlapping causes)

If I show you a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard and I claim that it works because there are no tigers in my backyard would you accept that as proof?

Let's take the argument in reverse

Please show me proof being gay is a choice - if you can't does that prove it's genetic?

I don't really know where to go with your second statement.  If I understand what you're saying it is that if you're born a male then are you automatically "straight" until the point that you choose to be gay.  Is that it? 

If so, again - you'll need to provide the proof of choice on it's own merit

would you agree that if it's OK for conservative christians to lobby for their interest then it's OK for any other group to do so. 

You did write " I do have a problem with people attempting to force certain lifestyle choices on others using the government"  - What's the difference? - other than you may agree with one group and not the other(s)

I think we're going in circles.  I'm not sure what more I can say about the genetic vs. choice thing.  There is no scientific proof that men have sex with men because they are genetically programmed to do so.  I don't need to disprove this, which is what you're asking me to do, because there is no proof that men are genetically predisposed have sex with other men. 

I have no problem whatsoever with Christians and homosexuals lobbying legislatures.  I do have a problem with homosexuals trying to force homosexual marriage on society, which is why I vote against endorsing this practice.  I use my vote to express my problems with their agenda, not censorship.  People who have the same problem with Christian conservatives pushing certain issues should vote against those issues as well.  For example, I am opposed to vouchers for public schools, because I think they violate church-state separation.  Christian conservatives strongly support this issue.  I support their right to lobby for vouchers, but I have voted against that issue at least once.     

[Straw Man]

I think we're going in circles.  I'm not sure what more I can say about the genetic vs. choice thing.  There is no scientific proof that men have sex with men because they are genetically programmed to do so.  I don't need to disprove this, which is what you're asking me to do, because there is no proof that men are genetically predisposed have sex with other men. 

I have no problem whatsoever with Christians and homosexuals lobbying legislatures.  I do have a problem with homosexuals trying to force homosexual marriage on society, which is why I vote against endorsing this practice.  I use my vote to express my problems with their agenda, not censorship.  People who have the same problem with Christian conservatives pushing certain issues should vote against those issues as well.  For example, I am opposed to vouchers for public schools, because I think they violate church-state separation.  Christian conservatives strongly support this issue.  I support their right to lobby for vouchers, but I have voted against that issue at least once.     

Even the "genetic vs choice" debate is presumptive - who's to say those are the only two options and/or that the are totally separate.

My point all along has been that you can't use the lack of proof of a purely genetic cause as the sole proof (or really any proof) of the "it's a choice" position  - That is my point - plain and simple

Lack of tigers in my backyard does not prove that my tiger repelling rock is what's keeping them away

BTW - I supsect that conservative christians really don't care much about the genetic vs. choice argument.  I think it's really just a smoke screen to provide shelter for their prejudice against something that their belief system tells them is a "sin"  (again my opinion)