(RE: homosexuality) what's with fundie "science"?

[Dragon Zachski]

(WARNING: references to body parts)



I don't get it.

Every anti-gay fundie I've seen latches onto the first study they see that happens to agree with them(even if it's been debunked 50 times over). Their criteria doesn't seem to be if it's scientifically correct, just that it has sources and it agrees with them.

Whenever you provide evidence that it's been debunked, they plug their ears and sing "Jesus loves me!!". If a random person from NARTH wrote an essay on how much he disagrees with scientific evidence that suggests that gays are born gay, they'd jump on it and present it as having "debunked" that scientific evidence.

They constantly present misinterpretation of facts, especially regarding the population of gays (They rely on a 1992 survey... now, am I the only one who remembers that coming out was essentially considered social and often literal suicide, and that due to this, the figures would be severely underrepresented?). They even have their own definition of what a homosexual is, apparently, because even if a heterosexual married man molests a boy, they consider him part of the "homosexual community" and parade him as an example of how "immoral homosexuals are".

As someone who does believe in God (though not the one of the bible), I often point out how the prostate must have been designs to receive pleasure, otherwise it wouldn't. This logic goes past their head as they begin to rant about the dangers of "anal sex" (actually fisting) and such. If half of what they said was true, 70% the gay community would be dying out from salmonella and e.coli, which is apparently in our anus, somehow not harming us until we get it on our penis.

I'm sorry, I can't believe that I somehow have e. coli and salmonella in my ass and it isn't killing me.

(Not to mention there's probably tons of bacteria in a vagina, too, simply because of mucus)

It's so easy to counter-attack most of a fundie's points... but they're like the Energizer bunny. They just keep going and going and going and going... and they'll repeat themselves ad nauseum!

...Ahem, I'm getting off-topic.

What's with this fundie science? I'd rather hear Bible verses than NARTH "science".

[wackadoodle]

I had a rather long rant on this but I cant remember if its on here or the old board, the centerpiece was this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH#Medical_view_of_conversion_therapy

The American Psychological Association Committee on Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Concerns states that therapy to change sexual orientation is rejected by most medical and mental health associations that have taken a position on the topic, on the grounds that it is often damaging to people's well-being.[8] The American Psychiatric Association states that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[33] Major organizations that reject therapy to change sexual orientation include the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association.[34]

NARTH rejects these claims, arguing that the psychological and psychiatric professional associations have become little more than the research arms of the gay rights movement.[35] A. Dean Byrd commented in a press release that a paper by Jeffrey Satinover showed that, "...gay advocates have created fraudulent studies and misused, misquoted, and mischaracterized other research studies for political gain. These reports are frequently used in court cases to bring about victories for gay activism.

Their no different from creationist 'scientists', they parade around afew PHDs, pull facts out of their ass, cite their own BS to support other bullshit and try to use as much sciencetalk as possible to legitamize it to their uneducated followers. They have no interest in science, facts or the truth. They exist solely so their followers can claim a 'scientific' basis for their idiotic beliefs.

When every single credible institution in the field says their full of shit they scream conspiracy or just claim to know better than that 99% *actual figure for creationists* of scientists who completely disagree. Their followers of course completely believe this, the only other option is admitting that their fucking morons.

[Admiral Lithp]

Isn't E.Coli FOUND in feces?

[Sandafluffoid]

Apr 18, 2009 18:35:53 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Isn't E.Coli FOUND in feces?

Perhaps, but contrary to fundie belief Teh Ghey !=Coprophilia

[CtraK]

A Related Article.

Wahey.

[Admiral Lithp]

Apr 18, 2009 18:38:08 GMT -5 Sandafluffoid said:

Apr 18, 2009 18:35:53 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Isn't E.Coli FOUND in feces?

Perhaps, but contrary to fundie belief Teh Ghey !=Coprophilia

No, what I meant was that E. Coli IS in your ass.

[schizophonic]

A lot of people are self-serving. I think this is just an outcropping of that self-serving nature, that they will find the one piece that says what they want to hear, what they "know" and back it up.

There are a lot of people who use science to confirm their prejudices, rather than science to explore and test theories and explain based on the tests. They don't want the truth, they want comforting answers that give them a reason to believe (in this case) that gays are bad "scientifically," and not just because they're bigoted.

[Dragon Zachski]

Upon additional research... yes, there is E.coli in the colon. However, it's there because it's beneficial. And there's bacteria in the vagina as well (which is also beneficial.)

One would argue that, regarding said bacteria, having unprotected vaginal sex is just as "dangerous" as having unprotected anal sex.

Of course, they make condoms that enhance sex now, so... why NOT is the big question.

RE: creationism...

I'm technically a creationist, but only so far as I believe that everything was guided. I have no science to back this belief up up (aside from looking at the odds, which are unreliable as scientific evidence in any situation). Otherwise, I'm an evolutionist in that I believe we evolved from a single-celled organism to a primate-like creature (which eventually evolved into humans and apes) to full human beings (skipping tons of steps here, but ya know).

[schizophonic]

Apr 18, 2009 19:54:48 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

Upon additional research... yes, there is E.coli in the colon. However, it's there because it's beneficial. And there's bacteria in the vagina as well (which is also beneficial.)

One would argue that, regarding said bacteria, having unprotected vaginal sex is just as "dangerous" as having unprotected anal sex.

There's a huge difference between the bacteria in a vagina and anus. That's why they tell you never to put anything that's been in an anus into a vagina, but not vice versa. It's why analingus carries mroe health warnings than cunnilingus.

[Vene]

Apr 18, 2009 17:59:32 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I'm sorry, I can't believe that I somehow have e. coli and salmonella in my ass and it isn't killing me.

There most definitely is, plus about a thousand other species of bacteria. It's normal and nothing to worry about.

(Not to mention there's probably tons of bacteria in a vagina, too, simply because of mucus)

There are quite a few there too.

[Dragon Zachski]

Apr 18, 2009 20:10:31 GMT -5 @schizophonic said:

Apr 18, 2009 19:54:48 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

Upon additional research... yes, there is E.coli in the colon. However, it's there because it's beneficial. And there's bacteria in the vagina as well (which is also beneficial.)

One would argue that, regarding said bacteria, having unprotected vaginal sex is just as "dangerous" as having unprotected anal sex.

There's a huge difference between the bacteria in a vagina and anus. That's why they tell you never to put anything that's been in an anus into a vagina, but not vice versa. It's why analingus carries mroe health warnings than cunnilingus.

That's true, I forgot about that... probably since I'm not going to be putting anything into a vagina anyways.

Still, I think the fundie claims about the horrors of anal sex are quite exaggerated.

[Admiral Lithp]

Especially since the Fundies seem to forget that we have little things called sanitation and condoms.

[Dragon Zachski]

Apr 18, 2009 21:23:15 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Especially since the Fundies seem to forget that we have little things called sanitation and condoms.

I actually had one fundie say to me, "Hah, yeah, safer, but not safe. *insert fundie babble about how homosexuality will destroy us all. destroy us all. destroy us all. destroy us all. destroy us all. destroy us all.....*"

In response to the condom thing, I mean.

[szaleniec]

Most strains of E. coli aren't pathogenic, of course. Of the ones that are, only a minority are more than an annoyance. And none of them are sexually transmitted.

[Dragon Zachski]

Apr 18, 2009 22:21:00 GMT -5 szaleniec said:

Most strains of E. coli aren't pathogenic, of course. Of the ones that are, only a minority are more than an annoyance. And none of them are sexually transmitted.

That would explain why I've never heard of anyone being infected by salmonella and E. coli through gay sex.