Quote: According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday, 56 percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians could not change their sexual orientation even if they wanted to do so -- the first time that a majority has held that belief regarding homosexuality since CNN first posed the question nearly 10 years ago. The sampling error for the results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Six years ago, 45 percent of Americans responding to a CNN/USA/Gallup Poll said gays and lesbians could not change their sexual orientation. And in 1998, the number was 36 percent, according to a CNN/Time poll. The latest poll results affirmed what many gay and lesbians see as a shift in attitude across the country toward homosexuality. Even in the face of state legislation that denies gays the right to marry or to form civil unions, more Americans are now accepting of homosexuality, gays and lesbians say. For the Rev. Mel White, the founder and president of faith-based gay rights group Soulforce, the poll results were a "tremendous relief." "The poll is such good news," White said Thursday. "Over half of America thinks we don't have to be healed from a sickness; suddenly we are OK as we are."Is anyone else getting as sick of this broken sort of reasoning as I am? Or can someone explain to me how this makes sense? People are asked if they believe homosexuals can change their orientation. Because most people respond that they don't believe they can, homosexuality is okay in most people's opinions. Presumably, this means that if most people had believed homosexuals CAN change, homosexuality must be bad in most people's opinions. Now, let's use that to raise another hypothetical survey: Can Christians choose to belong to another religion? I believe most people would say that yes, they can. By the same logic then, this means that most people believe Christianity is bad. What's to blame here? Has the whole country somehow failed to learn some basic principles of reasoning or observation? I can't imagine that it's healthy to let people's political opinions be swayed by evidence of an unrelated point. I don't want this to be a debate about homosexuality, however: My point and my question is about the logic behind the points being made, and the system that can produce such conclusions. As far as I can see, this recurring argument is based on inherently flawed reasoning. What's happening, and what can be done about it?
Logic, Statistics, and Homosexuality
Author
Gay man, former lesbian on whether they can change
Protip: If you state a conclusion in an article, you can force some people reading the article to form the same conclusion.
This holds especially if the conclusion is erroneous, because then the debate will be pre-framed with the conclusion and people arguing about the logical qualities of it will get ignored, because if people actually listened to logic when arguing, logical fallacies might be detected.
My local paper cites Wikipedia on the front page news stories.
[Edited by - Ravuya on July 1, 2007 12:58:36 AM]
This holds especially if the conclusion is erroneous, because then the debate will be pre-framed with the conclusion and people arguing about the logical qualities of it will get ignored, because if people actually listened to logic when arguing, logical fallacies might be detected.
My local paper cites Wikipedia on the front page news stories.
[Edited by - Ravuya on July 1, 2007 12:58:36 AM]
Quote:Original post by Arek the Absolute
Or can someone explain to me how this makes sense?
I can try.
Quote:People are asked if they believe homosexuals can change their orientation. Because most people respond that they don't believe they can, homosexuality is okay in most people's opinions.
This argument, implied to be held by Rev. Mel White if we're sticking to boolean "proved" logic, relies upon the assumption that people aren't going to go around blaming people for things they can't change. That is, if a man is gay, and has no choice over that, discrimination against him is unwarranted.
This of course ignores those who might hold the opinion that gays are inherently evil, have no choice over their evilness, and are going to go to hell for it anyways, or some such. I assume Rev. Mel White is making the assumption that this is going to be a fairly small proportion of the "can't change it" ranks, based on the following implied subassumptions:
1) Those opposed to gays will be largely Christian (this is America we're discussing after all, and the bible seems to supply many/most of the favored rationales against homosexuality -- which would seem to just further add to the tipped scales, what with the majority Christian population)
2) The "condemned to evil" thing seems contradictory to the notion of free will (which Christians tend to believe in), to the point where we can hopefully assume most Christians would indeed believe it to be a contradiction.
3) Those assuming that there is a contradiction probably don't think homosexuality "needs curing" and "isn't OK" if it can't be cured, yet also doesn't condemn one to evil.
Quote:Presumably, this means that if most people had believed homosexuals CAN change, homosexuality must be bad in most people's opinions.
A -> B does not imply !A -> !B, if you think White would presume the same. "That at least N% doesn't think it's bad" would imply "No more than 100-N% think it's bad", not "100-N% total think it's bad.
0% is no more than 30%, to drive home the point I'm trying to make. It's in fact quite a bit less than 30%.
Quote:I don't want this to be a debate about homosexuality, however: My point and my question is about the logic behind the points being made, and the system that can produce such conclusions. As far as I can see, this recurring argument is based on inherently flawed reasoning. What's happening, and what can be done about it?
I see unvoiced (implied and presumed) assumptions. This can be damn annoying when it comes to politicians IMO -- in the interests of not opening the all too often very shaky assumptions upon which an argument is based to obvious attack.
However, I find what you're being peterbed by in the quoted text to be:
1) Obviously an opinion, not some absolute scientific truth ("The poll is such good news", on an explicitly acknowledge to be a largely polarized subject)
2) Having a factual/supportive half supplying that opinion that's based on strong (implied) assumptions, not weak ones (a breakdown of which I listed above)
And as such, a (to me) horrible candidate for exemplifying broken reasoning (although I am tired of such shit when it is weakly supported, or attempted to be framed as the only opinion anyone holds -- e.g. universal for humanity -- but again, neither of those seems to me to apply here).
I think the point he's trying to make is that the poll is about an opinion whether or not homosexuality is genetic. The poll has absolutely nothing to do with your personal opinion of homosexuality itself, but the article's conclusion asserts it to be such.
At least that's how I read it.
At least that's how I read it.
I once read a Scientific American article on a scientist who was working on the treatment of Pedophilia as a disease. Needless to say, this man had many enemies because he wanted to help people that do or may (for the ones that come to him before they do anything) sexual things to children. No one cared that his goal was to keep children safe by curing Pedophiles before they act on their desires.
Of course if he were trying to treat homosexuality then he would be just as hated if not more, except for very different reasons. Now he would be trying to cure something that isn't a disease.
However, there is no evidence that there is any mental health difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Of course there is a mental health difference between knowingly doing harm. Regardless, it is the social ramifications that make these situations different.
With homosexuality there are consenting adults so people are outraged that things are said against it. With pedophilia the view is victimized children (although most countries don't share the US concept of under 18 = child) and children must be protected at all costs. Therefore, those who lust for them are evil even if they are seeking treatment.
In fact it's worse than that, the people who want to "cure" the pedophiles are evil too because they want to help those evil pedophiles.
Now, if logic were a part of this equation, then the following things would have to be considered:
1) Actions and desires are not the same thing.
2) What the US calls statutory is (in most parts of the world) and has been considered normal behavior for a very long period of time. 30+ year old men used to marry 8 year old girls and in some places they still do.
3) What is it really that makes a sexual deviation wrong? Or, is it wrong to even identify them in terms of wrong and right?
Unfortunately in this arena science and logic takes second place to emotions and social influence. This subject is very personal in nature, and as a result science and logic are seen as too cold and heartless to be the deciding factor. In fact, I can guarantee that if science found the unequivocal answer to these questions today, very few minds would change.
Of course if he were trying to treat homosexuality then he would be just as hated if not more, except for very different reasons. Now he would be trying to cure something that isn't a disease.
However, there is no evidence that there is any mental health difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Of course there is a mental health difference between knowingly doing harm. Regardless, it is the social ramifications that make these situations different.
With homosexuality there are consenting adults so people are outraged that things are said against it. With pedophilia the view is victimized children (although most countries don't share the US concept of under 18 = child) and children must be protected at all costs. Therefore, those who lust for them are evil even if they are seeking treatment.
In fact it's worse than that, the people who want to "cure" the pedophiles are evil too because they want to help those evil pedophiles.
Now, if logic were a part of this equation, then the following things would have to be considered:
1) Actions and desires are not the same thing.
2) What the US calls statutory is (in most parts of the world) and has been considered normal behavior for a very long period of time. 30+ year old men used to marry 8 year old girls and in some places they still do.
3) What is it really that makes a sexual deviation wrong? Or, is it wrong to even identify them in terms of wrong and right?
Unfortunately in this arena science and logic takes second place to emotions and social influence. This subject is very personal in nature, and as a result science and logic are seen as too cold and heartless to be the deciding factor. In fact, I can guarantee that if science found the unequivocal answer to these questions today, very few minds would change.
Quote:Original post by Ravuya
I think the point he's trying to make is that the poll is about an opinion whether or not homosexuality is genetic.
A trait could be predetermined and fixed without being genetic. Birthmarks are an example.
Why are we using polls to determine something that clearly falls under the category of science and not opinion? Shouldn't something like this be proven by, say, scientific research and not a polling of a bunch of random people?
If 65% of Americans thought the Moon of cheese, does that really mean anything other than that 65% of Americans are mentally retarded?
If 65% of Americans thought the Moon of cheese, does that really mean anything other than that 65% of Americans are mentally retarded?
Quote:Original post by SticksandStones
Why are we using polls to determine something that clearly falls under the category of science and not opinion? Shouldn't something like this be proven by, say, scientific research and not a polling of a bunch of random people?
If 65% of Americans thought the Moon of cheese, does that really mean anything other than that 65% of Americans are mentally retarded?
Science and scientists have made many discoveries over the past centuries (and beyond) that the general public is slow to accept, despite powerful proof. Some of these discoveries are even still causing 90+ page threads on GameDev.net despite being over 100 years old! It is still socially significant what the public thinks about gay people even if the poll is 'nothing new' to the scientific world. Similarly, it will be an impressive victory for science when an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Earth to be more than a few thousand years old, even though it is scientifically almost indisputable. Why do you not believe these types of polls to be an important indicator of progress (unless you have some issue with the methodology?)
Quote:Original post by SticksandStones
Why are we using polls to determine something that clearly falls under the category of science and not opinion? Shouldn't something like this be proven by, say, scientific research and not a polling of a bunch of random people?
If 65% of Americans thought the Moon of cheese, does that really mean anything other than that 65% of Americans are mentally retarded?
Yes, but, don't forget that science has not been able to figure out homosexuality. You're example would hold water if science has unequivocally explained the reasons for the development of same-sex attraction and people were still being polled about it.
The poll would be useful if it were asking if you knew anybody who was once a homosexual and had become heterosexual. Asking somebody's opinion about it is, indeed, useless from a scientific standpoint.
Quote:Original post by Programmer One
The poll would be useful if it were asking if you knew anybody who was once a homosexual and had become heterosexual. Asking somebody's opinion about it is, indeed, useless from a scientific standpoint.
There's a flaw with that. Because it can be that said person is bisexual, and therefor attracted to both men and women. However, sexuality is a confusing thing, which could confuse said person and make him go homosexual because he is attracted to men. Years later, he finds out it's actually both of them. Plenty of examples of people who turn out to be bisexual after having a 'gay' period.
Also, there are 'gay camps' in the US, where sick minded people attempt to turn homosexual people straight again(Yes, I said sick, because why the hell force your sexual preference onto one other?). Therefor, they could brainwash such a person who will act straight, but is homosexual deep down.
Toolmaker
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement