I was referring to the children part, not Kinsey specifically, Sorry if that was unclear. You know, like when Zucker causes kids to have anxiety attacks on seeing the color pink, and the whole “do no harm” thing gets tossed out the window because transkids are small and powerless.

Non sexual love between men can be better than sexual love between a man and a woman…

I think Kearns Goodwin and other historians have debunked the “Gay Abe” theory…they are not right wing, fundamentalists; just historians without a “gay axe” to grind.

Um… what “example” from my own life are you referring to? I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Kinsey who used children in his experiements, mind you.

Warren, interestingly, defends this practice himself.

As far as I can recall, I’ve never said any one person or group is all bad (well, John Money comes close) or all good. I’m also not a big defender of Kinsey. He started the general trend in “sexology” of using extremely sloppy research methods to come to questionable conclusions, which reached its apothesis with John Money ruining untold thousands of lives with unecessary mutilation and lies just so he could make a name for himself, and continues today in the work of people like Ken Zucker (Let’s traumatize kids! We don’t know if it’ll change any actual outcomes, and can’t really justify why those outcomes should be changed, but not following strict gender roles is icky!) Ray Blanchard (You like to jerk off in skirts, right? Just say yes and I’ll give you the magic hormone letter. Also, transwomen should never be studied in comparison to cisgendered women, because, well, I just don’t want to.) and Michael Bailey (If I want to have sex with you, that makes you an irredeemable gay whore, although I’m still straight. If I don’t want to have sex with you, then you should just go have sex with yourself.)

Also, if you think gay people never have positive opinions of individual ex-gays, you should go check out exgaywatch.

P.S. What, pray tell, is “the lifestyle?” I myself have a lesbian sexual orientation, but apparently I am in need of guidance as to exactly what “lifestyle” this is supposed to dictate that I lead.

Just using an example from your own life. Seeing one person or one group as all bad or all good is not reasonable.

Just the other day, yet another gay man, used Kinsey trying to back up his claims about sexuality. Kinsey who used children in his experiements, mind you. And he has a moral outrage issue when a person, who does not see gay sexuality as healthy, uses the work of a person who has not been enitrely ethical either.

Just showing that it works both ways.

I’ve watched the gay community justify deciet, immorality in research etc… just as much as I have watch the conservative community do the same.

Look at it. Many gay people call ex gays anti gay even when we do not tow that party line. I suppose they do this to confirm that ex gays are ALL bad so as not to step across that line that might – might – change their opinion about those who leave the lifestyle. Having a postive opinion about an ex gay might change the way gays see themselves??? That’s a scarey thing to do.

And that has… what to do with anything I was talking about?

Would it be easier to substitute Spitzer for Bailey?

On this blog, undoubtedly. Warren doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge his friend’s serial dishonesty.

More Confirmation Bias:

Abraham Lincoln had a good male friend whom he slept with at night…he must be gay.

Actually I have seen people use confirmation bias on this story.

Ignoring entirely the long list of evidence (a pattern of sharing beds with other males over decades – including documented male “bed sharers” in the White House where there certainly didn’t seem to be either a shortage of beds or particularly ineffective heating), I’ve seen those who want to believe that Lincoln could not POSSIBLY have had a sexual interest in men do the great circular evidence game. They quote some other researcher who agrees with them and claim that this is conclusive evidence. They also omit anything that might tarnish Lincoln’s image.

Interestingly, I’ve not seen those who think Lincoln might be gay do this.

And as for Jonathan and David, I’ve seen some theologians jump through hoops trying to explain away both the Biblical scene of the two disrobing together and especially the “love greater than a woman” verses.

Usually it goes like:

1. There are no positive Biblical stories of same-sex romantic love
2. Therefore the Bible unequivicably condemns same-sex romantic love
3. And because the Bible unequivocably condemns same-sex love, then the story of Jonathan and David was therefore not a positive Biblical story of same-sex romantic love.

I’m not seeking to defend either one but the efforts taken to deny them are often comical.