An update
For any of you who were following my debate with Josh Cobun on the issue of gay marriage and discrimination, I have just posted my rebuttal to his arguments.
Edit: I realize that not many could see this link due to not being friends with Josh, so here's my position. Sorry for the wall of text.
Alright, Josh. I've done some research on the studies you have mentioned, I've taken my time to rest and I'm ready to make my presentation. Since you've also shown express interest in my response to every portion of your argument, I will now respond, bit by bit with my rebuttal.
First, your disappointment with the link I provided and the haste with which you dismissed the article for mention of Ellen and Orpah. Not only is this an ad hominem, which attacks the opponent in an argument rather than contributing to the argument itself, you also disregarded the fact that this was an article written by a civil rights activist, not a television talk show host. In retrospect, I should have quoted the specific passage to which I wished to direct your attention towards, but that is behind us now.
Secondly, I wish to call attention to the study by Evelyn Hooker which you mentioned. Evelyn Hooker was not (as you had stated) a self-proclaimed lesbian but had indeed married twice. Her second husband's passing coincided with the year that her studies were first published. That man was Edward *Hooker*. Apart from this discrepancy, you failed to mention that Hooker has been widely acknowledged as "The Mother of the Homosexual Movement", whose worked actually prompted the APA to remove "Homosexuality" from their list of mental diseases. Perhaps you have not read much of the experiment so here is an excerpt
from it: "[W]hat is difficult to accept (for most clinicians) is that some homosexuals may be very ordinary individuals, indistinguishable, except in sexual pattern, from ordinary individuals who are heterosexual. Or--and I do not know whether this would be more or less difficult to accept--that some may be quite superior individuals, not only devoid of pathology but also functioning at a superior level."
This does not sound like the same study which you mentioned. Therefore, the conclusion you drew from what you understood of her study, that homosexuality is a learned behavior, does not hold up.
Furthermore, on the issue of the study by Pillard and Bailey, I have also done a bit of research and have reached a similar conclusion as with the Hooker study. I would like to direct your attention to the following, an article written by Pillard and Bailey themselves: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/bailey-pillard.html
I'm sure you may be surprised to find that what is written here is far more in support of the idea that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but rather something that is genetically predisposed. I would like to call particular attention to the following quotations, from this article, who I remind you is written by the same scientist's whose study you used to demonstrate your point: "Regardless of what causes sexual orientation, there is no plausible justification for oppressing homosexuals."
(which is what I believe Proposition 8 to be doing) as well as the following quote "...homophobia remains the one form of bigotry that respectable people can express in public." Needless to say, I found the use of these studies to be quite surprising in your argument, given the discrepancies I found between the conclusions you drew from these studies, versus their actualities.
Fourthly, your response to my criticism of the slippery slope fallacy seemed to do little more than a repetition of the same slippery slope argument which I had criticized you for. I ask for little more here than a clarification of what you are trying to say here without begging the question.
Continuing on, you have a lot of data here regarding the possible health risks of homosexual acts... for men. I did notice that there was a trend in the information presented, in that you failed to ever mention or acknowledge homosexual *women*. Apart from this observation (from which I assume that your aversion to homosexuality is directed more towards men than women, although I could be mistaken) I never recall in my discussion of my feelings towards homosexual *marriage* mentioning homosexual *sex*. While I will gladly debate the subject and its implications on physical health, it does little to promote your position on gay *marriage*.
Lastly, I wish to acknowledge that while your knowledge of theology is much greater than mine, a theological argument on a legislative issue carries much less weight when considering that we have, and have strived to have, a separation of church and state in America. Perhaps you have had a chance to read my friend Robb Siminoski's post on my wall, in response to your arguments, but in case you haven't I would like to borrow the quote which he used to illustrate this point:
"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by George Washington, signed by John Adams.
Now as far as I can tell, that is a response to everything you have stated in your position. If I missed something, do let me know and I humbly await your response.
Edit: I realize that not many could see this link due to not being friends with Josh, so here's my position. Sorry for the wall of text.
Alright, Josh. I've done some research on the studies you have mentioned, I've taken my time to rest and I'm ready to make my presentation. Since you've also shown express interest in my response to every portion of your argument, I will now respond, bit by bit with my rebuttal.
First, your disappointment with the link I provided and the haste with which you dismissed the article for mention of Ellen and Orpah. Not only is this an ad hominem, which attacks the opponent in an argument rather than contributing to the argument itself, you also disregarded the fact that this was an article written by a civil rights activist, not a television talk show host. In retrospect, I should have quoted the specific passage to which I wished to direct your attention towards, but that is behind us now.
Secondly, I wish to call attention to the study by Evelyn Hooker which you mentioned. Evelyn Hooker was not (as you had stated) a self-proclaimed lesbian but had indeed married twice. Her second husband's passing coincided with the year that her studies were first published. That man was Edward *Hooker*. Apart from this discrepancy, you failed to mention that Hooker has been widely acknowledged as "The Mother of the Homosexual Movement", whose worked actually prompted the APA to remove "Homosexuality" from their list of mental diseases. Perhaps you have not read much of the experiment so here is an excerpt
from it: "[W]hat is difficult to accept (for most clinicians) is that some homosexuals may be very ordinary individuals, indistinguishable, except in sexual pattern, from ordinary individuals who are heterosexual. Or--and I do not know whether this would be more or less difficult to accept--that some may be quite superior individuals, not only devoid of pathology but also functioning at a superior level."
This does not sound like the same study which you mentioned. Therefore, the conclusion you drew from what you understood of her study, that homosexuality is a learned behavior, does not hold up.
Furthermore, on the issue of the study by Pillard and Bailey, I have also done a bit of research and have reached a similar conclusion as with the Hooker study. I would like to direct your attention to the following, an article written by Pillard and Bailey themselves: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/bailey-pillard.html
I'm sure you may be surprised to find that what is written here is far more in support of the idea that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but rather something that is genetically predisposed. I would like to call particular attention to the following quotations, from this article, who I remind you is written by the same scientist's whose study you used to demonstrate your point: "Regardless of what causes sexual orientation, there is no plausible justification for oppressing homosexuals."
(which is what I believe Proposition 8 to be doing) as well as the following quote "...homophobia remains the one form of bigotry that respectable people can express in public." Needless to say, I found the use of these studies to be quite surprising in your argument, given the discrepancies I found between the conclusions you drew from these studies, versus their actualities.
Fourthly, your response to my criticism of the slippery slope fallacy seemed to do little more than a repetition of the same slippery slope argument which I had criticized you for. I ask for little more here than a clarification of what you are trying to say here without begging the question.
Continuing on, you have a lot of data here regarding the possible health risks of homosexual acts... for men. I did notice that there was a trend in the information presented, in that you failed to ever mention or acknowledge homosexual *women*. Apart from this observation (from which I assume that your aversion to homosexuality is directed more towards men than women, although I could be mistaken) I never recall in my discussion of my feelings towards homosexual *marriage* mentioning homosexual *sex*. While I will gladly debate the subject and its implications on physical health, it does little to promote your position on gay *marriage*.
Lastly, I wish to acknowledge that while your knowledge of theology is much greater than mine, a theological argument on a legislative issue carries much less weight when considering that we have, and have strived to have, a separation of church and state in America. Perhaps you have had a chance to read my friend Robb Siminoski's post on my wall, in response to your arguments, but in case you haven't I would like to borrow the quote which he used to illustrate this point:
"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by George Washington, signed by John Adams.
Now as far as I can tell, that is a response to everything you have stated in your position. If I missed something, do let me know and I humbly await your response.