Newsbusters On The Cdc Study

[thesometimesaint]

The percentage of the population that actually is gay, vs the actual percentage that is gay, vs the percentage that is bisexual, vs the percentage that is straight... All are questions that may be of interest to some, but I find to be of little significance. The quantity of others that are gay or straight or whatever is immaterial to anything. It is enough for me to know that I'm not alone, and there are thousands of others like me. But beyond that, the exact amount is immaterial to how I live my life, and should have no bearing on my civil rights.

 

Agreed, but I'd make one small change. The..., and should have no bearing on my civil rights to ..., and should have no bearing on anyone's civil rights.

Edited July 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Post 72 does not speak to Wade's conclusion that legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts reversed the declining trend...

Sigh. You might want to read what Wade actually wrote not what you think he wrote.

[Daniel2]

There are positive ways of affecting LGBT youth, reducing HIV and sexual transmitted diseases, and increasing mental health and wholeness, that are statistically far more beneficial than attempting to discourage same-sex behaviors through personal or familial rejection and/or fighting to legally ban any civil recognition of same-sex relationships.

Specifically, I highly recommend downloading the LDS-specific version of this brochure, which is full of helpful, family centered teachings from LDS prophets and leaders:

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications

Edited July 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

Sigh. You might want to read what Wade actually wrote not what you think he wrote.

 

I've quoted Wade's conclusion twice in this thread but I'll do it a third time here.  I've gone through his first SIX sources (linked in the quote below) and can't find the data to support his conclusion.  So I asked for it from Wade.  If you believe that I have missed the data supporting the idea that legalizing gay marriage in MA or other states reversed downward trends resulting in "alarming" increases in promiscuity, infidelity, intimate/domestic partner violence, suicides, and HIV/STD transmission please let me know where that data exists.

 

Here is the quote in question from Wade's blog:

 

"However, after legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and other states, instead of decreasing certain sex-related social problems as intended (like homosexual promiscuity and infidelity and intimate/domestic partner violence and suicides and AIDs and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections), the previous downward trends were reversed and saw an increase at an alarming rate for each of these social ills. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE...

[wenglund]

Sorry, no bias.. The data to support your specific conclusion isn't there. And if it was, I assume you would have quoted it by now.

 

I appreciate you affirming that confirmation bias can sometimes be so severe as to cause acute blindness even to the bias itself, if not also lead one to irrationally conclude that re-quoting here what was well documented on the linked page elsewhere will somehow mysteriously surmount the acute blindness and not be an entire waste of time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Instead of snarky remarks, why don't you provide an actual study that shows gay men that marry increase the chances of getting STD's...

 

We just need one legitimate study.  Can you provide just one?????  It would be much more effective than your here here here here answers that do not relate to your assertions.

 

On the linked web page I provided ample evidence (at least to those with eyes to see) in support of my assertion that legalizing SSM didn't decrease health and social ills among gays as expected, but instead saw a reverse in the downward trend. Re-posting the findings here would be unnecessary for those with eyes to see, and it would be a waste of time for those with cognitive blinders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

On the linked web page I provided ample evidence (at least to those with eyes to see) in support of my assertion that legalizing SSM didn't decrease health and social ills among gays as expected, but instead saw a reverse in the downward trend. Re-posting the findings here would be unnecessary for those with eyes to see, and it would be a waste of time for those with cognitive blinders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Just trust him folks... it's there.  Among the ~4 dozen links in his short blog post (directing you to hundreds if not thousands of pages)  there is the data that supports his conclusion.

 

I'm convinced.

Edited July 22, 2014 by rockpond

[california boy]

On the linked web page I provided ample evidence (at least to those with eyes to see) in support of my assertion that legalizing SSM didn't decrease health and social ills among gays as expected, but instead saw a reverse in the downward trend. Re-posting the findings here would be unnecessary for those with eyes to see, and it would be a waste of time for those with cognitive blinders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You do realize that you didn't answer my question.  Do you have a study that shows increase of STD's among married gay partners???  It is a simple question.   As far as I could tell none of your here, here, here, here studies were secifically about married gay couples.  So if you are trying to make the case that marriage for gay couples increases their chances of getting STD's, you have yet to provide such a study.  You are making a conclusion that is not necesairly related.  

 

In any event, this has actually NO bearing on gay marriage.  We don't conduct studies of any group of Americans and then deny them their civil right to marry based on those studies.  So just where are you going with this anyway?????

[california boy]

On the linked web page I provided ample evidence (at least to those with eyes to see) in support of my assertion that legalizing SSM didn't decrease health and social ills among gays as expected, but instead saw a reverse in the downward trend. Re-posting the findings here would be unnecessary for those with eyes to see, and it would be a waste of time for those with cognitive blinders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

There are statistics and then there are **** statistics.  You love to try and extract the statistics you want to demonize gay marriage. Nothing new here.  There is no attempt to actually present the facts.  For example

 

 

According to United States Center For Disease Control data, in 2004 Massachusetts ranked 21st in the US in terms of its Syphilis rate, 1.8 per 100,000. By 2006, following the legalized gar marriage "catastrophe", MA Syphilis rates rose very slightly, to 1.9 per 100,000 but Massachusetts outperformed in relative terms, many other US states in which Syphilis rates rose faster and so the MA state ranking, for Syphilis rates, dropped to 24th place (with 1st being the state with the highest Syphilis rate). By contrast, in 2004 Texas had a Syphilis rate of 3.7 per 100,000, establishing Texas as the US state with the 8th highest Syphilis rate. Two years later, apparently lacking the civilization-destroying benefit of gay marriage, the Texas Syphilis rate had climbed to 4.7 per 100,000, bumping TX to the #7 spot.

 

 

So while syphilis rates have risen in Mass, they have actually risen LESS than other states such as Texas that does not allow gay marriage.  Mass actually dropped compared to all other states in number of cases. So wade, just what are we to conclude about this finding???

 

Here is the full article

[wenglund]

You do realize that you didn't answer my question.  Do you have a study that shows increase of STD's among married gay partners???  It is a simple question.   As far as I could tell none of your here, here, here, here studies were secifically about married gay couples.  So if you are trying to make the case that marriage for gay couples increases their chances of getting STD's, you have yet to provide such a study.  You are making a conclusion that is not necesairly related.  

 

You do realize that your question isn't exactly pertinent to the claim on my blog?

 

In any event, this has actually NO bearing on gay marriage.  We don't conduct studies of any group of Americans and then deny them their civil right to marry based on those studies.  So just where are you going with this anyway?????

 

The introductory paragraph on the linked page clearly spells out where I am going (hint: it has nothing to do with the ruse about SSM as a civil right)..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

 

There are statistics and then there are **** statistics.  You love to try and extract the statistics you want to demonize gay marriage. Nothing new here.  There is no attempt to actually present the facts.  For example

 

 

 

So while syphilis rates have risen in Mass, they have actually risen LESS than other states such as Texas that does not allow gay marriage.  Mass actually dropped compared to all other states in number of cases. So wade, just what are we to conclude about this finding???

 

Here is the full article

 

 

You evidently misunderstood what I was speaking to on my blog, and why I referenced my blog post on this thread. Here it is in simple terms and by the numbers (not that it may help in your case):

 

1. There are people who support legalizing SSM because they believe it will reduce homosexual diseases and social problems.

2. My blog tests whether legalizing SSM accomplishes the intended objective of reduced homosexual diseases and social problems, or whether there were unintended negative consequences.

3. In the U.S. same-sex marriage was first legalized in 2004 in Mass., and was later legalized in other states 

4. Testing the intended objective, then, consists of comparatively measuring the rate of homosexual diseases and social problems before and after legalization..

5. If statistic show that the rate of homosexual diseases and social problems didn't go down after SSM was legalized in Mass. and other states, let alone nation wide, then one may reasonably conclude that legalizing SSM didn't work as intended.

6. And, if the statistic show that there was actually a marked increase in homosexual diseases and social problems after SSM was legalized, then one may reasonably conclude that legalizing SSM may have had the unintended negative consequence of producing the opposite result than what was intended.

7. The links I provided on my blog post statistically indicate that rather than decreasing, homosexual diseases and social problems increased after SSM was first legalized in the U.S., not only in the states where SSM was eventually legalized (contrary to what was intended), but also nation wide.

8. I then went on to provide several documented reasons to explain the LUNCs (leftist unintended negative consequences).

9. Earlier in this thread Rock-N-Roll asked: "Do you not believe that these percentages would decrease if gays were allowed (or even encouraged) to marry?" I posted the link to my blog post in answer to that question--in the negative.

 

Is that now clear? My reason for linking to my blog post, and the purpose behind the blog post itself, wasn't to argue for or against legalization of SSM, but rather in direct response to Rock-N-Rolls specific question.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 22, 2014 by wenglund

[Calm]

"7. The links I provided on my blog post statistically indicate that rather than decreasing, homosexual diseases and social problems increased after SSM was first legalized in the U.S., not only in the states where SSM was eventually legalized (contrary to what was intended), but also nation wide."

Since stats raised all over the US even in places without SSM, the increase may be totally unrelated to SSM and SSM may even have had a slowing effect. You should compare the increase in rates in states that now have SSM to those who don't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Is that now clear?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would hope it was.

 

"7. The links I provided on my blog post statistically indicate that rather than decreasing, homosexual diseases and social problems increased after SSM was first legalized in the U.S., not only in the states where SSM was eventually legalized (contrary to what was intended), but also nation wide."

Since stats raised all over the US even in places without SSM, the increase may be totally unrelated to SSM and SSM may even have had a slowing effect. You should compare the increase in rates in states that now have SSM to those who don't.

Cal,

This is a valid criticism and one that would help Wade's case even more. But I suspect that even if he did produce it it probably would not do much to silence the critics.

[wenglund]

Since stats raised all over the US even in places without SSM, the increase may be totally unrelated to SSM and SSM may even have had a slowing effect. You should compare the increase in rates in states that now have SSM to those who don't.

 

Your astute suggestion isn't necessary in determining whether legalizing SSM decreased homosexual diseases or social problems as intended (all that is needed is to show that it does not), though it may be useful in better explaining the various causes behind the unintended increases.

 

However, since i freely admit on my blog that the increases may be the result of a complexity of causal factors, only one of which may be the public advocacy for, legalization of, and popularity regarding same-sex marriage and all it represents in terms of public acceptance of homosexual relationships and behaviors and lifestyles, I think my point can be reasonably and informally made using the wealth of statistics I proffered. 

 

Whereas, if I were writing a masters or doctoral thesis or conducting a peer-reviewed scientific study, I would think otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rock_N_Roll]

You might want to hold your applause.  See #116.

 

His data also shows that black women have an extremely high rate of infection.  Maybe we should forbid them from legally marrying also in the hope that it would reverse the trend.

[rockpond]

"7. The links I provided on my blog post statistically indicate that rather than decreasing, homosexual diseases and social problems increased after SSM was first legalized in the U.S., not only in the states where SSM was eventually legalized (contrary to what was intended), but also nation wide."

Since stats raised all over the US even in places without SSM, the increase may be totally unrelated to SSM and SSM may even have had a slowing effect. You should compare the increase in rates in states that now have SSM to those who don't.

 

 

Your astute suggestion isn't necessary in determining whether legalizing SSM decreased homosexual diseases or social problems as intended (all that is needed is to show that it does not), though it may be useful in better explaining the various causes behind the unintended increases.

 

However, since i freely admit on my blog that the increases may be the result of a complexity of causal factors, only one of which may be the public advocacy for, legalization of, and popularity regarding same-sex marriage and all it represents in terms of public acceptance of homosexual relationships and behaviors and lifestyles, I think my point can be reasonably and informally made using the wealth of statistics I proffered. 

 

Whereas, if I were writing a masters or doctoral thesis or conducting a peer-reviewed scientific study, I would think otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Calmoriah is correct.

 

And basically it's just your opinion as you haven't produced any statistically significant data to back up your assertion that legalizing gay marriage reversed a declining trend of social and health ills among the homosexual population.

 

Now, tell me again that it's just my confirmation bias.  <yawn>

[USU78]

"7. The links I provided on my blog post statistically indicate that rather than decreasing, homosexual diseases and social problems increased after SSM was first legalized in the U.S., not only in the states where SSM was eventually legalized (contrary to what was intended), but also nation wide."

Since stats raised all over the US even in places without SSM, the increase may be totally unrelated to SSM and SSM may even have had a slowing effect. You should compare the increase in rates in states that now have SSM to those who don't.

 

I would go with the Dutch and Danish experience on such things, which demonstrate exactly what Wade is talking about:  There has never been demonstrated anywhere or at any time a reduction in the social and health horribles that accompany the syndrome's sufferers as a result of liberalized laws/policies regarding "gay" sex.

Edited July 23, 2014 by USU78

[california boy]

I would go with the Dutch and Danish experience on such things, which demonstrate exactly what Wade is talking about:  There has never been demonstrated anywhere or at any time a reduction in the social and health horribles that accompany the syndrome's sufferers as a result of liberalized laws/policies regarding "gay" sex.

 

 

Gay marriage has never been touted as a cure all for everyone's  sexual transmitted disease.  The claim has always been that by allowing gays to marry it puts THOSE couplee in more stable relationships and THEIR STD's rates will drop.  Wade is distorting both the claim and the statistics.  He has taken two facts  that may or may not be related and combined them together.  And he has hidden the fact that compared to other states, the rate of increased STD's in Mass is less since gay marriage has been legalized.  

 

Wade could also claim that according to the United States Center for Disease Control, despite the fact straight couples can legally marry, the rate of STD's have risen among heterosexuals over the past decade..  Like with gay marriage, the rise in STD's may have nothing to do with the fact that straight couples can still legally marry.  In fact it more likely is the result of increased unportected sexual activity between both the straight and gay SINGLE  population

Wade has not provided us with any studies that have shown gay married couples have an increase in STD's.  

 

Wade could also claim in a blog that according to the United States Center for Disease Control living in a state that produces oil cause STD's to be the worst in the nation.   See here.  Therefore we should stop allowing states to produce oil  

 

If one has to resort to half truths and distoring statistical facts to make their case, it says more about them than it does about gay marriage.  This kind of nonsense may very well play well in the anti gay blogasphere, but it doesn't work in the courtrooms of America, where legalizing of gay marriage is taking place as we speak.  “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

[Brian 2.0]

Even if Wade is right... does that mean we shouldn't have SSM?

It just seems that advocates for SSM shouldn't use that argument. But there are PLENTY of other arguments.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even if Wade is right... does that mean we shouldn't have SSM?

 

BTW, that is not Wade's argument. It appears to be a strawman.

 

What can be said is that idea that having SSM allows for more stable relationships as echoed by CB. The evidence seems to contradict that assertion.

[USU78]

BTW, that is not Wade's argument. It appears to be a strawman.

 

What can be said is that idea that having SSM allows for more stable relationships as echoed by CB. The evidence seems to contradict that assertion.

 

Exactly!

 

Asserting the unknowable as justification for rejecting the proven is bad business.

[california boy]

BTW, that is not Wade's argument. It appears to be a strawman.

 

What can be said is that idea that having SSM allows for more stable relationships as echoed by CB. The evidence seems to contradict that assertion.

 

And what evidence was that?  Did wade post a study showing that married gay couples have increased STD's?  Nope.  How about ANY evidence that married gay couples have higher rates of STD's?  Nope.

[wenglund]

Calmoriah is correct.

 

And basically it's just your opinion as you haven't produced any statistically significant data to back up your assertion that legalizing gay marriage reversed a declining trend of social and health ills among the homosexual population.

 

Now, tell me again that it's just my confirmation bias.  <yawn>

 

If people have difficulty connecting logical dots, then I can understand that they may not see how most of the 21 articles and studies I linked to actually do support my assertion. After all, many of the statistics are specific to STD's or gay-on-gay violence, etc., and don't exactly consider the data in relation to legalization of SSM--though, if one is able, one may easily check the dates of the trending studies in relation to legalization of SSM, especially those that are state-specific, and draw the logical conclusions.

 

However, people would of necessity have to retreat deep into denial not to see the support when it is explicitly stated in the title of the article: "What Same-Sex 'Marriage" has done for Massachusetts." 

 

Why the deep denial? Well, if a person has taken the drastic step and risked his spiritual well-being by coming out in open rebellion against his faith, and against longstanding religious moral codes has actively promoted legitimizing sexual deviancy under the guise of mangling the legal definition of marriage, and this with the intent of diminishing health and social ills among homosexuals, then learning that not only weren't his intents realized, but the opposite has inadvertently occurred, this may be too much for him to bear, For such a person, blocking out the glaring evidence that crushes the impetus behind his presumed "noble quest," must be cognitively blocked out at all cost.

 

Thus, attempts time and time again at reasoned discussion with such a person have proved themselves to be a complete waste of time. As such, again, I will make no further efforts in this regard.

 

If, however, there are others here who are actually open to reason and data that may be at odds with their current position, I would be pleased to engage their questions and comments.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-, 

[rockpond]

BTW, that is not Wade's argument. It appears to be a strawman.

What can be said is that idea that having SSM allows for more stable relationships as echoed by CB. The evidence seems to contradict that assertion.

No such evidence has been presented here.

[rockpond]

If people have difficulty connecting logical dots, then I can understand that they may not see how most of the 21 articles and studies I linked to actually do support my assertion. After all, many of the statistics are specific to STD's or gay-on-gay violence, etc., and don't exactly consider the data in relation to legalization of SSM--though, if one is able, one may easily check the dates of the trending studies in relation to legalization of SSM, especially those that are state-specific, and draw the logical conclusions.

However, people would of necessity have to retreat deep into denial not to see the support when it is explicitly stated in the title of the article: "What Same-Sex 'Marriage" has done for Massachusetts."

Why the deep denial? Well, if a person has taken the drastic step and risked his spiritual well-being by coming out in open rebellion against his faith, and against longstanding religious moral codes has actively promoted legitimizing sexual deviancy under the guise of mangling the legal definition of marriage, and this with the intent of diminishing health and social ills among homosexuals, then learning that not only weren't his intents realized, but the opposite has inadvertently occurred, this may be too much for him to bear, For such a person, blocking out the glaring evidence that crushes the impetus behind his presumed "noble quest," must be cognitively blocked out at all cost.

Thus, attempts time and time again at reasoned discussion with such a person have proved themselves to be a complete waste of time. As such, again, I will make no further efforts in this regard.

If, however, there are others here who are actually open to reason and data that may be at odds with their current position, I would be pleased to engage their questions and comments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-,

You responded to me but I assume the hypothetical individual you describe is someone else since I am not in rebellion against my faith. But if by "longstanding religious moral codes" you are referring to the traditions of men and mortal prejudices - yeah, I am rebelling against some of those.

And I have not seen you present any trend data to support the conclusions you state above. Though I'm sure you feel I am too blind to see them through the mounds of irrelevant stuff you link to. Your strategy seems to be to link to so many pages that people will assume somewhere in there is something the supports what you've said. Unfortunately, nobody here seems to be able to actually identify it.