US church creates stir with gay exorcism video

Thursday 25th June, 10:39 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 86 Total Comments Show All

notimpressed at 01:22 PM JST - 30th June

"What people are ignoring here is the real danger posed by casting the demon out of this teenager: now there's a gay demon on the loose. " STEPHEN COLBERT, comedian, on the YouTube footage of a Connecticut pastor performing an exorcism on a gay teen.
BeaverCleaver at 10:48 PM JST - 30th June

flatearther, it is odd that you have taken issue with my post, yet written the exact same things I was talking about! Odd, and most annoying. Please read my post again. I cannot even be bothered to explain your mistakes as you did not even read carefully.

TheGeneral, that link is useless. Same sex pairing is not gay nor homosexual. A presidental hopeful and a vice-presidental hopeful is usually a same-sex pairing, as in two guys joining forces to accomplish a goal. Nothing surprising about that unless you do not realize that "sex" means "gender".

Two male penguins teaming up to take care of an egg are not gay unless one tries to mount the other. Its not love for eachother, at least not most of the time, its a sense of duty toward the egg.
HonestDictator at 04:55 AM JST - 1st July

LMAO Notimpressed that quote was a good one.
flatearther at 06:49 AM JST - 1st July

Beaver Cleaver- I have no issue with your post, I simply wished to elucidate on your valid points and correct any flaws. Other than that, your post was just fine.
TheGeneral at 08:30 AM JST - 1st July

BeaverCleaver

TheGeneral, that link is useless.

I guess it's useless if you're going to cherry-pick the article and respond with a pitiful analogy.

From the same "useless" article:

"Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said.

"But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."
griff at 10:08 AM JST - 1st July

i'm interested in the idea that black and white heterosexuality is an oversimplification. after all, our ancient ancestors, the first living creatures to have male/female sexual reproduction, probably did not have the sensual capabilities to tell male from female, yet they must have reproduced. stands to reason that a rather hit or miss approach was used. as such, the black and white distinction between gay and straight is a fairly recent introduction to human behaviour
BeaverCleaver at 11:46 AM JST - 1st July

TheGeneral-"I guess it's useless if you're going to cherry-pick the article and respond with a pitiful analogy."

Actually, it was you who cherry picked. The article did nothing to back up the claim of homosexual mounting and courtship being common, and those are key to this issue. I might agree that it is, but the article does not back it up except for one reseacher declaring that it is in the statement you cherry picked. As this is a researcher talking, I would expect more to back it up, or think him biased for his lack of supporting evidence. My pitiful analogy was the same type of analogy featured in the article in that it did not back up the topic.

But even proving the courship and mounting does necessarily prove dedicated homosexual behavior, which is to be truly gay. Those are why I found the article to be useless, at least for factual and supporting purposes. But I suppose it does have value if you are trying to get the anti-gay pro-exorcism crowd to just lighten up by telling them something positive. Its not my way. I just want the facts.
BeaverCleaver at 11:53 AM JST - 1st July

Flatearther, there were no flaws in my post.

"So your implication that homosexuality is only practiced by rejected males is wholly mistaken."

I never implied that. I offered three separate reasons why an animal did not mate.

I believe there are plenty of gay animals, and it seems to be a completely reasonable statement. Its just going to be hard to find actual proof of gayness. Assorted homosexual and homogender behaviors are not enough to proof actual gayness.
TheGeneral at 12:57 PM JST - 1st July

Actually, it was you who cherry picked.

If cherry-picking means "reading and comprehending the entire article" to you, then I'm guilty as charged.

Read it again. Out loud, if necessary.

The article is entirely about a new study that suggests that "homosexual behaviour is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom".

the article does not back it up except for one reseacher declaring that it is

The "one researcher" (Dr. Nathan Bailey) you dismiss out of hand was part of the research team and is commenting on their findings.

Their findings? This 16-year-old's "demons" occur almost universally throughout the animal kingdom.

Assorted homosexual and homogender behaviors are not enough to proof actual gayness.

I'm sure you could track down the paper itself. You could even explain your definition of "gayness" to the scientists in your peer review of their research.

As for me, I'm not a scientist so I don't comment ignorantly on scientific findings. I rely on other experts to review and test them. That's how good science works.
BeaverCleaver at 01:13 PM JST - 1st July

TheGeneral, you seem pretty bitter about this. I am sorry if my tone set you off.

"As for me, I'm not a scientist so I don't comment ignorantly on scientific findings. I rely on other experts to review and test them. That's how good science works."

Just by virtue of being a scientist it does not make their science sound and not their definitions either. I suggest you be more skeptical. There are plenty of people in the field of science who simply have no business being there. Just a general understanding of how few people out there have truly scientific minds compared to the number of people claiming to be scientists should tip you off to that.

"If cherry-picking means "reading and comprehending the entire article" to you, then I'm guilty as charged."

The article does not support the man's claim, except for the parenting claim, which is not homosexuality. I don't know why you can't see that.

As for digging up the actual reseach, I have to say that it smells so biased at this point, that I have no interest. I agree with the conclusion that homosexuality can be found in the animal kingdom often enough, but their method of proving that seems very off at this point. It looks like a long road leading the destination called "disappointment". I am not interested in taking that road.
TheGeneral at 02:50 PM JST - 1st July

BeaverCleaver

I'm not bitter.

Just by virtue of being a scientist it does not make their science sound and not their definitions either.

We are in agreement. Like I said, good science relies on good peer review.

And I consider myself a pretty solid skeptic, thank you. If you are as well, you surely recognize the logical fallacy you've employed here: argument from ignorance.

I, on the other hand, simply pointed out what new research has suggested based on what the researchers are publicly saying.

The article is what it is and nothing more: "In laymen's terms, here's what we found". There will be more to come as the scientific method does its thing.

Furthermore, there is nothing in this article I see that signals bias or poor scientific protocol.
BeaverCleaver at 03:06 PM JST - 1st July

"Furthermore, there is nothing in this article I see that signals bias or poor scientific protocol."

The overly broad definition of what is being called homosexual behavior indicates bias to me. It looks to me like they are doing anything they can to prove homosexuality in nature, even going so far as to imply that two animal blokes or two animal lasses pairing up to do most anything is homosexual behavior. That smells like a bias to me, and the bias seems to aimed at justifying homosexual marriage and child rearing. What other reason is there for such nonsense?

If you are as well, you surely recognize the logical fallacy you've employed here: argument from ignorance.

I was thinking more along the lines of an educated guess. I have offered very few absolutes here. I use words like "I think" and "I believe" and "smells like" very liberally for a good reason. That reason is, I have no proof. I see no proof in that article either, not about what we are speaking of anyway, and that is the question of whether homosexuality exists in nature.

My observations are more limited to domesticated animals which makes it good, but not the best method of observation. But my experience is extensive for someone not actually employed in any sector related to domestic animals. I have seen lots of homosexual behavior among many various farm animals and pets, but nothing to make me think that any animal was truly gay. But how could you know that anyway? I have heard some pet owners declare that their pets are gay. They might be correct. But just because a pet did not react to a female the way they expected does make the pet gay. No man would know what to do with a female if he had never seen one either, and that is the situation most pets are in. Some dogs think they are people and shun other dogs because they never got to socialize with dogs when young.
TheGeneral at 04:00 PM JST - 1st July

The overly broad definition of what is being called homosexual behavior indicates bias to me. It looks to me like they are doing anything they can to prove homosexuality in nature, even going so far as to imply that two animal blokes or two animal lasses pairing up to do most anything is homosexual behavior. That smells like a bias to me, and the bias seems to aimed at justifying homosexual marriage and child rearing.

Your second logical fallacy: confirmation bias.

There's nothing in this article that suggests any such thing.

What other reason is there for such nonsense?

To state the obvious, Dr. Bailey is an evolutionary biologist and this "nonsense" is what he studies. According to his team's research, it seems that homosexual behavior may be the result of natural selection and/or a selective force.

But my experience is extensive for someone not actually employed in any sector related to domestic animals. I have seen lots of homosexual behavior among many various farm animals and pets, but nothing to make me think that any animal was truly gay. But how could you know that anyway?

Argument from ignorance again. "[I've never seen convincing evidence]. . . but how could you know that anyway?" are the hallmarks of this logical fallacy.
BeaverCleaver at 09:27 PM JST - 1st July

No idea how you can accuse me of "confirmation bias" for my problems with the definition of gay and homosexual behavior. I would be good it it was referred to as homogender behavior, but that is a completely different thing. If anything, the article reeks of confirmation bias, but as you said, the article does not present all of the research. The problem might be the writer's choices and not those of the Dr.

I do not have it in for the Dr., its just that what I saw in the article was less than convincing. It might be the fault of the Dr. it might not. Until I see the research I am going with its his fault and he is biased as an educated guess, after all it seems he was interviewed and had a chance to make his case with the writer. The only way I am going to change my mind is to see far better examples and proofs. Until you dig those up I will remain ignorant, because, smelling bias, I do not care about this enough to dig for it myself and its your baby. Right now its enough for me that I basically agree with his conclusion even if I am not seeing any convincing evidence in that article.
Rhealm at 04:48 AM JST - 29th October

What the hell is wrong with being homosexual?