Adhominems.

"This is an extremely primitive and paranoid culture." (James T. Kirk on 20th century America, Star Trek IV)

Those who follow my journeys would have read the amazing clash of heterosexuality vs homosexuality on Christianity with Scott Thong.

I have also been having some conversations with the people at the Agora, especially on this old topic.

http://theagora.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-whats-wrong-with-homosexuality_31.html

There are another three posts I commented on their blogs posted on 17th and 18th of August 2007 regards to homosexuality.

After several months of trying to get the brothers and sisters on both sides with me to a neutral ground, it seems the group from the side of pro-straight lifestyle (I never like labels, but I decided to use them anyway as they seem to find pleasure in still stubbornly calling us pro-gay lifestyles) in Malaysia would never want to come to that stage.

I have been accused of ad hominem attacks again, even though I have substantiated what I commented with cold hard and NEUTRAL facts, while they still continuously take sources that are from reparative therapy centres / transformational ministries and Christian sources, which is obviously already biased towards anti-homosexuality. Furthermore, as most who researched on ex-gay ministries and NARTH already know, their 'researches' are never peer reviewed.

Ad hominem - dKosopedia
In practical terms, an ad hominem means to reply to an argument by attacking the arguer's personality or credibility without citing facts.


To defend their pro-straight lifestyles they cited these:
About NARTH:
http://www.narth.com/

"In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
http://www.narth.com/docs/dean.html

One Christian blogger:
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/blood-caf-and-whether-homosexuality-is.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/beyond-proof-texts-sex-gods-sex-manual.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/turquoise-room-mardi-gras-shrove.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/homosexuality-repentance-change-and.html

About homosexuality bringing the end of evolution:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/heredity-chart-evolutionary-dead-end-of-pure-homosexual-preference/

About disease claims,
www.medinstitute.org/ *(this organization is an affiliation of Narth)

To their credit, these sites are only biased by interpretation, but it is sad that they interpret here the cause of STI's to homosexuality, instead of risky sexual behaviour (no condom use, promiscuous sex life that also applies to heterosexuals).
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/737-a
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

I substantiated my counter voice with this:

About NARTH:
http://www.publiceye.org/equality/x-gay/X-Gay-04.html.
http://www.usareligiousnews.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1202
http://www.counterbias.com/478.html

About homosexuality bringing the end of evolution:
http://www.overpopulation.org/

About disease claims:
*A look down this site here would confirm www.medinstitute.org/ is still under the Christian umbrealla wing. Look at 'Homosexuality' and 'Sexuality'.
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/june/0606web.html

http://www.epigee.org/guide/stds.html.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm


While all of my sources are glaringly and mostly NEUTRAL throughout all, they have failed to supply more sources that are NOT of NARTH and NOT of Christian background.

I argued the credibility of NARTH with UNDENIABLE neutral facts but they keep pouring in information from NARTH.

I argued that STIs DO NOT come from homosexuality, but they INSIST that homosexuals are at a higher risk group for STIs.

And this is what they think of me:
(yuki has only been content with adhominems against one organisation, without dealing substantially with their findings, nor interacting with others who also have similar findings)

Another blogger would also probably felt what I felt when you read these comments regarding what me and the Agora was discussing.

"jemufo said...
like Yuki pointed out, hetero sex exposes people to the same STDs that gay sex does. in any case, the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it has these consequences, is a silly one. by your logic, lesbian sex is the way to go, because lesbian sex puts people at least risk of STDs. hetero sex is more risky than sex between two women.(not that I have any problems with lesbian sex. :p)

1:51 AM
Dave Chang said...
Jemufo, I believe u have missed the point here. The silly argument was actually advanced by PRO-gay lifestyle folks that since it hurts nobody, then it's morally acceptable. But, from both NARTH and *Non-Narth* research, they do have medical consequences. (yuki has only been content with adhominems against one organisation, without dealing substantially with their findings, nor interacting with others who also have similar findings)Even you wud admit that lesbian sex has risk of STDs (albeit less risk)... so by the *criteria* of progay folks, this behavior should be morally objectionable :)"

Their blatant arrogant ignorance on this is moronic, as they still turn a deaf year to what I or even Jemufo is saying. So I shall comment this, and see if they wish to respond in this space:

Jemufo, I believe u have missed the point here. The silly argument was actually advanced by PRO-gay lifestyle folks that since it hurts nobody, then it's morally acceptable.

So you are arguing from a 'moral' standpoint, but still none can answer me 'what the (beep) is so immoral about homosexuality? God says so again?

But, from both NARTH and *Non-Narth* research, they do have medical consequences. (yuki has only been content with adhominems against one organisation, without dealing substantially with their findings, nor interacting with others who also have similar findings)

:) It would be so easy to just quote www.exgaywatch.com, the most neutral of 'pro' sources even medically, but unfortunately for you, almost ALL my resources are neutral and never 'progay'. And unfortunately, this discussion itself is already evidence of ignorance and turning a deaf ear on facts by the Agora, and other 'Christians'.

Even you wud admit that lesbian sex has risk of STDs (albeit less risk)... so by the *criteria* of progay folks, this behavior should be morally objectionable :)

So then would you also admit that since lesbians have less risk then heterosexual men, and I did also pointed out in the Centre Of Disease Control site ironically, quoting them... THAT SOME WOMEN WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS WSW OR LESBIAN MAY BE AT RISK FOR HIV INFECTION THROUGH UNPROTECTED SEX WITH MEN. Should heterosexuality be more morally objectionable than lesbianity then? So who the heck is the official ad hominem producer?

Jemufo also provided this:
http://www.kirklandproductions.com/ARTISTS/Dr_John_Corvino-video.html

This is a simple but entertaining debunk of the general homosexual myths of our generation.

I would not hide my disappointment with the Agora. They tried so hard to sound intelligent and logical, but unfortunately the foot continues to stick back into their mouths. I really thought the Agora is finally willing to listen. I guess I am wrong. But what do you expect from college students who have barely set foot out to see the world, and only listens to other anti-gays?

My final response to them says all of how I feel:

Dave, I have urged you again and again not to use the inexistent word 'pro-gay'. I repeat again, asking homosexuals to be treated as equal human beings is not being 'pro-gay'.

If you 'love' homosexuals, would you assert your heterosexual superiority as having the opportunities like marriage and employment, and deny homosexuals the same benefits? Are you not even MORE pro-straight? Who holds the major bias then?

And I also asked you again not to use the word 'lifestyle', but I guess your mind is already controlled by the doctrines of the church that call homosexuals inexistent, that it is just wounded heterosexuality. And no one is going to change your mind, And you would still talk to your church members, straight friends and 'ex-gays' about homosexuals to be further 'edified' by the information they give you.

If you want to know a girl, you go and talk to a girl. If you are questioning about girls, you do not go to your football team members, guy pals and 'ex-girls'. If you do so, you will never know what a girl is. And as it is obvious here, you will never know a true homosexual. And still would choose to continuously talk about them, without them.

And about NARTH, look, if you are so confident with their junk science and anti-gay 'love' so be it. If you wish to cite their twisted as 'true sciences' it is your problem if you associate yourself with them.

Heck, so many members of NARTH already left because they wish to disassociate themselves, they would sure need new supporters like you. Go ahead, be my guest. I am sure you would not regret parroting their rubbish for the sake of defending the 'oh homosexuals is ya know, so darn immoral' argument; because that is the ONLY so-called medical body with only 1,000 members in the US to cite anti-gay rethorics, the rest of the current major medical consensus held by 477,000 members from several major medical and health professional bodies in the US are already rejected by you. Go ahead and support the narrow, since it makes you happy.

Guess I am already numb to shallow people that is not looking beyond their 180 degree eyesight. By the way, FYI no heterosexual gene was ever concretely discovered too. Can I argue your existence and why heterosexuals always divorce at a rate twice the amount of homosexuals then? Or should you deserve employment? Or worse, since there is no scientific basis for heterosexuality, should you 'change' then? There is always 'hope' for heterosexuals ya know, if you are STRAIGHT BUT NOT HAPPY?

Yuki's thoughts: I am transsexual and happy, but still hear Christian telling me that I am 'struggling' and 'confused'. Fine.

My struggles are because of these 'Christians' judging the surface of issues like me and homosexuals, talking like they know how we feel without filling in our shoes, and thinking they know more about homosexuality than homosexuals themselves.

I am a very confused and puzzled person as to why these 'Christians' are so naive.