NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Surfrider]

 I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ?is ? uncommonly silly.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

? ? Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ?decide cases ?agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.? ? Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ?can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,? ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ?liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,? ante, at 1.

?

Good thing that was a dissent and not a majority opinion.?

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

I'm impressed by your knowledge of those cases and unfortunately can't discuss at the same level of detail as you, given I read them 9 years ago.

The fact that you have actually read them is good for me.  I haven't read some of them in a while myself.

? With that said, get off your high horse and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't post - surely you're capable of understanding that the cases I cited (not from the Internet, from memory) were evidence of the Court taking a broad view of the Constitution, rather than the narrow one you favored.

I am not trying to be on a high horse.  I see far too often people posting legal arguments on this board that were cut and pasted from propoganda websites.  I was just making sure you didn't pull this from one of those sites.  I guess what I was trying to convey is that those cases do not support gay marriage even though they do take a broad interpretation of the Constitution.

I find it incredible that you can be critical of court decisions that expand[/i] our freedoms all in the name of some false democratic ideal - as though you're oblivious to the tyranny of the majority.?

I find it incredible that you believe that the majority should be subject to the tyranny of the minority.  First, let me say that when you allow the Court to step away from the original meaning of the Constitution it opens up a whole can of worms.  Some times they expand rights, other times they narrow them.  So to say that they always expand freedoms is just not accurate.  The protections that we have are based on a democratic process.  You seem to espouse overriding the democratic process and to let 5 justices determine what rights should be expanded and which ones should be narrowed.  How are these people qualified to do this?  Isn't this, in effect, a small group of people that are deciding democratically based on their own viewpoints of the Constitution?  I am not sure what you are calling a false democratic ideal?   

Race-based restrictions on marriage were fortunately deemed to be bullshit based on that broad view.? Do you have a problem with that decision?? Oh, the result is OK but the path to that result was not?? Guess what - the country was scorchingly racist then, so laws like that got passed.

I never said the decision was wrong.  I said that the decision was made within a different framework and does not necessarily support gay marriage. 

Similarly, we now have a lot of homophobia in this country, so homosexuals at this time will not be afforded the "equal protection of the laws" via the democratic process.? To come back and say they're not a protected class is completely arbitrary.? On what basis do you make a distinction?

Based on the Supreme Court's decisions.  See Romar v. Evans and Bowers v. Hardwick.  It is not arbitrary at all.  The 14th Amendment was passed to prohibit race-based discrimination.  Other discrimination has always been treated differently under the amendment.  Even gender discrimination is only given intermediate scrutiny.  How are homosexuals any more of a protected class than pedophiles that like to look at child pornography?  Certainly those laws are aimed specifically at pedophiles.  Men and women can look at adult pornography all day long.  Isn't that discrimination.  Even if these people never act out on it they can still be punished.  Should they be a protected class also?

[GeorgeSteele]

 I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ?is ? uncommonly silly.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

? ? Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ?decide cases ?agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.? ? Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ?can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,? ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ?liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,? ante, at 1.

?

Good thing that was a dissent and not a majority opinion.?

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

I'm impressed by your knowledge of those cases and unfortunately can't discuss at the same level of detail as you, given I read them 9 years ago.

The fact that you have actually read them is good for me.? I haven't read some of them in a while myself.

? With that said, get off your high horse and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't post - surely you're capable of understanding that the cases I cited (not from the Internet, from memory) were evidence of the Court taking a broad view of the Constitution, rather than the narrow one you favored.

I am not trying to be on a high horse.? I see far too often people posting legal arguments on this board that were cut and pasted from propoganda websites.? I was just making sure you didn't pull this from one of those sites.? I guess what I was trying to convey is that those cases do not support gay marriage even though they do take a broad interpretation of the Constitution.

I find it incredible that you can be critical of court decisions that expand[/i] our freedoms all in the name of some false democratic ideal - as though you're oblivious to the tyranny of the majority.?

I find it incredible that you believe that the majority should be subject to the tyranny of the minority.? First, let me say that when you allow the Court to step away from the original meaning of the Constitution it opens up a whole can of worms.? Some times they expand rights, other times they narrow them.? So to say that they always expand freedoms is just not accurate.? The protections that we have are based on a democratic process.? You seem to espouse overriding the democratic process and to let 5 justices determine what rights should be expanded and which ones should be narrowed.? How are these people qualified to do this?? Isn't this, in effect, a small group of people that are deciding democratically based on their own viewpoints of the Constitution?? I am not sure what you are calling a false democratic ideal?? ?

Race-based restrictions on marriage were fortunately deemed to be bullshit based on that broad view.? Do you have a problem with that decision?? Oh, the result is OK but the path to that result was not?? Guess what - the country was scorchingly racist then, so laws like that got passed.

I never said the decision was wrong.? I said that the decision was made within a different framework and does not necessarily support gay marriage.?

Similarly, we now have a lot of homophobia in this country, so homosexuals at this time will not be afforded the "equal protection of the laws" via the democratic process.? To come back and say they're not a protected class is completely arbitrary.? On what basis do you make a distinction?

Based on the Supreme Court's decisions.? See Romar v. Evans and Bowers v. Hardwick.? It is not arbitrary at all.? The 14th Amendment was passed to prohibit race-based discrimination.? Other discrimination has always been treated differently under the amendment.? Even gender discrimination is only given intermediate scrutiny.? How are homosexuals any more of a protected class than pedophiles that like to look at child pornography?? Certainly those laws are aimed specifically at pedophiles.? Men and women can look at adult pornography all day long.? Isn't that discrimination.? Even if these people never act out on it they can still be punished.? Should they be a protected class also?

We're on opposite sides of the spectrum - I believe that the Supreme Court serves as an effective check against any legislation that violates anyone's individual rights.  No question, there's an immense amount of power there, but like I said, I believe the cases I cited are evidence that historically it has worked out for the best for our country for individual rights to be interpreted broadly.

The timing of the 14th Amendment was no coincidence, so I agree that race was the trigger for it.  However, if it was only "passed to prohibit race-based discrimination" that would have been written into the text of the Amendment.  I believe it wasn't in order to allow for a broader interpretation.

Finally, I appreciate that you took the time to provide thoughtful posts on this subject, but you might lose a lot of people here with that last section of your post.  It sounds like you're saying that there's no basis for a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that's not what you were saying, but, likewise, won't waste my time explaining the difference between (1) consensual same-sex relationships among 2 adults and (2) monsters that prey upon and destroy the innocence of children.

[The Dog]

Finally, I appreciate that you took the time to provide thoughtful posts on this subject, but you might lose a lot of people here with that last section of your post.  It sounds like you're saying that there's no basis for a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that's not what you were saying, but, likewise, won't waste my time explaining the difference between (1) consensual same-sex relationships among 2 adults and (2) monsters that prey upon and destroy the innocence of children.

Berkeley lost me at hello. 

but yeah, his last post is just beyond ridiculous.  homosexuals are like pedophiles?    It doesn't even warrant a response.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Why?  Both are sexual preferences beyond the control of the individual afflicted.  There is a distinction in making a conscience effort to attack children and rape them versus a loving relationship between two adults.  However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children.  I think that's what Berkley was hinting at.

[The Dog]

However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children. 

 

Huh? Wha??  Am I reading this right?

There is NO DIFFERENCE between two 30 year old, mature men being attracted to each other and a 60 year old creep who is attracted to a 2 year old girl?

Are you serious?

[Guns N RockMusic]

However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children.?

 

Huh? Wha??? Am I reading this right?

There is NO DIFFERENCE between two 30 year old, mature men being attracted to each other and a 60 year old creep who is attracted to a 2 year old girl?

Are you serious?

Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain.? In other words, something didn't click upstairs.? Do I have a bias towards one of those, absolutley, I despise pedophiles.? But from a psychological standpoint, there is no difference between a homosexual and pedophile in terms of abnormality.? I'm not demonizing either imbalance.? I certainly am demoninzing pedophiles who act out on their urge, but I'm not distinguishing on a psychological (thus legal) level on the sexual attraction itself.? If you were objective about this, and not reactionary you'd understand my point and be forced to agree with it.


Neither the gay man, straight man or pedophile have any control over whom they're attreacted to.  God, Ka, Gan, Nature, Gaia, etc. made that choice for them.  Since any sexual preference other than hetero is abnormal (read not immoral, evil or wrong, just abnormal) there is no grounds to justify why one preference is "higher" than the other.  The problem or cause for concern is when the preference is acted upon.  No one is hurt when two gay men have a relationship.  Someone is very hurt when a pedophile acts on his sexual desires.

[SLCPUNK]

Are you serious?

Yes.........he is serious.

[The Dog]

However, there is no distinction between someone being attracted to the same sex and small children. 

 

Huh? Wha??  Am I reading this right?

There is NO DIFFERENCE between two 30 year old, mature men being attracted to each other and a 60 year old creep who is attracted to a 2 year old girl?

Are you serious?

Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain.  In other words, something didn't click upstairs.  Do I have a bias towards one of those, absolutley, I despise pedophiles.  But from a psychological standpoint, there is no difference between a homosexual and pedophile in terms of abnormality.  I'm not demonizing either imbalance.  I certainly am demoninzing pedophiles who act out on their urge, but I'm not distinguishing on a psychological (thus legal) level on the sexual attraction itself.  If you were objective about this, and not reactionary you'd understand my point and be forced to agree with it.


Neither the gay man, straight man or pedophile have any control over whom they're attreacted to.  God, Ka, Gan, Nature, Gaia, etc. made that choice for them.  Since any sexual preference other than hetero is abnormal (read not immoral, evil or wrong, just abnormal) there is no grounds to justify why one preference is "higher" than the other.  The problem or cause for concern is when the preference is acted upon.  No one is hurt when two gay men have a relationship.  Someone is very hurt when a pedophile acts on his sexual desires.

well, at least this post was a little bit more explanatory.  As for being "forced" to agree with you, last time I checked this was America dude and I have the choice to agree with whoever and whatever I want to.  I do NOT think homosexuality is "deviant", nor is it abnormal.  By your logic, would "deviant" behavior also mean anal sex between a man and a woman?  Who is to decide what "abnormal" behavior is, even on a pychological level?  What if Berkeley (just as an example, not saying I think this is true) and his girlfriend enjoy crapping and peeing on each other and then smearing it all over each other and then eating the excrement...is that deviant or abnormal even though they are both hetero??  I see the point you are trying to make, but I think you're just using definitions and semantics to make your point.

Put all that shit aside and you KNOW there is a huge difference between an adult, consensual homosexual relationship and the raping of a small child by an adult man.

[pilferk]

Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain.? In other words, something didn't click upstairs.? Do I have a bias towards one of those, absolutley, I despise pedophiles.? But from a psychological standpoint, there is no difference between a homosexual and pedophile in terms of abnormality.? I'm not demonizing either imbalance.? I certainly am demoninzing pedophiles who act out on their urge, but I'm not distinguishing on a psychological (thus legal) level on the sexual attraction itself.? If you were objective about this, and not reactionary you'd understand my point and be forced to agree with it.


Neither the gay man, straight man or pedophile have any control over whom they're attreacted to.? God, Ka, Gan, Nature, Gaia, etc. made that choice for them.? Since any sexual preference other than hetero is abnormal (read not immoral, evil or wrong, just abnormal) there is no grounds to justify why one preference is "higher" than the other.? The problem or cause for concern is when the preference is acted upon.? No one is hurt when two gay men have a relationship.? Someone is very hurt when a pedophile acts on his sexual desires.

This is one of the most patently offensive, disgusting posts I think I've ever seen on this message board...and I've seen quite a number of them. How you can equate homosexuality with pedophelia is beyond explanation, on any level.? Never mind it's wrong headed to the extreme, displaying an appaling lack of knowledge of a) sexuality, b) psychology, and c) biology.? It is SO patently wrong it doesn't even deserve discussion.

When you guys want basis for something....do you just make things up?? You're implying a studied correlation between two things when absolutely NO such study exists.

[pilferk]

How are homosexuals any more of a protected class than pedophiles that like to look at child pornography?? Certainly those laws are aimed specifically at pedophiles.? Men and women can look at adult pornography all day long.? Isn't that discrimination.? Even if these people never act out on it they can still be punished.? Should they be a protected class also?

That's an inflamatory, wrongheaded example and you know it, even if you are using it to prove a point about individual rights.? Equating homosexuality with pedophelia, in the context you're using, is misleading and intellectually dishonest, even if it's meant to be a juxtaposition.? You're better than that, and you know it.

Pedophiles irreparably harm their victims.? The creation of child porn harms it's victims.? Pedophiles are punished for acting on their urges or possessing material it is illegal to create, and thus own.

Homosexuals are consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity.

I know you know the difference, but to even imply the correlation is just wrong....

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm not equating the two.  Everything you wrote Pilferk I agree with.  Pedophiles harm their victims while homosexuals are consenting adults.  End of case.  I do understand the psychology and biology between the two.  Most research indicates an underdeveloped portion of the brain in homosexuals, and pedophiles have a similar problem.  Are there exceptions to the rule, absolutely.  I state again, the act of homosexuality and pedophilia are not one in the same or even similar.  I'm simply stating that both homosexuality and pedophila are abnormalities - that is accepted fact in biological studies and I know you know this.

Hanna, your post is juvenille at best.  You're so scared to admit that homosexuality is the least bit irregular that you would defend gross sexual acts to defend homosexuality (which I think is an insult to being gay.)  Read Kinsey's work.  Although I disagree with some of his methods and numbers, he did define the subject of sexuality.  Humans by design are supposed to procreate with one another to create offspring.  Any human who does not possess that inate desire is abnormal.  Is that simple enough for you?  Does that make them any less human or morraly corrupt?  No.  I support the right of two adults to live with whom and however they choose.  Your saying that there is something unique to pedophiles that makes them abnormal without citing what causes this abnormality.  You're attacking the act (because you don't agree with it) and not understanding what causes the act.  What causes one to be homosexual and a pedophile are biologically similar.  That is all I have said, and with no malice towards homosexuals at all.

[pilferk]

I'm not equating the two.? Everything you wrote Pilferk I agree with.? Pedophiles harm their victims while homosexuals are consenting adults.? End of case.? I do understand the psychology and biology between the two.? Most research indicates an underdeveloped portion of the brain in homosexuals, and pedophiles have a similar problem.? Are there exceptions to the rule, absolutely.? I state again, the act of homosexuality and pedophilia are not one in the same or even similar.? I'm simply stating that both homosexuality and pedophila are abnormalities - that is accepted fact in biological studies and I know you know this.

Actually, it's not an accepted fact. I assume you're talking about Levay's hympothalamus/limbie system theory....you might want to do more checking on that particular theory before you espouse it being "fact".? It's been widely and completely discredited.

And your asserted "cause" for pedophilia is also not an accepted fact.? There's lots of research on the subject...you'll want to look at a lot more of it before even remotely trying to assert a chemical imbalance or brain abnormality as absolute causation.  There's lots of theories on causation, many of them with much more compelling clinical (both biological and psychological) research behind them than the "brain abnormality" theories.

AND You're asserting correlation, again, where none exists.? And calling homosexuals "abnormal" isn't the most apt label, any more than calling twins abnormal is. Less apt than that, even, because you're odds are better of being gay than they are of being a twin.?

In short, you have no earthly idea what you're actually talking about, no matter how much you assert to the contrary.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Obviously I do or I wouldn't have been able to justify my opinion based on research.? You can disagree with it, but you'd be in the minority of objective parties.? Unless you possess a degree in psychology you're no more qualified than I am to interpret the works of others.? You don't see me attacking your buddies everytime they post something from a GED level blog.

That being said, I don't care to participate in this discussion anymore.? It's far too emotional for most members here and the debate has gone far from socratic.  And before someone accuses me of "copping out",  "I refuse to repeat myself when I've clearly indicated my stance.  I won't repeat myself, do your own research and read what I've said."  You might actually find something with me unlike others where thry continually reference vague or ghost post.

[pilferk]

Obviously I do or I wouldn't have been able to justify my opinion based on research.? You can disagree with it, but you'd be in the minority of objective parties.? Unless you possess a degree in psychology you're no more qualified than I am to interpret the works of others.? You don't see me attacking your buddies everytime they post something from a GED level blog.

That being said, I don't care to participate in this discussion anymore.? It's far too emotional for most members here and the debate has gone far from socratic.

Eh hem...based on old, widely discredited research that happens to be at the top of the "google list" when searching on terms pertinent to this conversation....but still cited by a number of "anti-gay" and homosexual hate groups, despite the clinical proof to the contrary.

And, actually, the clinical proof discrediting the theory you're espousing (Levay's research/theory) is wide spread and readily available (again, through quick google search...which I'm sure you did after my post...).? The majority of the medical research community (and, by the by, that's what my profession is related to...though I can't say where exactly, it IS an Ivy League institution so my information might be just a BIT more first hand than yours) actually sides firmly on MY side...no matter how much you would like to assert otherwise.? The "brain abnormality" theory for homosexuality just isn't clinically sound...and that's not an interpretation from an objective party.? It's a depiction of what the actual clinical research on the subject has shown.

And I'm not surprised you've chosen to remove yourself from the conversation.......all things considered.

Oh, and as far as "doing my own research"...I daresay I have...and then some..on this particular subject.? You might want to read some more (current, FYI) on the subject and "adjust" your stance...or not.? Hey, my siggie says it all....

[The Dog]

I'm not equating the two.  Everything you wrote Pilferk I agree with.  Pedophiles harm their victims while homosexuals are consenting adults.  End of case.  I do understand the psychology and biology between the two.  Most research indicates an underdeveloped portion of the brain in homosexuals, and pedophiles have a similar problem.  Are there exceptions to the rule, absolutely.  I state again, the act of homosexuality and pedophilia are not one in the same or even similar.  I'm simply stating that both homosexuality and pedophila are abnormalities - that is accepted fact in biological studies and I know you know this.

Hanna, your post is juvenille at best.  You're so scared to admit that homosexuality is the least bit irregular that you would defend gross sexual acts to defend homosexuality (which I think is an insult to being gay.)  Read Kinsey's work.  Although I disagree with some of his methods and numbers, he did define the subject of sexuality.  Humans by design are supposed to procreate with one another to create offspring.  Any human who does not possess that inate desire is abnormal.  Is that simple enough for you?  Does that make them any less human or morraly corrupt?  No.  I support the right of two adults to live with whom and however they choose.  Your saying that there is something unique to pedophiles that makes them abnormal without citing what causes this abnormality.  You're attacking the act (because you don't agree with it) and not understanding what causes the act.  What causes one to be homosexual and a pedophile are biologically similar.  That is all I have said, and with no malice towards homosexuals at all.

Lets get back on track here - this latest discussion started when Berkeley tried to say if homosexuals are a "protected class" then pedophiles should be too.  You basically agreed with him when you posted saying the cause for their attraction is the same.

you then called homosexuality DEVIANT behavior - thats what I was referring to in your post.  Yes, the acts I mentioned are disgusting, some would even call them "deviant" but people performing those acts are allowed to marry - so where do you draw the line between what is deviant and what is accepted and who can marry and who can't, who is a "protected class" and who isn't based on sexual preference.  My disgusting example and those engaging in homosexual acts, regardless of the pychology or biology behind it are both CONSENSUAL.  A 2 year old child isn't consenting when a 60 year old perv is molesting them.  Molesting, raping pedophiles should NOT be a protected class.  Its laughable you'd try to say I was being insulting to others being gay.....have you read your last few posts!??!?!  The fact you thought I was equating the pissing/shitting on each other act with that of homosexuality just shows your true disdain for the act, that or you completely missed my point. 

Berkeley tried to say that it should be ok for a pedophile to look at pictures of little kids naked if thats what hes into (so long as the perv doesn't do anything other then look).  Do I need to explain to you why this is completey moronic too?  Little boys/girls shouldn't be photographed in the nude or in sexual acts to begin with!

so instead of calling me juvenile and trying to make your "scientific" points (which Pilferk basically shot down), lets just use some common sense here.

[nonlinear]

Obviously I do or I wouldn't have been able to justify my opinion based on research.  You can disagree with it, but you'd be in the minority of objective parties.  Unless you possess a degree in psychology you're no more qualified than I am to interpret the works of others.  You don't see me attacking your buddies everytime they post something from a GED level blog.

That being said, I don't care to participate in this discussion anymore.  It's far too emotional for most members here and the debate has gone far from socratic.  And before someone accuses me of "copping out",  "I refuse to repeat myself when I've clearly indicated my stance.  I won't repeat myself, do your own research and read what I've said."  You might actually find something with me unlike others where thry continually reference vague or ghost post.

RandallFlagg, your opinions disgust me.  Your statement that HannaHat is "in the minority of objective parties" is completely wrong, and the psychological reserach you cite is decades old pseudo-science.  you act like an expert and you wirte with big words, but it is clear from reading your posts that you know nothing about the science behind this issue.  I don't have time to get into an argument about this with you, but I am a theoretical ecologists at a large research university in canada and I have studied this topic quite a bit. 

let me first say that psychology isn't a science, it's a social (pseudo) science. the field uses case studies and 'clinical' methodologies which aren't designed to test causal mechanisms. furthermore, the quality of the work and questions asked is, at best, laughable.

any understanding of 'psychology' should stem from biology (biochemistry linking social behaviour to heritable genetics). humans are animals, afterall.  psychology will really go no where until this happens. i'm sure you're aware of sociobiology (e.o. wilson) - this is the only future for psycholgy.

I would like to recommend a reference to you: Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People by Joan Roughgarden (one of the most important evolutionary biologists EVER).  Joan argues that diversity in gender and sexuality is ubiquitous across all life (plants and animals).  she is working on a group game theory to explain how thise diversity is essential and maintained in population genetics.

anyhow, i gotta get back to work!

EDIT:  and where do you get the statement "Both are deviant behaviors caused by a chemical imbalance or mutation in the brain."  i would like to see the primary reserach on this.  furthermore, the problem with psychology is that the 'deviant' isn't linked to the genetics so there is no way to explain why it is ubiquituous across nature!!!!

[pilferk]

nonlinear,

First off, Randall was saying I was the one? in the minority of objective parties.

Second, I've no idea why he attributes the theory he's espousing strictly to psychology, or to needing to be a psychologist to interpret Levay's findings.? In fact, Levay's study was largly biological.? The issues were that a) he "assumed" the sexual orientation of some of the subjects, b) he was working on cadaverers without much prehistory, c) he assumed a causation, rather than a correlation (even with his flawed methods).? When the clinical community got their hands on the research, and it's methods, it was pretty quickly discredited.?Repeated attempts at his clinical research were also made and the findings were never able to be replicated, even with better clinical methods. There was certainly some psychology involved, but you wouldn't need to be a psychologist to interpret his work.? I glossed over that in my initial post, figuring it wasn't real important to point out, but it's representative, again, that Flagg doesn't know much about the subject at hand....nor much about the research in question.

[nonlinear]

and BTW, Simon LeVay is a fraud.  please read this letter by Joan Roughgarden: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Joan-re-LeVay.html

FOREWORD (by Lynn Conway):
One of the key supporters of J. Michael Bailey is an old-guard gay male psychologist named Simon LeVay. LeVay is a minor academic who never achieved tenure anywhere, and whose past research has not proven repeatable. Nevertheless he has name recognition in academic circles as a writer of trade popularizations of "queer science". LeVay has leveraged this dubiously gained visibility into status as a serious pundit on gay matters within academe.

 

It was from this position as a gay male science pundit that he joined forces with J. Michael Bailey, supporting Bailey's defamations of transsexual women in a mutual alignment of personal and psychological ideologies. In mutual ignorance of the realities of transsexualism, they both exploit transsexualism as a science discussion topic in order to further their own personal, academic and ideological agendas.

In the essay below, Joan Roughgarden explores some of the scientifico-ideological dimensions of the connections among psychologists LeVay and Bailey, and their further connections with psychologists Dennis Buss and Steven Pinker. This background on LeVay is highly relevant to the discussion in the related webpage "IT'S FICTION: Bailey Admits to Anjelica Kieltyka that he Fabricated the Key Final Scene in His Book".

[nonlinear]

nonlinear,

First off, Randall was saying I was the one  in the minority of objective parties.

Second, I've no idea why he attributes the theory he's espousing strictly to psychology, or to needing to be a psychologist to interpret Levay's findings.  In fact, Levay's study was largly biological.  The issues were that a) he "assumed" the sexual orientation of some of the subjects, b) he was working on cadaverers without much prehistory, c) he assumed a causation, rather than a correlation.  When the clinical community got their hands on the research, and it's methods, it was pretty quickly discredited. Repeated attempts at his clinical research were also made and the findings were never able to be replicated, even with better clinical methods. There was certainly some psychology involved, but you wouldn't need to be a psychologist to interpret his work.  I glossed over that in my initial post, figuring it wasn't real important to point out, but it's representative, again, that Flagg doesn't know much about the subject at hand....nor much about the research in question.

Oops, sorry about the confusion pilferk!
anyhow, i really don't want to get too deep into this argument on a Guns n' Fuckin' Roses forum ( ), but I highly recommend the Roughgarden book to anyone who is interested.  there is also a recent theoretical paper in the journal Science on the issue (and no, you won't see any of LeVay's work anywhere near Science!)  I can get a pdf copy of this paper to anyone who doesn't have a subscription.

EDIT:  I've also been re-reading all of the previous posts (my initial posts were made in a rage/hurry), and I'm sorry if i've offended anyone who may work in psychology.  I come from a different backgroud which uses different methods and I'm very biased 

[The Dog]

nonlinear,

First off, Randall was saying I was the one  in the minority of objective parties.

Second, I've no idea why he attributes the theory he's espousing strictly to psychology, or to needing to be a psychologist to interpret Levay's findings.  In fact, Levay's study was largly biological.  The issues were that a) he "assumed" the sexual orientation of some of the subjects, b) he was working on cadaverers without much prehistory, c) he assumed a causation, rather than a correlation.  When the clinical community got their hands on the research, and it's methods, it was pretty quickly discredited. Repeated attempts at his clinical research were also made and the findings were never able to be replicated, even with better clinical methods. There was certainly some psychology involved, but you wouldn't need to be a psychologist to interpret his work.  I glossed over that in my initial post, figuring it wasn't real important to point out, but it's representative, again, that Flagg doesn't know much about the subject at hand....nor much about the research in question.

EDIT:  I've also been re-reading all of the previous posts (my initial posts were made in a rage/hurry), and I'm sorry if i've offended anyone who may work in psychology.  I come from a different backgroud which uses different methods and I'm very biased 

Dude, you're the LAST person that should worry about offending people....I think Flagg did enough of that to last the rest of the year.