[deandrecooke]

New Hampshire is going galt. I mean ghey.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...lynch.php#more

[popillio]

I believe that society has an influence, sure.

But I think there are other factors too.

[VyacheslaV]

Oh my god! BK is opening his mind to include other factors!

[xanaxnewtrader]

Drake:
Do you have any evidence to support this causal argument? There are studies showing that homosexuals have experienced violence and harassment due to their orientation, and that many teens drop out of high school because of said harassment.

I'll look for the studies after work.

[saturninus.ribb]

We know that gay people who are abused have higher substance abuse rates then those who are not abused.

We also know that a higher percentage of gay people suffer partner abuse then straight people.

Therefore, all else being equal, we can say that gay people have a higher substance abuse rate, which is confirmed by the other study. The two studies corroborate one another.

Yes, they corroborate one another.

That does not mean, however, that homosexuality is the cause, which is what you seek to imply.

[Dfvgthyju]

Ok, so if you believe society has an influence, that means that society probably has an influence on the amount they drink and abuse themselves. Do you agree with that? Yes, completely. I've never been opposed to saying that society does play an influence. I do have a problem when it is considered the only factor responsible.

I could see it being about a 10 percent increase, out of about 100-200 percent.

[lopesmili]

I don't how the **** one's sexual orientation determines any liklihood of substance abuse.

It's simple. Christianity influences society to be hostile towards gays, a hostile society and rejection drives people to various vices as coping mechanisms.

It's basic psychology.

[WrigleyMike]

And one last thought. If you agree that it does play an influence. Then if we let them marry, maybe they would feel less persecuted and not drink/use drugs/self abuse as much. Hmmm this could make them more healthy.

[ashleyjoseph]

Ok, so you agree that it is part of the increase that your earlier statistics showed. But you can't scientifically quantify the amount of the increase, it's just your opinion. Actually, the burden is on you to show that there is an effect. I believe there is a small one, but that has not been proven by anyone here in this thread.

If that is the case, you can't use those statistics to show anything since you can't analyze them properly.

So I'm still waiting for health argument that can be scientifally supported instead of just biased opinions. It is scientifically proven that gays and lesbians abuse substances at about 3x the rate. Without statistics to show otherwise, we have evidence that gays and lesbians who are abused show greater rates of abusing substances then they would otherwise. Therefore we can conclude that a significant proportion of substance abuse among homosexuals is a factor of their abusive relationships.

None of that is an opinion.

It is your opinion that society as a whole plays a factor, but we have absolutely no statistics to show that this is anything other then a trope. Until evidence is supplied, we have to conclude that it can show no appreciable influence.

[paydayus]

It's like saying walking along an elevated train track is a less valuable activity then riding the train. The issue isn't really value, but safety.

You're still placing a value. By saying something is dangerous and that people shouldn't do it, you are saying that it does not hold as much ultimate value as the "safe" choice.

That said, you have not proven that, on the whole, homosexuality is a "dangerous" choice.

[bobibnoxx]

Yeah, or maybe the gay dude and his partner could both get tested for every disease in the book and then stick with each other's company in the sexual department. Then the probability of STD's is virtually zero and the probability of pregnancy literally zero. Gay or not, they'll be safer than I am and have been. I'll be surprised if you're up for contesting this.

You just described a significant portion of the gay population...several people on Poly included.

[kylsq0Ln]

It's simple. Christianity influences society to be hostile towards gays, a hostile society and rejection drives people to various vices as coping mechanisms.

It's basic psychology.

Reread my post - I mentioned same thing you mentioned, about living in an oppressive or hostile society.

But yes, you and I agree then - sexual orientation by itself is not a determining factor in liklihood of substance abuse. Rather, being gay in a homophobic society is one of factors.

[tpJKhY8Z]

Doesn't need to blame Christianity per se, just Christianist douches.

[CefGemYAffews]

Actually, the burden is on you to show that there is an effect. I believe there is a small one, but that has not been proven by anyone here in this thread.

You believe there is an effect, but you say the burden is on me to prove it to you before you'll believe it.

That is by far the most stupid thing I have ever read, but somehow, I'm not suprised.
Any further discussion with someone who considers your quote logical is futile.

[GuitarLoverBe]

Makes sense to me, but it doesnt exclude the former point.

What magic part about being gay would lead me to greater chances of substance abuse?

[ultramDoctoo]

What magic part about being gay would lead me to greater chances of substance abuse?

Here's what I posted again (since you missed it).

"Its not impossible that the brain chemistry that determines homosexuality may also predispose one to an addictive personality."

Its a pretty accurate statement so long as one agrees with the evidence that homosexuality and addictive personality are genetically determined. Since widely divergent genetic traits can be linked to one another (for example sickle cell anemia and African ancestry), its not impossible that these two seemingly disparate characteristics are too.

Its not 'magic', its called science. I know the vast majority of non-scientists such as yourself confuse science and magic but I dont. Its my job.

OTOH, perhaps you dont agree that homosexuality is genetically determined? Perhaps you agree with those who believe it is a choice? That position would invalidate my statement to some extent, since it would blur the intent of my original statement.

[erubresen]

I believe sexual orientation is NOT a choice. But that does not necessarily mean that whatever determines one's sexual orientation is the same biochemical that increases liklihood of substance abuse.

And your attempt to take my "magic" remark seriously was really lame.

I don't think Spencer said it was. I think he just said that it's a possibility.

[paratayoma]

True . . .

but if the biochemistry responsible for one's sexual orientation can also POSSIBLY determine one's liklihood of substance abuse, who is to say then that it's not heterosexuality that can increase such liklihood? After all, a significant number of heterosexuals happen to suffer from one form of substance abuse or another.

Sure, that's also a possibility, but there's no reason to believe it's the case until there is evidence that, ceteris paribus, heterosexuals are more likely than homosexuals to abuse a substance. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that there is.

[Oberjej]

Since homeless people have a higher likelyhood of drug or alcohol addiction we should make homelessness illegal in order to improve their health.

[bensabath]

Since homeless people have a higher likelyhood of drug or alcohol addiction we should make homelessness illegal in order to improve their health.

Exactly, rah. They can choose to live in homes and have children, which would be the healthiest option for them.