The Ex-Mormon Forums

For someone who just unleashed a tirade on me for not demonstrating facts to you, you cited very little evidence back at me to prove your case. This just reinforces why I usually stay out of the "debate" forums. This isn't debate, it's yelling.

I spent 25 years of my life being told not to think and that I was wrong and that the heads of the church had all the answers. Forgive me if I refuse to take anything anyone says at face value anymore, especially random strangers on the internet. It's a lesson I had to learn the hard way, and now I ask questions. That's what I mean by "healthy skepticism." It's not inappropriate for me to question statements you made in a debate forum. What IS inappropriate is how you, as Dipsnort said, went into "attack mode." Saying things like, “I pity your inability to think rational thoughts” is insulting, unconstructive, and childish. Even Abish wasn’t that insulting to me. How can you call me out for not using peer-reviewed sources, when you cite a TLC reality show as evidence? That’s not even close to the same caliber of research. That’s like me saying I know everything about dwarfism because I’ve watched “Little People, Big World.” Or that “Jersey Shore” is an accurate representation of youth culture among Italian-Americans.

In fact, I DID scour Google, as well as the numerous databases of peer-reviewed journals I have access to (one of the privileges of being a graduate student) for your "dozens and dozens of studies conducted over the past 50 years." Let’s even assume that a study from 1961 would still be considered relevant (which it wouldn’t in the scientific community.) Guess what? Most of those studies were conducted and/or cited by anti-gay organizations! Examples of some of these sites include things like: Conservapedia, Catholic Education, Christian Answers, and the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (an organization that works to "cure" homosexuality, which is considered psychological abuse in the field, by the way.)

The peer-reviewed journals proved unhelpful. More than anything, it seems as though current, peer-reviewed, unbiased research describing the differences between numbers of gay vs. straight sexual partners JUST DOESN’T EXIST. I found one very interesting article about how risky sex behaviors (increased partners and infrequent condom use) have decreased in homosexual couples and increased in heterosexual couples. However, that’s kind of a different point altogether. But fascinating, nonetheless.

I get that your post was not to denigrate gays. But by using loaded language like “promiscuous,” you are automatically attaching a negative label onto a group of people. There are unbiased options (i.e., “gays have a higher number of sex partners”), but you didn’t use that. You chose “promiscuous,” which has a historically negative connotation. I can’t think of a time when it’s been used as a compliment.

Blah, blah, blah. I bring up the communes of polygamy (not just the FLDS church) because that’s where it happens more commonly, because they can avoid legal repercussions. As far as the sociological aspects of polygamy go, it’s economics. In communities where the whole community is polygamous, women are a finite resource. They get married younger and younger, because the men need to acquire more wives. Young men DO get ostracized, because they are seen as competition. I’m sure polygamy in a larger society (a few scattered families here and there, rather than a homogenous society) would function differently, ESPECIALLY from consenting adults. But the communes where polygamy is more commonly practiced are damaging for these very reasons. Nevermind that the power differential (often religious) between men and women in these groups raises a lot of questions about what can truly be considered “consenting.”

Once again, I regret coming to the debate boards. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’m out.