Not surprised. Homophobic People Die Earlier People who espouse anti-gay views die younger than those who don't, found a sure-to-be-controversial study in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health. "Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University. In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were.
i guess repressing their gay thoughts is quite stressful and can lead to heart issues. or god is rewarding them by letting them into heaven faster Spoiler lol jk
When I see a topic title with the words: "Kansas moves backwards", am I really surprised by that? Haven't other people felt the same way? 10 pages later... As someone who was trained in college towards a professional career as a scientist, this is some disgraceful **** being published on the American Journal of Public Health. [rquoter]The research team linked mortality rates to responses on the General Social Survey that indicated anti-gay prejudice, based on these four questions:[/rquoter] [rQUOTEr]The researchers acknowledged that the questions represent "a limited range of potential indices of anti-gay prejudice," adding that the effect of such prejudice may actually be larger than they were able to measure.[/rQUOTEr] [rQUOTEr]While the study was not designed to determine why people with anti-gay attitudes might die younger than their less prejudiced peers, the authors offered some educated guesses.[/rQUOTEr] Translation: Some researchers deliberately injected their political opinion into a research journal (which accepted it with the proper money, channels, and was mindblowingly peer reviewed as acceptable) by parsing data (i.e. cherry picking responses) from a different generic survey while admitting that they have no way of separating the root causes of the matter nor knowing if their sample size and questions are relevantly accurate. They're pretty much throwing their sham (though statistically significant) numbers up for God to separate causation from correlation. And people wonder why mouthbreathers don't trust "science."
As I said earlier. The last refuge of discrimination is that it is discriminatory if we can't discriminate.
It means you can puff four packs of cigs and eat red meat with an inch of butter on top daily, provided that you don't hate gays.
Why is this comment allowed to slide? You are telling Christians not to hate and yet you clearly hate Christians. Is that okay according to your morals, mark? Is your anger righteous?
I grew up Southern Baptist for 18 years; I have no hate for Christians. But if Christians are going to hate on a group of people and feel the need to institutionalize their hate in law, then yes, they are no better than Islamic extremists trying to force their views on their government.
Just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't make the article "disgraceful." Sociological research like this generally has to make the leap between correlation and causation because of the nature of its samples. For example, here, you can't make someone homophobic in order to measure their mortality and even if you somehow can, it would probably be considered unethical. Under your logic, we should stop studying anything where causation cannot be conclusively proven and disregard a huge portion of established soft science research. The best they can do given their topic of research is to try to control for other factors of mortality, which they do, and make make sure their numbers are statistically sound, which they are. Like you said, I would be more comfortable with the study if it was based on a survey with more direct questions or one that asked more relevant questions, but on the other hand, how do you think people would respond to a question that asks if you hate gays or if all the questions had an obvious thrust? So, in conclusion, not the greatest article, but far from the "sham" you claim it to be.
Love, compassion, understanding, forgiveness, non-judgmental, tolerance is good for the mind and body. Hate, not so much. Whether you live longer or not, what's probably more important is your quality of life isn't probably that great when you hold lots of hatred in your heart.
All those crazy Southern Baptists exterminating entire villages, beheading journalists, blowing up markets, throwing acid on little girls... If we could just get rid of the Southern Baptists and the Islamists! AMIRITE GUYS?
Seriously. Hyperbole has no place in this discussion. We seem to agree that religion should not be applied to the public sphere, including businesses, as a justification for discrimination. However, likening conservative Christians to the Taliban does nothing to advance, or endear others to, an argument.
you think it is offensive and disgusting. that doesn't make it offensive or disgusting to offer a parallel between people in the modern age who will be on the wrong side of history, with those from a former era who also ended up on the wrong side of history. what's disgusting to me is to refuse service to two people because of their sexuality, and THEN go and hide behind the blanket of religion as to their reasoning. it is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught- in my church we practice compassion, tolerance, and inclusion. not discrimination
You have a very valid point. The same issue happens when food/diet "studies" are published... cherry picking results and exclaiming: "Oatmeal is good for you!" Typically the motivation is $$$$ but so is a political agenda. It is VERY dangerous.... because it undermines science and adds credibility to the snake handlers and mouth breathers that claim the Earth is 5000 years old and that dark folks are subhuman.
It is a completely valid comparison. And I'll remind you of it the next time an abortion clinic is firebombed or some gay guy is murdered and strung up on a barbwire fence.
Isolated incidents of a nutjob Christian doing something horrific does not equal institutionalized violence perpetuated by the Taliban. Neither does a government (wrongly in my opinion) preventing marriage between two people equal a religious government that has people murdered for disobedience, brutalizes opposition, rapes and and dismembers, etc. The comparison is not valid at all. Barack Obama wants the FCC to look into what the media does when it decides on a story. This is just like the Taliban murdering reporters!!!!
