PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality



Stuck_In_California
09-20-2012, 08:01 PM
Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

Captain Obvious
09-20-2012, 08:09 PM
Is cunnilingus unnatural?

patrickt
09-20-2012, 08:35 PM
The only time someones sexual preference is an issue with me is when I am considering having sex with them. Then it matters. It simply doesn't matter in the rest of my life.

I think people who are consumed with homosexuality, either for or against, have a disorder.

Chris
09-20-2012, 08:49 PM
From what I recall of the APA reasoning for removing homosexuality as a disorder is disorders are defined by patients, iow, something is a disorder if patients go to psychiatrist to complain about it as a problem.

The APA doesn't define social norms, society does, and a majority seem to be coming to accept it.

Careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

KC
09-20-2012, 09:20 PM
Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

You have not presented a coherent argument for your first claim, that homosexuality is a disorder. Why do you believe that the APA originally had it right? Based on what evidence?

Shoot the Goose
09-20-2012, 09:40 PM
Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?

See what I bolded, although your complete moronic post is not limited to just those items. Let me say in no uncertain terms that your view is stupid, uninformed, and arrogant. You stated things as fact that are just plain idiotic. What a dumbass would say.

Other species, mammalian and reptilian, where I am most familiar, produce "homosexual" individuals. Is it "abnormal" ? Sure, if looking at statistics not-within-the norm. But it is certainly natural. What of the hermaphrodite individual ? With sexual organs male and female ? Is that only an exterior phenomenon ? Is it not possible that the brain is also improperly wired ?

In every forum, there is a dickhead or two that comes along with the pathetically juvenile and stupid view that you have posted. I am conservative/libertarian thru and thru. But first and foremost, you are one dumb jackass, who discredits all other things Conservative and/or Libertarian.

Every side has its fools. Doesn't make it right though. And you ain't right.

IGetItAlready
09-20-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't care about anyone's sexual preference either.
However I do take issue with the full court press to marginalize me and those like me who in fact consider homosexuality a "sexual preference".
S_I_C does a great job of illustrating the natural state of sexuality and the fact of the matter is an absence of that instinct to procreate IS in fact a defect or whatever "less offensive" term you'd like to label it as.

The way I see it the push for acceptance of all things gay is but one aspect of the liberal assault on the family. And why would anyone attempt to attack the traditional family? I'm sure there are many reasons and I'm sure some gay activists and proponents don't even consider their position "anti-family". But I believe the ultimate goal is for government to take the place of the family and we've already seen much progress to that end.

We still had the poor and needy prior to welfare and entitlements and though I'm sure there were some exceptions, just as I'm sure there still are today, for the most part those folks were not dying in the streets. The poor and needy were for the most part cared and provided for by family members and the community at large. Today by contrast government has made itself responsible for doling out the help with resources it collects from all of us. Seems like a nice idea on the surface until you consider the lengths government goes to in order to now dissuade the kind of help that they now feel only they can give (ie: the Philadelphia woman who was feeding hungry children at her home and was shut down by the city (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19267492/women-feeding-children-in-neighborhood-told-to-stop-by-township?obref=obinsite), the Cristo Viene Church food pantry in Vegas being forced to close (http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/159647425.html), etc).

In addition, the government likes to now tell parents how to raise their children. Spanking is out and new aged touchy feely bullshit is all but required. And though you're still free to teach your kids about the faith of your choice, if that faith happens to be Christian any manifestation of that faith in a public school is prohibited. And if your particular faith takes issue with homosexuality and your child shows any sign of subscribing to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, you may find yourself taking a few days off work or paying for childcare as your child serves an out of school suspension for their "hateful intolerance".
Just this week we were treated to the story of how one clearly confused mother was successful in outlawing all "Father/Daughter" dances in her child's school.

And when exactly did our current first lady become the food Gestapo? My kids have bitched and complained about this year's school lunches since the first day of classes. The opposition to the new food standards in my kids' school has been so widespread that the school held an assembly in which kitchen staff threw Mrs Obama under the bus for some widely unpopular creations like "meatless spaghetti" and "meatless tacos". (Funny side note: My daughter was reprimanded during that assembly when one of the speakers mentioned hamburger and she asked, "Don't you mean meatless hamburger?" Just try being a responsible parent when you're told about that one and you need to leave the room to laugh your ass off) And I just saw a news story last night that reported how students in Wisconsin have taken to protesting Mrs Obama's new school lunch regulations (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/09/18/students_protest_federal_lunch_calorie_cap). And who could forget the little preschool girl who was told the sack lunch her mom had made for her was unacceptable? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/school-lunch-guidelines-p_n_1278803.html) (Yeah, HuffPo for the source haters :wink20:)

If the government can eclipse the family as the most important and influential force in people's lives they open the door for more control of our lives and as mentioned, supporting and even forcing tolerance of a defect that if ever to become the norm would signal not only the end of the family as we know it but also the end of humanity in general, is but one angle being taken toward that end.

KC
09-20-2012, 09:58 PM
I And I just saw a news story last night that reported how students in Wisconsin have taken to protesting Mrs Obama's new school lunch regulations (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/09/18/students_protest_federal_lunch_calorie_cap).



I apologize on behalf of my state. We're a bunch of fat asses.

IGetItAlready
09-20-2012, 10:03 PM
I apologize on behalf of my state. We're a bunch of fat asses.

Sounds to me like you're a bunch of people raising your kids to take offense to being told what to eat.
As such, I applaud you.

Calypso Jones
09-20-2012, 10:20 PM
well. paris hilton is in trouble today for her remarks about homosexuals. Seems it is politically incorrect to speak the truth....where someone can hear it. lol

roadmaster
09-20-2012, 10:35 PM
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

IGetItAlready
09-20-2012, 10:42 PM
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

One would think. But the point of the OP is that some beliefs, even when the scientific community support them, are easily overturned, demonized and silenced with the right backing and financing behind those with opposing views.

roadmaster
09-20-2012, 10:58 PM
One would think. But the point of the OP is that some beliefs, even when the scientific community support them, are easily overturned, demonized and silenced with the right backing and financing behind those with opposing views.

That's like saying I can't say I am a Christ follower. To my last breath I will say this. I could care less what people say or the scientific community. People can say what they want but I don't need their approval only His. No one can silence you except yourself.

IGetItAlready
09-20-2012, 11:03 PM
That's like saying I can't say I am a Christ follower. To my last breath I will say this. I could care less what people say or the scientific community. People can say what they want but I don't need their approval only His. No one can silence you except yourself.

No, I suppose technically you're right.
However they can make life so utterly unbearable for those with opposing points of view that those views are effectively silenced.

roadmaster
09-20-2012, 11:46 PM
No, I suppose technically you're right.
However they can make life so utterly unbearable for those with opposing points of view that those views are effectively silenced.

Let them but we can't be silenced. Even if you are standing alone you will never be alone. No need to worry. If fact it is not His will for us to worry.

BooHoo
09-20-2012, 11:47 PM
the only time someones sexual preference is an issue with me is when i am considering having sex with them. Then it matters. It simply doesn't matter in the rest of my life.

I think people who are consumed with homosexuality, either for or against, have a disorder.

this!!!!

RtWngaFraud
09-21-2012, 01:48 AM
The only time someones sexual preference is an issue with me is when I am considering having sex with them. Then it matters. It simply doesn't matter in the rest of my life.

I think people who are consumed with homosexuality, either for or against, have a disorder.

Exactly! Just keep your perverted gay practices in your home and away from my family and everything is cool.

Carygrant
09-21-2012, 01:58 AM
Don't ever let your children know you wrote that . You will drop badly in their part estimation of you , imo . Though may be you are just a product of your times , soon to be an unsavoury foot note -- in this area .

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 06:35 AM
Is cunnilingus unnatural?

You know what? That's a good question.


The only time someones sexual preference is an issue with me is when I am considering having sex with them. Then it matters. It simply doesn't matter in the rest of my life. I think people who are consumed with homosexuality, either for or against, have a disorder.

If that were all there is too it then I might ignore it just as you do. But you know that is NOT all there is to it. Normal people are called hate-mongers and intolerant just for saying what I said. Children are having this shoved down their throat and told that its merely a "choice", which it is not. The institution of marriage is being turned on its head, and this disorder is being institutionalized into law. The destruction of the family has already caused immeasurable harm to society and this just exasurbates it. Those things should all be an "issue" with you.


From what I recall of the APA reasoning for removing homosexuality as a disorder is disorders are defined by patients, iow, something is a disorder if patients go to psychiatrist to complain about it as a problem. The APA doesn't define social norms, society does, and a majority seem to be coming to accept it. Careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

So whether or not something is a disease is decided by the patient? You have got to be kidding me. Most pedophiles do not seek treatment. So is that normal too?


You have not presented a coherent argument for your first claim, that homosexuality is a disorder. Why do you believe that the APA originally had it right? Based on what evidence?

How about a little common sense. Like I said, The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. Its goes against Natural Law.

What I found fascinating in the totally slanted Wikipedia article about this, is that after it goes out of its way to say homosexuality is not a disorder, its says:

Psychological research in this area includes examining mental health issues (including stress, depression, or addictive behavior) faced by gay and lesbian people as a result of the difficulties they experience because of their sexual orientation, physical appearance issues, eating disorders, or gender atypical behavior.

- Psychiatric disorders: In a Dutch study, gay men reported significantly higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders than straight men, and lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women.[11]
- Physical appearance and eating disorders: Gay men tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men.[12] Lesbian women are at a lower risk for eating disorders than heterosexual women.[13]

Now I got a kick out of this:

- Gender atypical behavior: While this is not a disorder, gay men may face difficulties due to being more likely to display gender atypical behavior than heterosexual men.[14] The difference is less pronounced between lesbians and straight women.[15]

People with a disorder act like it, but hey, thats not a disorder either because we have already said that the cause is not a disorder. LOL.

And this is rich:

- Minority stress: Stress caused from a sexual stigma, manifested as prejudice and discrimination, is a major source of stress for people with a homosexual orientation. Sexual-minority affirming groups and gay peer groups help counteract and buffer minority stress.[16]
- Ego-dystonic sexual orientation: Conflict between religious identity and sexual orientation identity can cause severe stress, causing some people to want to change their sexual orientation.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology


So its other people fault that they experience these problems, not their disorder's fault. Amazing. These are the sort of stupidities that arise when one denies the obvious. One could say the same thing about obese people, yet over-eating IS considered a disorder. And ironically, eating IS natural!! Think about THAT!

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 06:37 AM
................the point of the OP is that some beliefs, even when the scientific community support them, are easily overturned, demonized and silenced with the right backing and financing behind those with opposing views.

Well said. Well said indeed!

Reputation points for that post.!! Anybody who thinks that doctors and scientists are not influenced by politics has their head up their azz.


That's like saying I can't say I am a Christ follower. To my last breath I will say this. I could care less what people say or the scientific community. People can say what they want but I don't need their approval only His. No one can silence you except yourself.

Give it a little time. In some countries saying that you are a Christ follower will get you killed. There are plenty of people in America who would like it to be that way here too. In fact, there are those who already say that its a mental disease to believe in a god. Considering how low society has sunk in a mere 50 years, who can say what it will be like 100 years from now. A person may well be institutionalized for believing in God. Don't laugh; many things that are accepted today would have been unbelievable not that long ago.

patrickt
09-21-2012, 07:00 AM
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

As a conservative I would certainly agree. But, not all beliefs are entitled to my respect. When my son's history teacher told him the Holocaust never happened I think "friggin' idiot" was a phrase I used. The NBPP "beliefs" about killing white people are not entitled to respect. Beliefs are also the starting point for behaviors. When President Obama believed he should avoid white people that belief began a life-long pattern of behavior.

So, for those who hate homosexuality and homosexuals, would you refuse to hire an accountant who was possibly gay?

Would you refuse to buy a house if you were told the neighbors on one side were gay?

Would you disown and reject contact with one of your children if the child say he was gay?

Just curious where these beliefs lead you?

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 07:11 AM
.......my son's history teacher told him the Holocaust never happened.........
What??!!!

You should have gotten that teacher FIRED!!

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 07:15 AM
.......for those who hate homosexuality and homosexuals, would you refuse to hire an accountant who was possibly gay?.........

Unless I missed something, I never saw anybody here hating homosexuals. That word is used a bit too loosely these days.

I could no more hate a homosexual than I could a kleptomaniac, or an alcoholic, or someone with claustrophobia. You can't hate someone because they suffer from a disorder. So, sure, I'd hire them.

Now, I DO hate the behavior of some radical homosexuals. Throwing glitter on Romney and Santorum was rude behavior. And them calling ME hateful because I believe in traditional marriage is also unacceptable.

Some things the radicals do are just disturbing: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ZMDB_enUS502US502&q=homosexual+parade&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1600&bih=775&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=QFpcUKqXDoOziwL8ioEY

Chris
09-21-2012, 08:00 AM
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yes. This is a subjective matter.


But the point of the OP is that some beliefs, even when the scientific community support them....
What support is that?


So whether or not something is a disease is decided by the patient?
What I said was, to the APA something is a disorder if patients come to them complaining about it. Disorder, not disease.

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 08:28 AM
......So whether or not something is a disease is decided by the patient? You have got to be kidding me. Most pedophiles do not seek treatment. So is that normal too?.......

What I said was, to the APA something is a disorder if patients come to them complaining about it. Disorder, not disease.

Yes, disorder, not disease. But all the same, if thats true its a ridiculous litmus test.

Chris
09-21-2012, 08:40 AM
Yes, disorder, not disease. But all the same, if thats true its a ridiculous litmus test.

Why? As I said earlier, the APA doesn't act as a determiner of social norms, society does. Society, as we see just from this short thread, has many opinions on it, some accept, some reject, many I suspect don't care. In general, last I saw, a slight majority opine they accept homosexuality.

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 10:04 AM
Yes, disorder, not disease. But all the same, if thats true its a ridiculous litmus test.

Why?..........

Because something is either a disorder or its not a disorder. A disorder can't just all of a sudden not be a disorder just because of a popular vote. That's subjectivism at its worst.

You also said, "The APA doesn't define social norms, society does, and a majority seem to be coming to accept it." So what if someday society says that having sex with five-year-olds is okay. Would you all of a sudden not have a problem with that just because society had sunk that deep? I seem to remember a society that thought wiping out Jews was okay.

Some things are right and wrong, regardless of any popular opinion to the contrary.

Chris
09-21-2012, 10:09 AM
Because something is either a disorder or its not a disorder. A disorder can't just all of a sudden not be a disorder just because of a popular vote. That's subjectivism at its worst.

You also said, "The APA doesn't define social norms, society does, and a majority seem to be coming to accept it." So what if someday society says that having sex with five-year-olds is okay. Would you all of a sudden not have a problem with that just because society had sunk that deep? I seem to remember a society that thought wiping out Jews was okay.

Some things are right and wrong, regardless of any popular opinion to the contrary.

Again, what is a disorder to the APA is what people come to them complaining about. Not what you or I might subjectively define or even society decide is normal.

Agree, some things are right and wrong regardless of your or my or anyone else's opinion. But that's all we have here so far.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Give it a little time. In some countries saying that you are a Christ follower will get you killed.

Then so be it. But I won't deny I am one.

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 10:35 AM
ive it a little time. In some countries saying that you are a Christ follower will get you killed.

Then so be it. But I won't deny I am one.
Oh, I totally agree with you on that point.
I'm just saying, it can happen.

Chris
09-21-2012, 11:22 AM
Oh, I totally agree with you on that point.
I'm just saying, it can happen.
Sure it can. Slavery, wholly unjustifiable, yet it took a long time for that to emerge as a social norm. And then there's liberalism.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 11:38 AM
Oh, I totally agree with you on that point.
I'm just saying, it can happen.

No, it will happen, maybe not in my lifetime. Wrong will be right and right will be wrong. As a child I could not see this but now I can. I believe that Gods will was only to be one woman and one man. I stand on His words but I don't hate.

KC
09-21-2012, 12:12 PM
Sounds to me like you're a bunch of people raising your kids to take offense to being told what to eat.
As such, I applaud you.
Yeah, cause we're fat. Stop applauding.

KC
09-21-2012, 12:24 PM
How about a little common sense. Like I said, The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. Its goes against Natural Law.

What I found fascinating in the totally slanted Wikiperdia article about this, is that after it goes out of its way to say homosexuality is not a disorder, its says:

Psychological research in this area includes examining mental health issues (including stress, depression, or addictive behavior) faced by gay and lesbian people as a result of the difficulties they experience because of their sexual orientation, physical appearance issues, eating disorders, or gender atypical behavior.

- Psychiatric disorders: In a Dutch study, gay men reported significantly higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders than straight men, and lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women.[11]
- Physical appearance and eating disorders: Gay men tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men.[12] Lesbian women are at a lower risk for eating disorders than heterosexual women.[13]

Now I got a kick out of this:

- Gender atypical behavior: While this is not a disorder, gay men may face difficulties due to being more likely to display gender atypical behavior than heterosexual men.[14] The difference is less pronounced between lesbians and straight women.[15]

People with a disorder act like it, but hey, thats not a disorder either because we have already said that the cause is not a disorder. LOL.

And this is rich:

- Minority stress: Stress caused from a sexual stigma, manifested as prejudice and discrimination, is a major source of stress for people with a homosexual orientation. Sexual-minority affirming groups and gay peer groups help counteract and buffer minority stress.[16]
- Ego-dystonic sexual orientation: Conflict between religious identity and sexual orientation identity can cause severe stress, causing some people to want to change their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation identity exploration can help individuals evaluate the reasons behind the desire to change and help them resolve the conflict between their religious and sexual identity, either through sexual orientation identity reconstruction or affirmation therapies. Therapists are to offer acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.[16] Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is a disorder where a person wishes their sexual orientation were different because of associated psychological and behavioral disorders.

So its other people fault that they experience these problems, not their disorder's fault. Amazing. These are the sort of stupidities that arise when one denies the obvious. One could say the same thing about obese people, yet over-eating IS considered a disorder. And ironically, eating IS natural!! Think about THAT!

Hm. Do you suppose we can procreate indefinitely? No species can expand its number indefinitely without destroying its environment and exhausting its carrying capacity. By your logic, gays must be more highly evolved.

Also gender and all cultural attitudes that go with it are social constructs. We see this by measuring different gender norms in different cultures. Would it be a more simple explanation to hypothesize that gay men are more emotional because they do not have the same culturally assigned gender traits as straight men?

Jack Fate
09-21-2012, 12:48 PM
A friend of mine is a homo. He told me being a homo is a pain in the ass.

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 12:48 PM
Hm. Do you suppose we can procreate indefinitely? No species can expand its number indefinitely without destroying its environment and exhausting its carrying capacity. By your logic, gays must be more highly evolved...........
That's either a creative bit of sarcasm, or a disturbingly stupid conclusion.
I'm hoping its the former and not the latter.


A friend of mine is a homo. He told me being a homo is a pain in the ass.
LOL.

texmaster
09-21-2012, 05:12 PM
See what I bolded, although your complete moronic post is not limited to just those items. Let me say in no uncertain terms that your view is stupid, uninformed, and arrogant. You stated things as fact that are just plain idiotic. What a dumbass would say.

Other species, mammalian and reptilian, where I am most familiar, produce "homosexual" individuals. Is it "abnormal" ? Sure, if looking at statistics not-within-the norm. But it is certainly natural. What of the hermaphrodite individual ? With sexual organs male and female ? Is that only an exterior phenomenon ? Is it not possible that the brain is also improperly wired ?

In every forum, there is a dickhead or two that comes along with the pathetically juvenile and stupid view that you have posted. I am conservative/libertarian thru and thru. But first and foremost, you are one dumb jackass, who discredits all other things Conservative and/or Libertarian.

Every side has its fools. Doesn't make it right though. And you ain't right.

The hate seething from you doesn't help your argument.

His argument is extremely sound. Your sad attempts to normalize homosexuality is not.

#1 by your logic that because animals do it then it must be natural is just as moronic as claiming cannibalism is natural because humans have done it and it occurs in nature.

Let's break this down very simply.

There is a biological sexual reaction in all human beings (and lets stay with the species mmmkay?) when exposed to sexual stimuli. The body prepares for procreation. ALL humans gay or straight have the same biological sexual reaction. Procreation REQUIRES one male and one female. That is genetics and that is natural.

Explain to us how homosexuality is natural beyond the moronic argument that it occurs in other species as does cannibalism.

One of my family members was one of the top psychotherepisits in north texas. He told me only one patient in 40 years of practice who admitted was homosexual that came to see him wasn't exposed or didn't admit to having a sexual experience as a child by an adult or other child older than they were. You are a FOOL if you think this is a natural occurrence. It is not.

When you can prove a genetic link come back and talk to us. Until then its pure theory and hate driving you and no fact.

texmaster
09-21-2012, 05:16 PM
One would think. But the point of the OP is that some beliefs, even when the scientific community support them, are easily overturned, demonized and silenced with the right backing and financing behind those with opposing views.

Thats exactly right. A great story to back that up. About 30 years ago an ordained Episcopalian minister and licensed psychologist wrote a book. Its goal was simply to determine the cause of homosexuality by interviewing homosexuals. She didn't set out to disprove homosexuality but merely to explain its origins. The results of sexual abuse were staggering. Her book was published and put in every single public library in the country. After the first week, no copies could be found.

That's the power of the gay mafia and this was 30 years ago.

I have one of the few copies in existence.

Stuck_In_California
09-21-2012, 05:17 PM
Put simply, same sex attraction is a disorder. It was according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently. Many psychologists still consider it to be a disorder to this day despite the fact that the APA no longer does.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "correct now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was correct back then and wrong now. I think that they were correct before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Thoughts?


See what I bolded, although your complete moronic post is not limited to just those items. Let me say in no uncertain terms that your view is stupid, uninformed, and arrogant. You stated things as fact that are just plain idiotic. What a dumbass would say........

...........In every forum, there is a dickhead or two that comes along with the pathetically juvenile and stupid view that you have posted. I am conservative/libertarian thru and thru. But first and foremost, you are one dumb jackass, who discredits all other things Conservative and/or Libertarian.

Every side has its fools. Doesn't make it right though. And you ain't right.


There is definitely something wrong with your wiring upstairs. Otherwise you would not be so worked up & agitated over a stating-the-obvious, common sense OP.

Please seek professional help.

Mainecoons
09-21-2012, 06:15 PM
Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Moreover, other species can and do have disorders as well.

Shoot the Goose
09-21-2012, 07:46 PM
The hate seething from you doesn't help your argument.

His argument is extremely sound. Your sad attempts to normalize homosexuality is not.

#1 by your logic that because animals do it then it must be natural is just as moronic as claiming cannibalism is natural because humans have done it and it occurs in nature.

Let's break this down very simply.

There is a biological sexual reaction in all human beings (and lets stay with the species mmmkay?) when exposed to sexual stimuli. The body prepares for procreation. ALL humans gay or straight have the same biological sexual reaction. Procreation REQUIRES one male and one female. That is genetics and that is natural.

Explain to us how homosexuality is natural beyond the moronic argument that it occurs in other species as does cannibalism.

One of my family members was one of the top psychotherepisits in north texas. He told me only one patient in 40 years of practice who admitted was homosexual that came to see him wasn't exposed or didn't admit to having a sexual experience as a child by an adult or other child older than they were. You are a FOOL if you think this is a natural occurrence. It is not.

When you can prove a genetic link come back and talk to us. Until then its pure theory and hate driving you and no fact.

Tex. Your "logic" is a stupid as the OP. The "cannibalism" crap is truly dumber than shit.

It is not an issue of where a dick was meant to fit and "procreate". As we know, many guys have no problem with their dick in a girl's mouth or rectum.

Its about how the brain is wired. Or "miswired", as in the case of many homosexuals. I presented hermaphrodites as evidence of visually observable miswiring. It is not "normal", but there it is !Further, every known civilization has had homosexuals. American Indians had gays amongst them. They did not persecute them. They let them perform womanly chores. How did that happen ?

Do you know for a fact that it cannot be caused by a brain-issue ? Have you ever spent long times around gays ? Have you ever sat and talked with them about how they "became" gay ?

Show me some reasoned debate. Not bullshit.

head of joaquin
09-21-2012, 07:47 PM
Another fixation of conservatives: male male sex.

Get over it guys. You've lost on another issue.

Shoot the Goose
09-21-2012, 07:48 PM
Another fixation of conservatives: male male sex.

Get over it guys. You've lost on another issue.

Hey trolling jackass. Read my posts.

Moron.

Shoot the Goose
09-21-2012, 08:33 PM
Besides, common sense tells you that it is unnatural. The basest instinct of any species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. That drive is extremely powerful in all creatures. Therefore, if you have an aversion to copulating with the opposite sex that is rightly called a disorder. It’s just not normal. Now I know that some pinheads like to point to what appears to be "homosexual" behavior in other species and therefore conclude that it’s natural. Well, that’s just plain stupid, and the reason is that what is natural for some species is not necessarily natural for others. What is natural for some species is not natural for others. Some flowers pollinate using bees. Does that mean it would be natural for us to incorporate bees into our sex? Of course not! Chickens lay eggs, and that is natural for them. So since laying eggs happens in nature, would it be normal for a woman to lay an egg and hatch a baby? Just because it happens in nature does not mean it’s natural for humans, and just because Same-sex behavior seems to appear in nature does not mean it is natural for us.

Let me repeat. In no uncertain terms. This last paragraph, from the OP, is pure ignorance. Complete stupidity. Deciding what is "natural" and "normal" without ever defining such. It is what a pinhead types. What an idiot types.

One of you male experts on such, either the OP or Tex, explain to me, or anyone else who wonders, how and when it was that you decided that many girls had really nice asses ? Or gorgeous tits ? What made you notice ?

And likewise with girls noticing guys ? For many of us, it started in the early grades. Heck, I was a nymphomaniac by second grade.

But what if you had been born wired kind of in reverse ? Do any of you have experience with such ?

I do. My youngest brother was born gay. Six years younger then me, he saw he was different as soon as he started to show personality. He is now 50, and hugely successful, and married to another man. They are worth millions. But he told me long ago "I would never have picked this. I wish it on no one".

My Mom died early of cancer. My Dad remarried a widow, she who had 7 sons. The youngest was gay. His older brothers were 2 surgeons, one of whom was in charge of cardiology at one of the largest hospitals in the U.S. Two attorneys. Two contractors who owned businesses with more than 20 employees. And the gay, who went into acting. All of us knew and agreed that it was not a choice for our brothers. That they were predestined as queers.

Tex, for you to lecture me about gays ......... kiss my ass. You literally don't know shit compared to me. And I think you just plain don't know shit regardless.

As you likely know, I spent seven years in the military. Best units. Special Ops. The very first Delta Force platoon. I got brass-ball credentials out the whazoo. I used to think gays were disgusting. When I was a gung-ho idiot.

As for my testosterone levels, if in doubt, I often joke with my brother that I got a double-dose, and none was left for him

Shoot the Goose
09-21-2012, 08:51 PM
I'm not done kicking ignorant ass here.

Can one of you experts on homosexuality lend your expertise about "normal and natural" to such as Autism ? Down's syndrome ? Aspergers ? Schizophrenia ? If they are not "normal or natural", as hideous as all can be, then you gonna cure them with an intervention ?
Counseling ?

A pox on every one of your dickheads on this. Goddamn you are morons of the highest magnitude on this. You disgrace us all.

<spit>

Goldie Locks
09-21-2012, 09:04 PM
I think some choose as in like Anne Heche thingy, but I also think that others are just born that way. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Chris
09-21-2012, 09:08 PM
A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 09:23 PM
I have known too many and none has ever admitted in private they were born that way. From prisons to friends.

Goldie Locks
09-21-2012, 09:25 PM
I have known too many and none has ever admitted in private they were born that way. From prisons to friends.

Well how did they say they got that way then?

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 09:28 PM
Different stories. Betrayal of a girlfriend, someone talked them into it, or they were drunk. Some curious and some were upset because people called them gay at a younger age or got bullied.

Chris
09-21-2012, 09:28 PM
I have known too many and none has ever admitted in private they were born that way. From prisons to friends.

I don't think it's a matter of born that way, but predisposition, genetic predisposition, that nurture brings out or hides. It's complex, the science is hardly settled.

Shoot the Goose
09-21-2012, 09:42 PM
Different stories. Betrayal of a girlfriend, someone talked them into it, or they were drunk. Some curious and some were upset because people called them gay at a younger age or got bullied.

Whoa ! "They were drunk" ?

So they were drunk, sucked a dick, and then stayed that way for life ?

I call BS. I have never interacted with a gay who cited any of what you note. Never. Further, none of what you say makes sense.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 09:44 PM
Well how did they say they got that way then?

You also have to remember in a man rectum there is a g-spot. Once a young man is violated he will and may think he is gay. This happens to many and they will tell you why would they have this if it is not normal. Only problem is, it's very thin, can rupture and they can get sexually transmitted too easy. Is is easier for a woman to change than a man. Men can find other male partners too easy.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 09:46 PM
Whoa ! "They were drunk" ?

So they were drunk, sucked a dick, and then stayed that way for life ?

I call BS. I have never interacted with a gay who cited any of what you note. Never. Further, none of what you say makes sense.

Goose this is what they say. I am not a man nor do I like women.

Goldie Locks
09-21-2012, 09:49 PM
You also have to remember in a man rectum there is a g-spot. Once a young man is violated he will and may think he is gay. This happens to many and they will tell you why would they have this if it is not normal. Only problem is, it's very thin, can rupture and they can get sexually transmitted too easy. Is is easier for a woman to change than a man. Men can find other male partners too easy.


Sorry, I call BS. Why would a non-gay man even engage in this unless he was gay.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 09:55 PM
Sorry, I call BS. Why would a non-gay man even engage in this unless he was gay.

Well I don't think all were lying. I have spoken to over 200 and they all say about the same.

roadmaster
09-21-2012, 10:11 PM
Sorry, I call BS. Why would a non-gay man even engage in this unless he was gay.

The same reason a married man some will try it. I don't understand men, but people have caught married men doing the same or in a sting thinking they are meeting underage girls to have sex with.

Captain Obvious
09-22-2012, 12:07 AM
http://www.obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/HomosexualsAreGay.jpg

IGetItAlready
09-22-2012, 12:12 AM
http://www.obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/HomosexualsAreGay.jpg

BOOM!
Thread Killer.

Trinnity
09-22-2012, 12:35 AM
This is a contentious topic. Militant gays piss me off. Gays in general don't.
I don't think it's natural at all and I don't approve of it. But I don't go bothering anyone who's gay. Not my business.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 03:09 AM
Tex. Your "logic" is a stupid as the OP. The "cannibalism" crap is truly dumber than shit.

Your insults are worthless. You can't even argue the logic. I just destroyed your nature argument by pointing to something else that happens in nature which of course does not mean its natural.


It is not an issue of where a dick was meant to fit and "procreate". As we know, many guys have no problem with their dick in a girl's mouth or rectum.

LOL You read like a book. Where did I say that was natural? There are plenty of ways to get off. That doesn't mean they are natural in any way shape or form.


Its about how the brain is wired. Or "miswired", as in the case of many homosexuals. I presented hermaphrodites as evidence of visually observable miswiring.

It is not "normal", but there it is !

They have a genetic flaw and its documented. Unlike homosexuality which has no evidence of it being natural or even having ANY basis in genetics. Try again.


Further, every known civilization has had homosexuals.

Every known civilization has had religion and cannibalism. Back to the worthless argument I see.


American Indians had gays amongst them. They did not persecute them. They let them perform womanly chores. How did that happen ?

How did cannibalism happen? How did religion happen? Shared culture traits have NOTHING to do with genetics.


Do you know for a fact that it cannot be caused by a brain-issue ? Have you ever spent long times around gays ? Have you ever sat and talked with them about how they "became" gay ?

Show me some reasoned debate. Not bullshit.

I gave you the genetic facts. You dismissed them with more bullshit and no evidence at all. Your only moronic argument is that its in history. SO IS RELIGION. SO IS CANNIBALISM. None of that makes those things natural!

One of my best friends in college was gay. I've attended a gay marriage. Nice try at the bigot card. You sound like a liberal.

Just because I tolerate homosexuals doesn't make what they do natural or genetic. Certainly not worthy changing LAW for God's sake.
Have you even thought about the Pandora box you are opening? If there is no evidence other than feeling to change the laws on marriage then EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ORIENTATION WILL DEMAND THE SAME THING AND YOU CAN'T STOP THEM.

But you don't want to think about the consequences do you? Let's just run on feelings and the logic and argument be dammed!


Facts you cannot dispute. There is ZERO and I mean ZERO evidence homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form so why should I pretend it is based on your feelings?

But please, quote the brain study the fruit fly study or the twins study or any other bullshit homosexual study you like. I have destroyed them all. Not a single one has ever proven a genetic link.

KC
09-22-2012, 04:29 AM
Facts you cannot dispute. There is ZERO and I mean ZERO evidence homosexuality is genetic or natural in any way shape or form so why should I pretend it is based on your feelings?

But please, quote the brain study the fruit fly study or the twins study or any other bullshit homosexual study you like. I have destroyed them all. Not a single one has ever proven a genetic link.

How do you feel about difference in androgen levels in a fetus as a possible cause of homosexuality?

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20000329/pointing-finger-androgen-cause-homosexuality

Stuck_In_California
09-22-2012, 04:53 AM
..........It is not an issue of where a dick was meant to fit and "procreate". As we know, many guys have no problem with their dick in a girl's mouth or rectum............

Speak for yourself you freak. You're a disturbed person.


........Its about how the brain is wired. Or "miswired", as in the case of many homosexuals........

LOL! So you just agreed with me, after spewing out all your childish hatred. Homosexuals are miswired. No a very scientific term - not that I'd expect one from from the likes of you - but it will do.

What an idiot.



I'm not done kicking ignorant ass here.

Can one of you experts on homosexuality lend your expertise about "normal and natural" to such as Autism ? Down's syndrome ? Aspergers ? Schizophrenia ? If they are not "normal or natural", as hideous as all can be, then you gonna cure them with an intervention ?
Counseling ?

A pox on every one of your dickheads on this. Goddamn you are morons of the highest magnitude on this. You disgrace us all.

<spit>


Let me give you a tip: Don't join the debating club in school.

Trinnity
09-22-2012, 07:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, please be civil to one another, and cease all threats and harassment. Thank you.

Chris
09-22-2012, 08:04 AM
Not a single one has ever proven a genetic link.

Science doesn't prove things, not what science is about. In science, evidence supports or falsifies. And in science today, homosexuality is viewed as both nature (genetic disposition) and nurture.


It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)


Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts.

Sexual Orientation and Adolescents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full)

texmaster
09-22-2012, 12:02 PM
How do you feel about difference in androgen levels in a fetus as a possible cause of homosexuality?

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20000329/pointing-finger-androgen-cause-homosexuality

The same thing I feel about all homosexual studies. Worthless.

All you have to do is read it:

March 29, 2000 (Atlanta) -- There is more evidence that what happens inside the womb may affect the future sexual orientation (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation) of a fetus (http://www.webmd.com/baby/default.htm), according to a "brief communication" appearing in the March 30 issue of the journal Nature. And this time, the finger of evidence points to a person's finger pattern and how it is affected by androgen, or male hormones.

They spell it out for you right there. All of these studies have one thing in common, ZERO conclusions. This is pure theory not fact.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 12:03 PM
Science doesn't prove things, not what science is about.

Bullshit. Thats exactly what science proves or disproves.


In science, evidence supports or falsifies. And in science today, homosexuality is viewed as both nature (genetic disposition) and nurture.

Obviously you are having trouble differentiating between theory and fact.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 12:22 PM
Let me repeat. In no uncertain terms. This last paragraph, from the OP, is pure ignorance. Complete stupidity. Deciding what is "natural" and "normal" without ever defining such. It is what a pinhead types. What an idiot types.

One of you male experts on such, either the OP or Tex, explain to me, or anyone else who wonders, how and when it was that you decided that many girls had really nice asses ? Or gorgeous tits ? What made you notice ?

And likewise with girls noticing guys ? For many of us, it started in the early grades. Heck, I was a nymphomaniac by second grade.

But what if you had been born wired kind of in reverse ? Do any of you have experience with such ?

I do. My youngest brother was born gay. Six years younger then me, he saw he was different as soon as he started to show personality. He is now 50, and hugely successful, and married to another man. They are worth millions. But he told me long ago "I would never have picked this. I wish it on no one".

My Mom died early of cancer. My Dad remarried a widow, she who had 7 sons. The youngest was gay. His older brothers were 2 surgeons, one of whom was in charge of cardiology at one of the largest hospitals in the U.S. Two attorneys. Two contractors who owned businesses with more than 20 employees. And the gay, who went into acting. All of us knew and agreed that it was not a choice for our brothers. That they were predestined as queers.

Tex, for you to lecture me about gays ......... kiss my ass. You literally don't know shit compared to me. And I think you just plain don't know shit regardless.

As you likely know, I spent seven years in the military. Best units. Special Ops. The very first Delta Force platoon. I got brass-ball credentials out the whazoo. I used to think gays were disgusting. When I was a gung-ho idiot.

As for my testosterone levels, if in doubt, I often joke with my brother that I got a double-dose, and none was left for him

LOL I don't give a shit how long you were in the military. That doesn't make you an expert on homosexuality. This is a subject I am well versed in and ready to take you to the woodshed. As I said one of my family members was the top and I mean TOP psychotherapist in North Texas. We're talking congressmen and even presidents who saw him. No he didn't try to "cure" homosexuals but when they came to him the theme was always the same if they could even admit they were homosexuals.

Go ahead, post your pathetic studies. Hell you only prove your naivete when you can't even cite a single one.

So its your brother that's your evidence? Now its starting to make sense. You have to believe this is a birth "defect". Its the only way to make sense of what your brother chose whether conscious or unconscious.

roadmaster
09-22-2012, 12:36 PM
This is a contentious topic. Militant gays piss me off. Gays in general don't.
I don't think it's natural at all and I don't approve of it. But I don't go bothering anyone who's gay. Not my business.

That's the way I feel. I never asked them they came to me and wanted to talk. I don't bother them or treat them any different than another person.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 12:39 PM
That's the way I feel. I never asked them they came to me and wanted to talk. I don't bother them or treat them any different than another person.

Neither do I. Excellent point. What I object to is people trying to force me to believe homosexuality is genetic or normal based on nothing more than someone's feelings on the subject. That is no basis for changing the laws on marriage.

Chris
09-22-2012, 12:45 PM
Science doesn't prove things, not what science is about. In science, evidence supports or falsifies. And in science today, homosexuality is viewed as both nature (genetic disposition) and nurture.



Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.



Sexual Orientation and Adolescents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full)

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts.


Bullshit. Thats exactly what science proves or disproves.



Obviously you are having trouble differentiating between theory and fact.

Wow, now that was some argument!


Bullshit. Thats exactly what science proves or disproves.

No, science is not about proving or disproving anything, it's about supporting or falsifying hypothesis and predictions.


Obviously you are having trouble differentiating between theory and fact.

Huh? It is a fact that "in science today, homosexuality is viewed as both nature (genetic disposition) and nurture." I cited two sources who review the scientific literature.

Why don't you try introducing some science to this discussion. It would sure beat histrionics.

Chris
09-22-2012, 12:55 PM
Uh oh! Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals)
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added....

KC
09-22-2012, 02:49 PM
The same thing I feel about all homosexual studies. Worthless.

All you have to do is read it:

March 29, 2000 (Atlanta) -- There is more evidence that what happens inside the womb may affect the future sexual orientation (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation) of a fetus (http://www.webmd.com/baby/default.htm), according to a "brief communication" appearing in the March 30 issue of the journal Nature. And this time, the finger of evidence points to a person's finger pattern and how it is affected by androgen, or male hormones.

They spell it out for you right there. All of these studies have one thing in common, ZERO conclusions. This is pure theory not fact.

Scientifically speaking, it isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. Unless you have evidence that falsifies it, you cannot claim it is false. Just like I cannot claim it is true. It is merely a hypothesis, don't be ignorant.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 11:15 PM
Wow, now that was some argument!

Thank you! When you can actually present facts instead of theories let us know mmmkay?


No, science is not about proving or disproving anything, it's about supporting or falsifying hypothesis and predictions.

LOL Really. So science didn't disprove the belief that God created the world in a week? Are you really this slow?


Huh? It is a fact that "in science today, homosexuality is viewed as both nature (genetic disposition) and nurture." I cited two sources who review the scientific literature.

Why don't you try introducing some science to this discussion. It would sure beat histrionics.

You cited ZERO facts. You cited theories nothing more.

You quote a single fact proving a genetic or natural link in either of your articles.

Go ahead. I love a good laugh.

texmaster
09-22-2012, 11:20 PM
Scientifically speaking, it isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. Unless you have evidence that falsifies it, you cannot claim it is false. Just like I cannot claim it is true. It is merely a hypothesis, don't be ignorant.

LOL To say you are reaching is beyond funny. You may call it whatever you like it doesn't disprove my argument that your link doesn't prove anything you are claiming.

And of course I can claim its false when it doesn't prove a genetic or natural link to homosexuality when you claimed it did.

Do try and keep up. If you are going to make an argument for a genetic or natural link with homosexuality you cannot run away when its proven to be nothing more than theory or hypothesis! lol

I never said I can prove it doesn't exist. I said science hasn't done that so why should I pretend they have. Please learn to read more carefully next time.

Chris
09-23-2012, 09:35 AM
Thank you! When you can actually present facts instead of theories let us know mmmkay?



LOL Really. So science didn't disprove the belief that God created the world in a week? Are you really this slow?



You cited ZERO facts. You cited theories nothing more.

You quote a single fact proving a genetic or natural link in either of your articles.

Go ahead. I love a good laugh.


When you can actually present facts instead of theories let us know mmmkay?

Soon as you present a rational argument, tex.


So science didn't disprove the belief that God created the world in a week?

No, tex, science doesn't even address the question of God, since God cannot be measured, explained, predicted.


You cited ZERO facts.

I cited scientific facts while you cited personal emotions.


You quote a single fact proving a genetic or natural link in either of your articles.

Thanks for admitting I did cite facts. But, tex, science doesn't prove things.

Where did you learn this thing you call science?

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 09:43 AM
Uh oh! Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals)

The word "homophobia" is a made up word, a canard. It tries to make normal people out to be the ones with the problem

A phobia is a fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, I simply know that they suffer from a disorder.

Chris
09-23-2012, 09:51 AM
The word "homophobia" is a made up word, a canard. It tries to make normal people out to be the ones with the problem

A phobia is a fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, I simply know that they suffer from a disorder.

Semantics rather than addressing the finding.

KC
09-23-2012, 11:23 AM
LOL To say you are reaching is beyond funny. You may call it whatever you like it doesn't disprove my argument that your link doesn't prove anything you are claiming.

And of course I can claim its false when it doesn't prove a genetic or natural link to homosexuality when you claimed it did.

Do try and keep up. If you are going to make an argument for a genetic or natural link with homosexuality you cannot run away when its proven to be nothing more than theory or hypothesis! lol

I never said I can prove it doesn't exist. I said science hasn't done that so why should I pretend they have. Please learn to read more carefully next time.

You do not understand how science works.

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 11:26 AM
Look folks, let's keep it real:

Any man who wants to stick his penis in another man's anus is demented. Period.

KC
09-23-2012, 11:27 AM
Look folks, let's keep it real:

Any man who wants to stick his penis in another man's anus is demented. Period.

Finally we have an honest homophobe.

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 11:29 AM
Finally we have an honest homophobe.

And you are a full fledged moron

The word "homophobia" is a made up word, a canard. It tries to make normal people out to be the ones with the problem

A phobia is a fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, I simply know that they suffer from a disorder.

Calypso Jones
09-23-2012, 11:30 AM
Should people with disorders actually get extra rights or should we just put them away or ignore them.

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 11:32 AM
Should people with disorders actually get extra rights or should we just put them away or ignore them.

Are those the only two options you can think of?

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 11:34 AM
Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat2331.htm

texmaster
09-23-2012, 11:50 AM
Soon as you present a rational argument, tex.

I already have. And as usual you are running away from it.


No, tex, science doesn't even address the question of God, since God cannot be measured, explained, predicted.

Yes Chris. That wasn't an example to proving whether God existed but the timeframe in which he created the planet.

Your dishonesty knows no boundaries does it?


I cited scientific facts while you cited personal emotions.

A complete lie. I cited biological facts when it comes to sexual stimuli and how the body reacts to it no matter who it is. Name one fact you cited.


Thanks for admitting I did cite facts.

LOL The sure sign of a loosing argument. I never said you cited facts. I said name one you did since you claim you have.

Talk about pathetic.


But, tex, science doesn't prove things.

Already blown that pathetic claim out of the water with the 7 day world creation. Keep on digging that hole Chris.


Where did you learn this thing you call science?

Someplace you have obviously never been. School.


When you can actually come up with a factual argument proving homosexuality is natural or genetic come back but its pretty obvious you've got nothing since you run away like a gutless coward to every challenge I've given to you.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 11:53 AM
Finally we have an honest homophobe.

Still running away I see.

So typical of a liberal. Loose the argument so you go right to name calling.

Pathetically predictable.

Chris
09-23-2012, 12:14 PM
And you are a full fledged moron

The word "homophobia" is a made up word, a canard. It tries to make normal people out to be the ones with the problem

A phobia is a fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, I simply know that they suffer from a disorder.

The phobia is not of homosexuals but homosexuality.


I simply know

Begging the question, how do you know?

Chris
09-23-2012, 12:25 PM
I already have. And as usual you are running away from it.



Yes Chris. That wasn't an example to proving whether God existed but the timeframe in which he created the planet.

Your dishonesty knows no boundaries does it?



A complete lie. I cited biological facts when it comes to sexual stimuli and how the body reacts to it no matter who it is. Name one fact you cited.



LOL The sure sign of a loosing argument. I never said you cited facts. I said name one you did since you claim you have.

Talk about pathetic.



Already blown that pathetic claim out of the water with the 7 day world creation. Keep on digging that hole Chris.



Someplace you have obviously never been. School.


When you can actually come up with a factual argument proving homosexuality is natural or genetic come back but its pretty obvious you've got nothing since you run away like a gutless coward to every challenge I've given to you.


I already have.

What your brother psychotherapist's opinion, hardly a scientific fact.



So science didn't disprove the belief that God created the world in a week?

No, tex, science doesn't even address the question of God, since God cannot be measured, explained, predicted.

That wasn't an example to proving whether God existed but the timeframe in which he created the planet.

I responded to what you said, not what you imagine you said. Again, even to your new claim, science doesn't even address the question of God, since God cannot be measured, explained, predicted.




I cited biological facts when it comes to sexual stimuli and how the body reacts to it no matter who it is.

Irrelevant facts and argument by the naturalistic fallacy.




You quote a single fact proving a genetic or natural link in either of your articles.

I never said you cited facts.

Make up your mind.




science doesn't prove things.

Already blown that pathetic claim out of the water with the 7 day world creation.
Explain how that counters the fact science doesn't prove things.



Where did you learn this thing you call science?

Someplace you have obviously never been. School.

Shoulda paid attention. Explain how science proves things, tex, this should be good!



When you can actually come up with a factual argument proving...

Science doesn't prove things.




every challenge I've given to you

What challenge, your opinion? Your feelings and histrionics? Try again--start with telling us how science proves things, I really want to hear that one!

Chris
09-23-2012, 12:28 PM
Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm), right?


They are contrary to the natural law.

Explain without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Stuck_In_California
09-23-2012, 12:31 PM
catechism of the catholic church (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm), right?



right

texmaster
09-23-2012, 12:37 PM
What your brother psychotherapist's opinion, hardly a scientific fact.

LOL Not my brother nor did I ever quote his experience as proving or disproving a genetic or natural link. Basic science did that which you keep running away from.


I responded to what you said, not what you imagine you said. Again, even to your new claim, science doesn't even address the question of God, since God cannot be measured, explained, predicted.

why do you lie about what I said then quote me saying exactly what I said disproving your lie?

The claim was the same as it was from the beginning. Science proved God did not create the world in 7 days.

Your lie was claiming I said science questioned the existence of god right here:


No, tex, science doesn't even address the question of God,

If you are going to lie you are going to have to a better job than that little buddy.


Irrelevant facts and argument by the naturalistic fallacy.

LOL Irrelevant to people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Explain to us all how the biological reaction of the human body and the makeup of our sexual organs and how we procreate is irrelevant to proving a natural or genetic link to sexual practice? Goa head Chris I'd love to hear your defense of that pathetic position.


Make up your mind.

I already have and I've never changed. You've cited zero facts to prove homosexuality is natural or genetic. Clear now or do I need to break out the crayons?

Now stop lying about what I have said and start arguing with the facts you claim to have.


Explain how that counters the fact science doesn't prove things.

How many times do I have to say the same thing before you read it?

The Bible states God created the world in 7 days. Science has proven the world was created over millions of years. Exactly what part is your feeble little mind having trouble grasping that simple argument?


Shoulda paid attention. Explain how science proves things, tex, this should be good!

LOL all you do is ask the same question over and over and ignore the evidence given to you.

The Bible states God created the world in 7 days. Science has proven the world was created over millions of years. Science proved the Bible story incorrect.

Now what Chris? Are you just going to ignore it again like a coward?


Science doesn't prove things.

Already proved it does.

and here's a list of things science has proven.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/06/23/proven-by-science/

Now what Chris? Are they all lying to you as well? LOL!!


What challenge, your opinion? Your feelings and histrionics? Try again--start with telling us how science proves things, I really want to hear that one!

Let me say it again real slow so even you can get it.

Cite your FACTS that prove homosexuality is natural or genetic.

Go ahead Chris. Try being honest in this debate just once.

KC
09-23-2012, 12:45 PM
Still running away I see.

So typical of a liberal. Loose the argument so you go right to name calling.

Pathetically predictable.

Actually I didn't lose an argument, mostly cause I still haven't made any claims, other than the one that many people in this thread do not seem to understand how it is that science, hypotheses and falsifiable/non-falsifiable claims work, and there is now a wealth of evidence to support my claim.

My "homophobe" comment was actually in response to an isolated comment which labeled homosexuals as "demented." Anyone who would say this is either hateful or fearful of homosexuals. It is better to be fearful than hateful, since it is the case that one has more control over what it is he hates than what it is to fear.

Now since SIC has cleared up that he is not fearful, I can reasonably assume that he is hateful.

Chris
09-23-2012, 12:50 PM
LOL Not my brother nor did I ever quote his experience as proving or disproving a genetic or natural link. Basic science did that which you keep running away from.



why do you lie about what I said then quote me saying exactly what I said disproving your lie?

The claim was the same as it was from the beginning. Science proved God did not create the world in 7 days.

Your lie was claiming I said science questioned the existence of god right here:



If you are going to lie you are going to have to a better job than that little buddy.



LOL Irrelevant to people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Explain to us all how the biological reaction of the human body and the makeup of our sexual organs and how we procreate is irrelevant to proving a natural or genetic link to sexual practice? Goa head Chris I'd love to hear your defense of that pathetic position.



I already have and I've never changed. You've cited zero facts to prove homosexuality is natural or genetic. Clear now or do I need to break out the crayons?

Now stop lying about what I have said and start arguing with the facts you claim to have.



How many times do I have to say the same thing before you read it?

The Bible states God created the world in 7 days. Science has proven the world was created over millions of years. Exactly what part is your feeble little mind having trouble grasping that simple argument?



LOL all you do is ask the same question over and over and ignore the evidence given to you.

The Bible states God created the world in 7 days. Science has proven the world was created over millions of years. Science proved the Bible story incorrect.

Now what Chris? Are you just going to ignore it again like a coward?


Already proved it does.

and here's a list of things science has proven.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/06/23/proven-by-science/

Now what Chris? Are they all lying to you as well? LOL!!



Let me say it again real slow so even you can get it.

Cite your FACTS that prove homosexuality is natural or genetic.

Go ahead Chris. Try being honest in this debate just once.



proving or disproving a genetic or natural link. Basic science did that which you keep running away from.

Oh? When did science prove/disprove this?

I've cited scientists who show both nature and nurture are supported (note, supported, not proved).


Science proved God did not create the world in 7 days.

Oh? When did science prove this? How?


Explain to us all how the biological reaction of the human body and the makeup of our sexual organs and how we procreate is irrelevant to proving a natural or genetic link to sexual practice?

You made the claim, you prove it--without invoking the naturalistic fallacy please.


You've cited zero facts to prove homosexuality is natural or genetic.

Because I haven't claimed that, tex. Again, science supports both nature and nurture as causes. Again, science does not prove things.


Science has proven the world was created over millions of years.

Science doesn't prove things, tex.


Explain how science proves things, tex, this should be good!

all you do is ask the same question over and over

Because you fail to explain how science proves things, tex. Still waiting.


and here's a list of things science has proven

First example: E-mail Rots Your Brain. A single study! LOL, you don't understand science, do you.


Cite your FACTS that prove

Facts do not prove. This has been known ever since Hume raised the Induction Problem. Though I think the ancient Greeks know of it as the Sorites Paradox.


Come on, tex, tell us how science proves things. Explain the method, the process whereby it does this.

Calypso Jones
09-23-2012, 01:33 PM
Are those the only two options you can think of?

well. they're disturbed. What else is there to do?

texmaster
09-23-2012, 02:20 PM
Actually I didn't lose an argument, mostly cause I still haven't made any claims, other than the one that many people in this thread do not seem to understand how it is that science, hypotheses and falsifiable/non-falsifiable claims work, and there is now a wealth of evidence to support my claim.

You can lie all you like but you posted a bullshit link in support of homosexuality being natural. Once it was exposed as nothing more than conjecture you ran away.


My "homophobe" comment was actually in response to an isolated comment which labeled homosexuals as "demented." Anyone who would say this is either hateful or fearful of homosexuals. It is better to be fearful than hateful, since it is the case that one has more control over what it is he hates than what it is to fear.

Now since SIC has cleared up that he is not fearful, I can reasonably assume that he is hateful.

Amazing you assumed it in the first place.

KC
09-23-2012, 02:23 PM
You can lie all you like but you posted a bullshit link in support of homosexuality being natural. Once it was exposed as nothing more than conjecture you ran away.

I asked what you guys thought about it. I didn't claim that it had been replicated to the point of being a scientific theory.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 02:41 PM
Oh? When did science prove/disprove this?

I've cited scientists who show both nature and nurture are supported (note, supported, not proved).

LOL Its not supported if it can't be proven Genius.

And you actually need to see evidence the body prepares for procreation when sexually stimulated? Really? Before I dig up science 101 be clear how out of touch you truly are before I embarrass you again.


Oh? When did science prove this? How?

This has to be the dumbest argument I've ever seen in the face of rational debate.

You need evidence that science proved the world was created in more than 7 days. Unbelievable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


You made the claim, you prove it--without invoking the naturalistic fallacy please.

I have to prove sexual arousal prepares the body for procreation ROFLOL

You have to be the dumbest person ever to even question that scientific fact.

Men:

As we mentioned on the last page, sperm are made in the testes. During sexual intercourse, smooth muscles contract and propel mature sperm from the end portions of the epididymis through a long tube called the vas deferens (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/vasectomy.htm), which is inside the body, just beneath the bladder. From there, the sperm get mixed with nutrient-rich fluids from the seminal vesicles and a milky secretion from the prostate gland. This combination of sperm and fluids is called semen. The semen does three things:

Women:

Finally, two sets of glands, the greater vestibular gland (Bartholin's gland) and the lesser vestibular gland, are located on either side of the vagina and empty into the labial folds of skin. The secretions from these glands lubricate the labial folds during sexual excitation and intercourse.

Now what Chris? Are you going to claim men don't ejaculate sperm when climaxing or that women don't secrete fluid in preparation for the penis when sexually simulated?

Do you even grasp how stupid you sound demanding proof of 5th grade sex ed?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/human-reproduction3.htm


Because I haven't claimed that, tex. Again, science supports both nature and nurture as causes. Again, science does not prove things.

more lies and easily disproven.

Your words:


A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it.

You have proven no link in nature other than it exists which does not make it natural.

Now stop lying about your position.


Science doesn't prove things, tex.

Repeat that lie all you like. Every time you run away from supporting your claim you only prove my point.


Because you fail to explain how science proves things, tex. Still waiting.

Repeat that lie all you like. Every time you run away from supporting your claim you only prove my point.

Still waiting for any evidence to your claim. I've already given you examples from the Bible and links to other provable science discoveries. Its truly sad watching you trying to run away from the argument yet again.


First example: E-mail Rots Your Brain. A single study! LOL, you don't understand science, do you.

Wow! Look at all that evidence you presented to make your argument! Oh wait! HAAHAHAHA

Typical Chris. Make a claim, don't back it up and run away like a coward.


Facts do not prove. This has been known ever since Hume raised the Induction Problem. Though I think the ancient Greeks know of it as the Sorites Paradox.

Play this game as you like. You are once again running away from making any argument proving homosexuality is natural in any way shape or form.

Typical cowardly response from you.


Come on, tex, tell us how science proves things. Explain the method, the process whereby it does this.

Already have. All you do is ingore the evidence I present and demand more. Typical gutless response.

Come back when you can actually formulate an argument for your statements.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 02:42 PM
I asked what you guys thought about it. I didn't claim that it had been replicated to the point of being a scientific theory.

Oh spare us. So why are you here? Explain your purpose. Do you just sit on the sidelines because you are too afraid to make an argument?

Conley
09-23-2012, 03:02 PM
Oh spare us. So why are you here? Explain your purpose. Do you just sit on the sidelines because you are too afraid to make an argument?

KC has been a great poster here.

Chris
09-23-2012, 03:03 PM
LOL Its not supported if it can't be proven Genius.

And you actually need to see evidence the body prepares for procreation when sexually stimulated? Really? Before I dig up science 101 be clear how out of touch you truly are before I embarrass you again.



This has to be the dumbest argument I've ever seen in the face of rational debate.

You need evidence that science proved the world was created in more than 7 days. Unbelievable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html



I have to prove sexual arousal prepares the body for procreation ROFLOL

You have to be the dumbest person ever to even question that scientific fact.

Men:

As we mentioned on the last page, sperm are made in the testes. During sexual intercourse, smooth muscles contract and propel mature sperm from the end portions of the epididymis through a long tube called the vas deferens (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/vasectomy.htm), which is inside the body, just beneath the bladder. From there, the sperm get mixed with nutrient-rich fluids from the seminal vesicles and a milky secretion from the prostate gland. This combination of sperm and fluids is called semen. The semen does three things:

Women:

Finally, two sets of glands, the greater vestibular gland (Bartholin's gland) and the lesser vestibular gland, are located on either side of the vagina and empty into the labial folds of skin. The secretions from these glands lubricate the labial folds during sexual excitation and intercourse.

Now what Chris? Are you going to claim men don't ejaculate sperm when climaxing or that women don't secrete fluid in preparation for the penis when sexually simulated?

Do you even grasp how stupid you sound demanding proof of 5th grade sex ed?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/human-reproduction3.htm



more lies and easily disproven.

Your words:



You have proven no link in nature other than it exists which does not make it natural.

Now stop lying about your position.



Repeat that lie all you like. Every time you run away from supporting your claim you only prove my point.



Repeat that lie all you like. Every time you run away from supporting your claim you only prove my point.

Still waiting for any evidence to your claim. I've already given you examples from the Bible and links to other provable science discoveries. Its truly sad watching you trying to run away from the argument yet again.



Wow! Look at all that evidence you presented to make your argument! Oh wait! HAAHAHAHA

Typical Chris. Make a claim, don't back it up and run away like a coward.



Play this game as you like. You are once again running away from making any argument proving homosexuality is natural in any way shape or form.

Typical cowardly response from you.



Already have. All you do is ingore the evidence I present and demand more. Typical gutless response.

Come back when you can actually formulate an argument for your statements.



Before I dig up science 101 be clear how out of touch you truly are before I embarrass you again.

God how I love arguing with liberals who elevate Science to an absolute and the Bible to a lie.




Its not supported if it can't be proven Genius.

Nor disproven. You're learning. Science doesn't prove things.



You need evidence that science proved the world was created in more than 7 days.

Science has proven the world was created over millions of years.

Explain how this could be so when it violates the first law of thermodynamics.




A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it.

You have proven [sic] no link in nature other than it exists which does not make it natural.

I provided several links scientific surveys that look at various supporting facts and make that very conclusion.




and here's a list of things science has proven

First example: E-mail Rots Your Brain. A single study! LOL, you don't understand science, do you.

Look at all that evidence you presented to make your argument!

Uh, tex, it was your "proof"...and it went poof!




Come on, tex, tell us how science proves things. Explain the method, the process whereby it does this.

Already have.

No, you haven't. You gave examples (like E-mail Rots Your Brain, lol) not explanation. Explain HOW science proves things, tex. Address the Induction Problem.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 04:17 PM
I'm done with you Chris.

You have provided no evidence to argue anything you have claimed and you are block replying to my entire posts ignoring the links and evidence I provide.

When evidence is provided you cut it out and repeat the same question already answered like a typical liberal coward.

Go play with someone else. Your cowardice is unworthy of my time.

Chris
09-23-2012, 04:34 PM
I'm done with you Chris.

You have provided no evidence to argue anything you have claimed and you are block replying to my entire posts ignoring the links and evidence I provide.

When evidence is provided you cut it out and repeat the same question already answered like a typical liberal coward.

Go play with someone else. Your cowardice is unworthy of my time.

Done when you haven't even started? Where's that explanation of science that addresses the Induction Problem? Where's that proof of creation that defies the first law of thermodynamics? Where's your explanation of homosexuality that doesn't rely on the naturalistic fallacy?

I claimed "A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it," and provided support, see post #65:
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts.Sexual Orientation and Adolescents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full) (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics)

Nice try, liberal.

MMC
09-23-2012, 05:11 PM
Oh spare us. So why are you here? Explain your purpose. Do you just sit on the sidelines because you are too afraid to make an argument?


So why are you here.....Explain your Purpose. Got one? Looking for someone that can stand up? :yo2:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 05:17 PM
Done when you haven't even started? Where's that explanation of science that addresses the Induction Problem? Where's that proof of creation that defies the first law of thermodynamics? Where's your explanation of homosexuality that doesn't rely on the naturalistic fallacy?

I'm not answering any of your new questions when you can't even provide evidence of your original argument which was the point of this thread.

You provided no proof whatseoever to your claims that homosexuality is natural.


I claimed "A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it," and provided support, see post #65:Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf)
Sexual Orientation and Adolescents (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full) (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics)

Nice try, liberal.

You really are pathetic.

Neither one of these links provide ANY facts.

The first link is a ra ra cheering section for homosexual couples. Nowhere do they provide a single fact proving homosexuality is natural as you claimed.

You disagree, QUOTE THE ARTICLE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM. I grow tired of you throwing links out when its obvious you haven't read them.

Your other article is even more pathetic.

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

LOL No facts, no evidence just conjecture as I said before.

Just another lie on top of a mountain of lies for you Chris.

I see you ignored my proof of my genetic proof of heterosexuality and the biological sexual response to sexual stimuli no matter if you are gay or straight.

Typical liberal coward. I provide proof you provide theory.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 05:18 PM
So why are you here.....Explain your Purpose. Got one? Looking for someone that can stand up? :yo2:

Try actually READING the thread. Its painfully obvious or do I need to break out the crayons for you?

Homosexuality has never been proven to be natural or genetic so why should we change law to associate it with things that are proven natural and genetic like heterosexuality and race.

Easy enough for you?

MMC
09-23-2012, 05:26 PM
Try actually READING the thread. Its painfully obvious or do I need to break out the crayons for you?

Homosexuality has never been proven to be natural or genetic so why should we change law to associate it with things that are proven natural and genetic like heterosexuality and race.

Easy enough for you?

No but ya might needs to after I gets your mascara runnin! :laugh:

I have been reading the thread why you throw out all that dissing bullshit. So what if it hasnt been proven. People have the right to bring their point of view whether you like it or not.

Course some know how to deal with a dissin azz. :wink:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 05:32 PM
No but ya might needs to after I gets your mascara runnin! :laugh:

LOL Man. You really need help.


I have been reading the thread why you throw out all that dissing bullshit.

Tranlation: I can't disprove anything you have said so I resort to claiming its all bullshit. Typical.


So what if it hasnt been proven. People have the right to bring their point of view whether you like it or not.

LOL Thats right. And I can make fun of the fact they want to change law based on feelings instead of facts.


Course some know how to deal with a dissin azz. :wink:

Obviously you need to call them over here because you need some serious help.

MMC
09-23-2012, 05:40 PM
:laugh:
LOL Man. You really need help.



Tranlation: I can't disprove anything you have said so I resort to claiming its all bullshit. Typical.



LOL Thats right. And I can make fun of the fact they want to change law based on feelings instead of facts.



Obviously you need to call them over here because you need some serious help.


Translation you was called out not over your content.....or do all sheep have to be shown a Staff first. I lead the way and don't need 20 mins to think of a response with your slow http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac45/boontito/redneck-1.gif azz! http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/pimpdaddy.gif

Did you still want to play Sticks? :grin:

MMC
09-23-2012, 05:45 PM
Whats up Sticks.....I done hit up 3 threads and two Pms and ya still havent come up with anything? Slow-witted mofo! :evil:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 05:50 PM
:laugh:


Translation you was called out not over your content.....or do all sheep have to be shown a Staff first. I lead the way and don't need 20 mins to think of a response with your slow http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac45/boontito/redneck-1.gif azz! http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/pimpdaddy.gif

Did you still want to play Sticks? :grin:

LOL You've called out nothing. Do you always smoke this much crack before you post?

texmaster
09-23-2012, 05:51 PM
Whats up Sticks.....I done hit up 3 threads and two Pms and ya still havent come up with anything? Slow-witted mofo! :evil:

You've got some mental issues if you think I'm waiting around for you to respond little buddy.

MMC
09-23-2012, 06:00 PM
You've got some mental issues if you think I'm waiting around for you to respond little buddy.


Whassssss Up sticks.....ya likes Running around and calling people Cowards. Looks like your Yellow Belly is Showing.....huh? :shocked:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijB8wnJCN0

Thas Right Esse now ya learnin.....seems I have shown you out to be what you are! Since you couldnt quite keep up with that slow azz of yours. Aint That Right.....Deputy Droop-along! :laugh:

MMC
09-23-2012, 06:08 PM
http://www.mywebpower.com/graphics/thumbs/michael-jackson/michael-jackson-thriller-eating-popcorn-animated.gif.....Now Don't hurt yaself over getting that Check, Sticks.:killme:

KC
09-23-2012, 08:11 PM
Oh spare us. So why are you here? Explain your purpose. Do you just sit on the sidelines because you are too afraid to make an argument?

I will not argue viciously about things I do not know. That's called humility. I provide input when I know what I'm talking about, but my ass is not an instrument to be talked out of.

Chris
09-23-2012, 08:19 PM
I'm not answering any of your new questions when you can't even provide evidence of your original argument which was the point of this thread.

You provided no proof whatseoever to your claims that homosexuality is natural.



You really are pathetic.

Neither one of these links provide ANY facts.

The first link is a ra ra cheering section for homosexual couples. Nowhere do they provide a single fact proving homosexuality is natural as you claimed.

You disagree, QUOTE THE ARTICLE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM. I grow tired of you throwing links out when its obvious you haven't read them.

Your other article is even more pathetic.

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

LOL No facts, no evidence just conjecture as I said before.

Just another lie on top of a mountain of lies for you Chris.

I see you ignored my proof of my genetic proof of heterosexuality and the biological sexual response to sexual stimuli no matter if you are gay or straight.

Typical liberal coward. I provide proof you provide theory.




I'm not answering any of your new questions

LOL, those are the questions I've been asking for pages now, you haven't answered one--no, I don't expect you can.



You provided no proof whatseoever to your claims that homosexuality is natural.

Because I didn't claim that, tex, I claimed the following which you cited:
"A combination of nature and nurture, is where science begins and ends, and then free choice to act on it

And I provided current scientific support for that position.

I also have pointed out numerous times that science doesn't prove things. Naturally there's no proof to be shown.


Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Yes, that's what I've been claiming. Science, despite your liberal absolutism, is probabilistic, incomplete and tentative--science 101, tex.


I see you ignored my proof of my genetic proof of heterosexuality and the biological sexual response to sexual stimuli no matter if you are gay or straight.

You've provided no proof.


The rest of your post is just you stating personal opinions boring and boorish.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 09:46 PM
I will not argue viciously about things I do not know. That's called humility. I provide input when I know what I'm talking about, but my ass is not an instrument to be talked out of.

So you joined a thread where we are arguing about homosexuality only to claim have no stance at all.

Do you drive a Prius as well? LOL

texmaster
09-23-2012, 09:47 PM
Whassssss Up sticks.....ya likes Running around and calling people Cowards. Looks like your Yellow Belly is Showing.....huh? :shocked:

Do you have a argument or are you just here to be a moron?


Thas Right Esse now ya learnin.....seems I have shown you out to be what you are! Since you couldnt quite keep up with that slow azz of yours. Aint That Right.....Deputy Droop-along! :laugh:

hahahahahha

You really are insane aren't you. You jump into a thread, say nothing throw insults then run away when you are challenged to present an argument.

Thanks for living down to everything I heard about you.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 09:53 PM
LOL, those are the questions I've been asking for pages now, you haven't answered one--no, I don't expect you can.

I've been asking my questions about you longer. You refuse to answer them. Play that game all you like.

Please challenge me on this point. I can easily embarrass you yet again.


Because I didn't claim that, tex, I claimed the following which you cited:

And I provided current scientific support for that position.

A total lie. You provided links that do not support anything about homsoexuality being natural in any way shape or form. I even quoted your article to prove it.

Unlike you. You couldn't even quote your own article. Come back when you're actually able to quote from the articles you present as I did to you.


As we mentioned on the last page, sperm are made in the testes. During sexual intercourse, smooth muscles contract and propel mature sperm from the end portions of the epididymis through a long tube called the vas deferens (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/vasectomy.htm), which is inside the body, just beneath the bladder. From there, the sperm get mixed with nutrient-rich fluids from the seminal vesicles and a milky secretion from the prostate gland. This combination of sperm and fluids is called semen. The semen does three things:

Women:

Finally, two sets of glands, the greater vestibular gland (Bartholin's gland) and the lesser vestibular gland, are located on either side of the vagina and empty into the labial folds of skin. The secretions from these glands lubricate the labial folds during sexual excitation and intercourse.

Now what Chris? Are you going to claim men don't ejaculate sperm when climaxing or that women don't secrete fluid in preparation for the penis when sexually simulated?

Do you even grasp how stupid you sound demanding proof of 5th grade sex ed?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/human-reproduction3.htm


How you think you can continue to lie like this and not get caught is truly amazing.


The rest of your post is just you stating personal opinions boring and boorish.

Translation: I've got nothing but my opinion to support anything I say.


Thanks for once again being so painfully predictable Chis.

MMC
09-23-2012, 09:55 PM
Do you have a argument or are you just here to be a moron?



hahahahahha

You really are insane aren't you. You jump into a thread, say nothing throw insults then run away when you are challenged to present an argument.

Thanks for living down to everything I heard about you.


5 hours later :rollseyes:.....and since you were playing internet tuff-guy and still can't figure out what took place. What does that say about you Droop-Along? :grin:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 09:59 PM
Edit: Not worth my time.

MMC
09-23-2012, 10:10 PM
Edit: Not worth my time.

Kinda like that Space U take up! :evil:

Captain Obvious
09-23-2012, 10:13 PM
Everyone have a beer on me and relax. We're all buds here, so just walk it off.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2010/07/draftbeer01.jpg

MMC
09-23-2012, 10:16 PM
Alright Cap.....just had to put one in check who thought they could be dissing others. I'll let you handle it now! :wink:

WalterSobchak
09-23-2012, 10:18 PM
Tex is a funny dude. Everything is a competition with him. where there must be a winner. LOL

texmaster
09-23-2012, 10:19 PM
Tex is a funny dude. Everything is a competition with him. where there must be a winner. LOL

Its called debate Walter. That's what we are here to do.

texmaster
09-23-2012, 10:20 PM
Alright Cap.....just had to put one in check who thought they could be dissing others. I'll let you handle it now! :wink:

LOL keep on thinking that.

WalterSobchak
09-23-2012, 10:25 PM
Its called debate Walter. That's what we are here to do.


Remember when you called for civility on another forum, then the same day you threw that idea out the window? LMAO

By the way, your debating skills suck ass. I'm not saying I'm better, because I'm not. But your awful at it!

MMC
09-23-2012, 10:25 PM
LOL keep on thinking that.

You're Welcome to step up to the plate any time Sticks! :grin:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 10:26 PM
Remember when you called for civility on another forum, then the same day you threw that idea out the window? LMAO

By the way, your debating skills suck ass. I'm not saying I'm better, because I'm not. But your awful at it!

I called for civility when it was totally out of control. That isn't happening here so try thinking before posting.

Since you continue to loose to me in debates your opinion of my tactics mean nothing to me.

Now, do you have an opinion you can support with facts for this thread or are you here to simply troll?

texmaster
09-23-2012, 10:27 PM
You're Welcome to step up to the plate any time Sticks! :grin:

Still no debate for the subject of this thread? Thought so

MMC
09-23-2012, 10:29 PM
Yeah this isn't so much my type of thing. Looks like it's your type of shiznit! But I am sure you can find me around! :wink:

texmaster
09-23-2012, 10:30 PM
Yeah this isn't so much my type of thing. Looks like it's your type of shiznit! But I am sure you can find me around! :wink:

I'm here to debate. Obviously you aren't so go play with someone else.

WalterSobchak
09-23-2012, 10:31 PM
I called for civility when it was totally out of control. That isn't happening here so try thinking before posting.

Since you continue to loose to me in debates your opinion of my tactics mean nothing to me.

Now, do you have an opinion you can support with facts for this thread or are you here to simply troll?


When did I ever LOSE to someone who can't spell the simplest of words??

Trinnity
09-23-2012, 10:33 PM
All of you, please stop the bickering now.

MMC
09-23-2012, 10:33 PM
Yeah calling people cowards and throwing out insults is really debating others. I let you think about it! :rollseyes:

WalterSobchak
09-23-2012, 10:36 PM
All of you, please stop the bickering now.


Yes Ma'am.

Trinnity
09-25-2012, 01:22 PM
Now that some time has passed, hopefully everyone has cooled off. If the fighting resumes, there will very likely be consequences. Please, ladies and gentlemen, be civil.
The thread is now re-opened.

Cigar
09-25-2012, 01:33 PM
:slap:No one called me?

Trinnity
09-25-2012, 02:12 PM
What the hell are you talking about? People call you everything in the book.

MMC
09-25-2012, 11:59 PM
What the hell are you talking about? People call you everything in the book.

I was thinking the same can be said about your azz too! :laugh:

Stuck_In_California
09-26-2012, 08:52 AM
Special Report: Gay Marriage
http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

texmaster
09-26-2012, 09:47 AM
Special Report: Gay Marriage
http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage




Some good information there. I don't argue from a religious perspective but they address many of the hateful far left gay mafia tactics to attack and intimidate people who have a moral objection to gay marriage.

Stuck_In_California
09-26-2012, 09:50 AM
Some good information there. I don't argue from a religious perspective but they address many of the hateful far left gay mafia tactics to attack and intimidate people who have a moral objection to gay marriage.


Catholic Answers is a great organization.

I mentioned those tactics briefly in my OP:



...................It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put it bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.................

Chris
09-26-2012, 09:55 AM
Catholic Answers is a great organization.

I mentioned those tactics briefly in my OP:

No causality has been established between protests against the APA and their decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder. As I've pointed out, the APA considers something a disorder only if patients come to them and complain of it.



people who have a moral objection to gay marriage

While this may sound flippant, it's not intended as such: Those with objections to gay marriage, moral or homphobic or otherwise, shouldn't enter into gay marriages. That others choose to does no harm.

texmaster
09-26-2012, 10:36 AM
No causality has been established between protests against the APA and their decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder. As I've pointed out, the APA considers something a disorder only if patients come to them and complain of it.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/

But Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out that the takeaway finding from the study is not that gay teens are marginally less likely to commit suicide in a “supportive” environment, but that overall gay teens are so many times more likely to commit suicide than their non-gay peers – “a difference that far overwhelms any difference caused by the ‘social environment.’”

You can't blame others for all of these deaths. Clearly these children are troubled.

To ignore the psychological angle towards homosexuality is to ignore the problem.


While this may sound flippant, it's not intended as such: Those with objections to gay marriage, moral or homphobic or otherwise, shouldn't enter into gay marriages. That others choose to does no harm.

I could make the same case for pedophiles. Would you have the same attitude toward them?

After all they aren't hurting you and you can't prove all children are harmed by it just like I can't prove all children who decide they are homosexual are harmed.

Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

Chris
09-26-2012, 10:56 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/

But Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out that the takeaway finding from the study is not that gay teens are marginally less likely to commit suicide in a “supportive” environment, but that overall gay teens are so many times more likely to commit suicide than their non-gay peers – “a difference that far overwhelms any difference caused by the ‘social environment.’”

You can't blame others for all of these deaths. Clearly these children are troubled.

To ignore the psychological angle towards homosexuality is to ignore the problem.



I could make the same case for pedophiles. Would you have the same attitude toward them?

After all they aren't hurting you and you can't prove all children are harmed by it just like I can't prove all children who decide they are homosexual are harmed.

Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly.


But Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out that the takeaway finding from the study is not that gay teens are marginally less likely to commit suicide in a “supportive” environment, but that overall gay teens are so many times more likely to commit suicide than their non-gay peers – “a difference that far overwhelms any difference caused by the ‘social environment.’”

So a supportive environment would help.

He too fails to find anything causative, merely correlations.



I could make the same case for pedophiles. Would you have the same attitude toward them?

I wouldn't make the same case because pedophiles clearly do harm and children are hardly of the age to consent.

texmaster
09-26-2012, 12:44 PM
So a supportive environment would help.

He too fails to find anything causative, merely correlations.

And you can't attribute all teenage homosexual suicides to a lack of a supportive environment just as I said. Hell you can't even say a majority commit suicide because of it.


I wouldn't make the same case because pedophiles clearly do harm and children are hardly of the age to consent.

So you go after people who have a moral objection to homosexuality while inserting your own morality against pedophilia.

Welcome to hypocrisy land.

And there are laws against gay marriage right now just as their are laws against pedos but you want those laws against homosexuality abolished.

You can't hide behind laws against sexual preferences you don't like and demand abolishment of laws than ban sexual practices you do like.

Chris
09-26-2012, 01:08 PM
And you can't attribute all teenage homosexual suicides to a lack of a supportive environment just as I said. Hell you can't even say a majority commit suicide because of it.



So you go after people who have a moral objection to homosexuality while inserting your own morality against pedophilia.

Welcome to hypocrisy land.

And there are laws against gay marriage right now just as their are laws against pedos but you want those laws against homosexuality abolished.

You can't hide behind laws against sexual preferences you don't like and demand abolishment of laws than ban sexual practices you do like.


Hell you can't even say a majority commit suicide because of it.

Rather it's you who claims but cannot show causation.


So you go after people who have a moral objection to homosexuality while inserting your own morality against pedophilia.

Why do you seem to have this overwhelming need to make things up? I've done neither.

Try arguing with what I say as I argue with what you say.

texmaster
09-26-2012, 01:21 PM
Rather it's you who claims but cannot show causation.

No I said there is obviously a psychological problem with these kids that needs to be addressed. I never said what it was.

Nothing you have said has changed that.

Read more carefully.



Why do you seem to have this overwhelming need to make things up? I've done neither.

Try arguing with what I say as I argue with what you say.

Let's take it real slow then.

Do you want gay marriage? Yes or no?

Are you against pedophiles marrying? Yes or No?

If you are going to pretend to be ignorant of the conversation there are plenty of ways to nail you down.

Chris
09-26-2012, 01:47 PM
No I said there is obviously a psychological problem with these kids that needs to be addressed. I never said what it was.

Nothing you have said has changed that.

Read more carefully.




Let's take it real slow then.

Do you want gay marriage? Yes or no?

Are you against pedophiles marrying? Yes or No?

If you are going to pretend to be ignorant of the conversation there are plenty of ways to nail you down.



LOL, you posted what Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out, I responded to that, and your response to me went off on another tangent and has done so again. Talk about taking it slow!




Do you want gay marriage? Yes or no?

Me, no, I don't want to marry a man. What others want to do is their business far as I'm concerned.



Are you against pedophiles marrying? Yes or No?

Question makes no sense in this context. We were discussing harm regarding homosexuality and pedophilia.




Ad hom ignored as equally irrelevant.

texmaster
09-26-2012, 02:32 PM
LOL, you posted what Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out, I responded to that, and your response to me went off on another tangent and has done so again. Talk about taking it slow!

Are you really having that much of a reading problem again?

Look at what he said:

not that gay teens are marginally less likely to commit suicide in a “supportive” environment, but that overall gay teens are so many times more likely to commit suicide than their non-gay peers – “a difference that far overwhelms any difference caused by the ‘social environment.’”

Nowhere did he state he knew the reason why just as I said as well. Only that a lack of "supportive" enviroment does not address the overall number or problems these so called gay teens have that drive them to suicide.

Now for God's sake read more carefully next time before making a fool out of yourself again.


Me, no, I don't want to marry a man. What others want to do is their business far as I'm concerned.

You support gay marriage. The semantics game is juvenile and tiresome but I expect it of you.


Question makes no sense in this context.

And the cowardice is back. Answer the question. Are you against pedophiles marrying? Yes or no?


We were discussing harm regarding homosexuality and pedophilia.

No we are discussing marriage for sexual preferences and your claim for homosexuality that it isn't your concern whom they marry. Now answer the question.

URF8
09-26-2012, 02:54 PM
I support full civil rights for LGBTQ people, but I oppose the attempt by their activists to silence the free thought and speech of those who disagree with them.

Stuck_In_California
09-27-2012, 07:39 AM
I support full civil rights for LGBTQ people, but I oppose the attempt by their activists to silence the free thought and speech of those who disagree with them.

Homosexuals have full rights. They have the same rights as you and me. All people have the same rights. This bullshit about women's rights, gay rights, latino rights, etc., is all fake, more liberal divisiveness. Americans are Americans, and there is one Bill of Rights. No group gets a special rights, or at least they shouldn't. Its the same reason why "hate crimes" is bullshit. Why is it that if someone murders me its just murder, but if I murder a gay people or a black person its a super-murder, a "hate crime." Are gay people or a black people more important than a middle age white person? Is their murder more of a crime than mine? The very fact that you used the phrase "full civil rights for LGBTQ people" means that you have already bought into the liberal bullshit of dividing people and pitting them against each other.

The issues is not rights, the issue is: What is marriage, and do people have the right to change what marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman - always has been.

The issue also is that homosexuality is a disorder, and you don't destroy the most bedrock institution of all societies just to suit a handful of disordered people who need help. That's insane.