Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
863

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^

Yes we can certainly trust what doctors and scientists say publicly about homosexuality. It’s not like they’re going to have any ideological bias in relation to homosexuality like they do with the climate change moonbattery. And it’s not like they will distort the interpretation of studies to meet their own ends and draw false conclusions from data like they do with climate change either.[/quote]

Lol.

Every major health organization, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Surgeon General, etc. are all so biased that their conclusions, based on 40 years of research on sexual orientation, are worthless and should be ignored. Riiiiiiiight.

Somebody is biased here, but it’s not them.

Cortes, this is exactly what I was talking about. Even when presented with the unanimous, unequivocal conclusions of every major health organization, people with an underlying aversion to homosexuality refuse to even consider the possibility that their beliefs might be mistaken. The facts, unfortunately, do NOT speak for themselves.[/quote]

You mean it’s in the mainstream of science then? Like the climate change nonsense is?[/quote]

I mean that when every major health organization studies 40 years of research on sexual orientation, and arrives at the same conclusions, anyone with an objective perspective would consider those conclusions to be valid, particularly in contrast with fringe organizations like NARTH who openly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

It’s not rocket science. You find homosexuality disgusting, so you listen to crackpot organizations, or you misconstrue valid organizations like the CDC, in order to reinforce your stereotypes.

It’s classic confirmatory bias. I’ve said many times that I’m subject to confirmatory bias just like gay bigots are. The difference is that my beliefs are based not only on my personal experience and observations as a gay man, but on the consensual scientific conclusions of every major health organization.[/quote]

To be honest I’m not interested enough to bother looking into the science of the biology of homosexuality. I was expressing my scepticism regarding scientific studies because I’ve seen the distortion of results and false conclusions in other scientific studies where ideology is prevelant. So I’m not really attempting to definitively argue with the results of the studies you’ve presented.

Now, there are many reasons I don’t like homosexuality. With peoples experiencing drastic birth rate decline, breakdown of the family unit, a decline in morals etc, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to encourage the homosexual lifestyle by teaching people that it’s a good thing. This doesn’t mean I want gays to be stigmatised though.

864

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^

Yes we can certainly trust what doctors and scientists say publicly about homosexuality. It’s not like they’re going to have any ideological bias in relation to homosexuality like they do with the climate change moonbattery. And it’s not like they will distort the interpretation of studies to meet their own ends and draw false conclusions from data like they do with climate change either.[/quote]

Lol.

Every major health organization, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Surgeon General, etc. are all so biased that their conclusions, based on 40 years of research on sexual orientation, are worthless and should be ignored. Riiiiiiiight.

Somebody is biased here, but it’s not them.

Cortes, this is exactly what I was talking about. Even when presented with the unanimous, unequivocal conclusions of every major health organization, people with an underlying aversion to homosexuality refuse to even consider the possibility that their beliefs might be mistaken. The facts, unfortunately, do NOT speak for themselves.[/quote]

You mean it’s in the mainstream of science then? Like the climate change nonsense is?[/quote]

I mean that when every major health organization studies 40 years of research on sexual orientation, and arrives at the same conclusions, anyone with an objective perspective would consider those conclusions to be valid, particularly in contrast with fringe organizations like NARTH who openly oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

It’s not rocket science. You find homosexuality disgusting, so you listen to crackpot organizations, or you misconstrue valid organizations like the CDC, in order to reinforce your stereotypes.

It’s classic confirmatory bias. I’ve said many times that I’m subject to confirmatory bias just like gay bigots are. The difference is that my beliefs are based not only on my personal experience and observations as a gay man, but on the consensual scientific conclusions of every major health organization.[/quote]

To be honest I’m not interested enough to bother looking into the science of the biology of homosexuality. I was expressing my scepticism regarding scientific studies because I’ve seen the distortion of results and false conclusions in other scientific studies where ideology is prevelant. So I’m not really attempting to definitively argue with the results of the studies you’ve presented.

Now, there are many reasons I don’t like homosexuality. With peoples experiencing drastic birth rate decline, breakdown of the family unit, a decline in morals etc, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to encourage the homosexual lifestyle by teaching people that it’s a good thing. This doesn’t mean I want gays to be stigmatised though.[/quote]

I agree that individual studies can be twisted to suit someone’s agenda. However, I haven’t posted individual studies. I’ve posted the summary conclusions by every major health organization, based on 40 years of scientific research on sexual orientation.

In order to refute these summary conclusions, and the official policies and recommendations derived from those conclusions, you would have to prove that every single one of these organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc., is so morally corrupt that their recommendations on improving human health should be universally disregarded. Good luck with that.

Or, you could consider that just maybe they actually know what they’re talking about when they say people don’t choose their sexual orientation, that trying to change one’s orientation is harmful, and that it is not recommended for people to do so.

865

An organisation doesn’t have to be ‘morally corrupt’ to present findings that are wrong. They could be just wrong or they could be conducted by people who are ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconciously certain results. They could be fanatics prepared to deliberately distort results. There’s certainly no abscence of this in mainstream science and academia.

866

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
An organisation doesn’t have to be ‘morally corrupt’ to present findings that are wrong. They could be just wrong or they could be conducted by people who are ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconciously certain results. They could be fanatics prepared to deliberately distort results. There’s certainly no abscence of this in mainstream science and academia.[/quote]

To be precice, there is no absence of it anywhere.

867

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Black people are less intelligent? I’ve never once said that here or anywhere else. Nor have I ever thought it. And why would you stoop to lying? One more and you go in the forlife category. A place for those who make things up as they go along to try to gain the upper hand.

You really are losing it orion. And that’s a shame.[/quote]

^^What he said. Herr Orio is a ridiculous troll relying on the fact that other posters will read his accusation but won’t bother to check the link that he’s provided HIMSELF that proves he’s lying. No wonder so many people have this guy on the ‘ignore’ list.[/quote]

Aaaaaw, cute-

I gave the link, it is all there, even the very same spelling.

Oh I know, it is the “American” spelling, quite fitting actually, given where it is posted, but if I google the terms Kamui used I can find tons of American sites that are using them and do not seem to have anti semitic tourettes.

But, then again, maybe it is a “left wing negro” conspiracy.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/fuck_racism?id=4650466&pageNo=6

868

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
stormfront.org is a members only site.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well, there goes their source attacking capabilities. I wonder if they’ll try to actually address the facts now? Nawwwwwwwww…[/quote]

The link Darling.

I posted it.

869

Let’s cut to the chase: this is not about “freedom.” This is about forcing individuals who morally disagree with homosexual “marriage” to recognize it as valid.

Gays can currently get “married” if they want in the liberal church or reformed temple or wiccan tribal circle of their chosing, enter into legal agreements with the same force and effect as a marriage, but they can’t use the power of the State to force people who morally disagree with thier position to recognize it valid.

They want to have the power of the State to force their views and lifestyles on others.

That’s the question:

Should the State have the legal authority to force people who disagree with gay marriage to accept it?

The answer is “no.”

The solution, if one is convinved sodomites are a protected class, to remove the power of the State to force people to recognize any marraige, and to put it back into the private and religous realm where it belongs.

870

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Black people are less intelligent? I’ve never once said that here or anywhere else. Nor have I ever thought it. And why would you stoop to lying? One more and you go in the forlife category. A place for those who make things up as they go along to try to gain the upper hand.

You really are losing it orion. And that’s a shame.[/quote]

^^What he said. Herr Orio is a ridiculous troll relying on the fact that other posters will read his accusation but won’t bother to check the link that he’s provided HIMSELF that proves he’s lying. No wonder so many people have this guy on the ‘ignore’ list.[/quote]

Aaaaaw, cute-

I gave the link, it is all there, even the very same spelling.

Oh I know, it is the “American” spelling, quite fitting actually, given where it is posted, but if I google the terms Kamui used I can find tons of American sites that are using them and do not seem to have anti semitic tourettes.

But, then again, maybe it is a “left wing negro” conspiracy.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/fuck_racism?id=4650466&pageNo=6[/quote]

You’re talking about someone else’s comments now instead of mine? Great attempt at obfuscation there. This is too silly. Am I allowed to call you a left-wing Austrian or is that naughty?

871

Sexmachines post:

Psychologicalshocks post on vannguard.com

Absents post, on Tribalwar.com an Australian website

makedonas at topix.dom:

Please notice that these post always contain the same core element and a combination of other (dismissing scientiets as homosexual if they disagree, all of the vases depictions are satyrs), probably because I was deliberately looking for the misspelling of the word “hetairese”, which is spelled etairese in all of these posts .

Since Sexmachines has claimed himself to have written this little ouevre a few years ago, after years of studying the issue, no less, what am I to think of this?

872

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Black people are less intelligent? I’ve never once said that here or anywhere else. Nor have I ever thought it. And why would you stoop to lying? One more and you go in the forlife category. A place for those who make things up as they go along to try to gain the upper hand.

You really are losing it orion. And that’s a shame.[/quote]

^^What he said. Herr Orio is a ridiculous troll relying on the fact that other posters will read his accusation but won’t bother to check the link that he’s provided HIMSELF that proves he’s lying. No wonder so many people have this guy on the ‘ignore’ list.[/quote]

Aaaaaw, cute-

I gave the link, it is all there, even the very same spelling.

Oh I know, it is the “American” spelling, quite fitting actually, given where it is posted, but if I google the terms Kamui used I can find tons of American sites that are using them and do not seem to have anti semitic tourettes.

But, then again, maybe it is a “left wing negro” conspiracy.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/fuck_racism?id=4650466&pageNo=6[/quote]

You’re talking about someone else’s comments now instead of mine? Great attempt at obfuscation there. This is too silly. Am I allowed to call you a left-wing Austrian or is that naughty?[/quote]

Sexmachines post:

emphasis mine

873

Oh my, even for a lying nazi bastard like me that gets too easy.

I am no longer entertained.

Sexmachine, could you please keep the squirming at a minimum I have other shit to do.

874

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
An organisation doesn’t have to be ‘morally corrupt’ to present findings that are wrong. They could be just wrong or they could be conducted by people who are ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconciously certain results. They could be fanatics prepared to deliberately distort results. There’s certainly no abscence of this in mainstream science and academia.[/quote]

So prove the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, National Education Association, and Surgeon General are all “just wrong”, or that every single one of them is “ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconsciously certain results”.

What’s more likely:

Either every single major health organization is under a confirmatory bias, OR

You and others with an acknowledged aversion to homosexuality are under a confirmatory bias?

I’ll put my money on the scientific organizations dedicated to fostering human health.

875

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Let’s cut to the chase: this is not about “freedom.” This is about forcing individuals who morally disagree with homosexual “marriage” to recognize it as valid.

Gays can currently get “married” if they want in the liberal church or reformed temple or wiccan tribal circle of their chosing, enter into legal agreements with the same force and effect as a marriage, but they can’t use the power of the State to force people who morally disagree with thier position to recognize it valid.

They want to have the power of the State to force their views and lifestyles on others.

That’s the question:

Should the State have the legal authority to force people who disagree with gay marriage to accept it?

The answer is “no.”

The solution, if one is convinved sodomites are a protected class, to remove the power of the State to force people to recognize any marraige, and to put it back into the private and religous realm where it belongs.[/quote]

As usual, when confronted with the actual facts as concluded by the major health organizations, people backpedal and finally admit that it really is a moral debate after all.

We get it. You’re disgusted by gays and don’t think we should be able to marry.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you, and gays are finally making progress toward equality in this country.

876

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
An organisation doesn’t have to be ‘morally corrupt’ to present findings that are wrong. They could be just wrong or they could be conducted by people who are ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconciously certain results. They could be fanatics prepared to deliberately distort results. There’s certainly no abscence of this in mainstream science and academia.[/quote]

So prove the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, National Education Association, and Surgeon General are all “just wrong”, or that every single one of them is “ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconsciously certain results”.

What’s more likely:

Either every single major health organization is under a confirmatory bias, OR

You and others with an acknowledged aversion to homosexuality are under a confirmatory bias?

I’ll put my money on the scientific organizations dedicated to fostering human health.[/quote]

This is boring, lets see whether I can make a better argument.

While it may be true that changing your sexual orientation might make the one changing it less healthy, that does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is not a mental disease.

True, it is no longer classified as such, but it was for a long time and definitions of mental disorders are necessarily ideological/political, especially in a climate of state sponsored medicine and research where the definition of what a disease is can have enormous financial implications.

If we look at it without any label attached, the homosexual mind, just like the depressed, bi polar or schizophrenic mind correlates strongly with other diseases, drug use and suicide, which means at the very least that a strong point can be made that homosexuality should be classified as a mental disorder.

877

[quote]forlife wrote:

I mean that when every politically correct major health organization studies 40 years of research on sexual orientation, and arrives at the same politically correct conclusions, anyone with a politically correct perspective would consider those conclusions to be valid.[/quote]

GOT IT! LOL

878

[quote]orion wrote:

Please notice that these post always contain the same core element and a combination of other (dismissing scientiets as homosexual if they disagree, all of the vases depictions are satyrs), probably because I was deliberately looking for the misspelling of the word “hetairese”, which is spelled etairese in all of these posts .

Since Sexmachines has claimed himself to have written this little ouevre a few years ago, after years of studying the issue, no less, what am I to think of this?[/quote]

  1. hetairese is spelled etairese when Anglicised sometimes because in Greek there is no ‘H’ sounding consonant. An aspirant is used at the beginning of the word instead.

  2. I have actually read many of the sources I quoted(Plato, Xenophon etc) but it’s easier to look up quotes on the internet than to get a book from the shelf, find the quote you want and type it up. Most the quotations in my post were copied and pasted into a text file a couple of years ago. New ones were added to the text file at intervals as I came across them. I used and continue to use them to refute homosexual historical revisionism.

  3. As you are aware, no one is going to read your ten foot copy and paste. If they did they would see that NOTHING has been copied and pasted by me except contemporary classical quotes. And they weren’t obtained from Stormfront or any other Nazi sites. Everything except the contempary quotes was written BY ME. That’s why you can’t find any ‘word for word’ copies like you alleged.

879

^^

This! This was the other person’s comments I was talking about! You disingenous troll.

880

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Let’s cut to the chase: this is not about “freedom.” This is about forcing individuals who morally disagree with homosexual “marriage” to recognize it as valid.

Gays can currently get “married” if they want in the liberal church or reformed temple or wiccan tribal circle of their chosing, enter into legal agreements with the same force and effect as a marriage, but they can’t use the power of the State to force people who morally disagree with thier position to recognize it valid.

They want to have the power of the State to force their views and lifestyles on others.

That’s the question:

Should the State have the legal authority to force people who disagree with gay marriage to accept it?

The answer is “no.”

The solution, if one is convinved sodomites are a protected class, to remove the power of the State to force people to recognize any marraige, and to put it back into the private and religous realm where it belongs.[/quote]

All part of the slippery slope that is upon us! When incestuous couples and polygamists come knocking for equal rights what can those who are pro homosexual marriage say but yes?

881

[quote]forlife wrote:
As usual, when confronted with the actual facts as concluded by the major health organizations,
[/quote]

What facts? You mean that men who engage in anal sodomy, on average, die at 43? That correcting for HIV, they still lose 15 years compared to men who do not? That there is no such thing, statistically, as a stable gay relationship?

[quote]
people backpedal and finally admit that it really is a moral debate after all. [/quote]

Nope. As noted on this thread, I don’t care what non-Jewish people do. I do, however, care about being forced to recognize it as valid.

No, just you.

Nope. I don’t think you should have the power of the State to force your lifestyle on me.

If marriage was a private matter, we could agree to ignore one another.

[quote]

Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with you, and gays are finally making progress toward equality in this country.[/quote]

Yes, and one day, that power of the State will turn against you and kill you, which is the danger of creating such a powerful institution.

You see, me and mine have been part of a persecuted minority for 3500 years or so. My advice for survival is for a Republican form of government with as little power as possible.

882

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
An organisation doesn’t have to be ‘morally corrupt’ to present findings that are wrong. They could be just wrong or they could be conducted by people who are ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconciously certain results. They could be fanatics prepared to deliberately distort results. There’s certainly no abscence of this in mainstream science and academia.[/quote]

So prove the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, National Education Association, and Surgeon General are all “just wrong”, or that every single one of them is “ideologically predisposed to expect/want consciously or unconsciously certain results”.

What’s more likely:

Either every single major health organization is under a confirmatory bias, OR

You and others with an acknowledged aversion to homosexuality are under a confirmatory bias?

I’ll put my money on the scientific organizations dedicated to fostering human health.[/quote]

I’ve posted proof many times that the APA was hijacked by the gay lobby. And I think everyone who is in the “know” understands this. But since you’ve covered yourself with fairy dust and placed your fingers in your ears you obviously will never hear the truth.