Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
923

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The people in the Netherlands are much more accepting of homosexuality than they are in the US. They prove this with 10 years of gay marriage. Therefore, it stands to reason that disease rates and mental problems in the gay community should be lower - BUT they’re not.

Now why do you suppose that is?[/quote]

That gay marriage is legal says were little about acceptance, only that the dutch have a practical way of thinking, which they have demonstrated several times.

I have no clearcut opinion on that, there are too many variables, it could be the reasons you point out, that gays just are morally corrupt and mentally unstable, or it could be something else. Since we are talking about statistics the reasons can’t be deduced, only extrapolated. But if I say the reason is that gays just are morally corrupt and mentally unstable, I’m not sure I have explained much anything yet.[/quote]

I’m not sure you have to explain much else beyond that.

924

If we return to the original point about why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, we now have morally dubious character and mental unstability as reasons, which have neither been a hindance for heterosexuals to marry. So, what we have left is the reason that they are gay and marriage is for heteros. It makes this whole detour kind of unnecessary.

925

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

If you actually bothered to read the conclusions of the major health organizations, you would see that unanimously they conclude based on 40 years of research that homosexuality is NOT a mental disease, and that any emotional disturbance can be traced to social rejection.

Want to help gays? Encourage them to be who they are, instead of telling them they are mentally ill and pushing them into crackpot reparative programs that double the risk of suicidal thoughts, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, anxiety, and depression.

I wasn’t in great emotional health during my years in the closet. Since coming out, I’m much happier and more integrated as a human being. Imagine what it would be like to grow up being told that you are an abomination and mentally ill. Thankfully, this message is changing as society becomes more educated.
[/quote]

What causes what is really just conjecture, there is no such thing as measurable psychological causality as long as you do not get strictly behaviorist.

Also, maybe schizophrenics or bi polar people have additional problems too, because of how their environment reacts to them.

That does not mean though that their mental attitude is not far outside the norm and that it correlates strongly with other diseases.

The same is true for homosexuality.

Just replace homosexual with bi polar whenever you bring up an argument and see if it makes sense to, it makes for a better presentation no matter on which side you fall on this issue.

So:

Fact: Homosexuality strongly correlates with diseases, drug use and suicide.

Interpretation: entirely up to you, but that is just what it is, an interpretation.

[/quote]

With a strictly correlational study, that is true. But with a controlled pre-post treatment design, you can determine causality. For example, when the incidence of negative outcomes (suicidal thoughts, drug abuse, anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse) doubles following reparative therapy, controlling for other variables, you can reliably conclude that reparative therapy was the cause of this increase in negative outcomes.
[/quote]

I am not disputing that to try to “heal” homosexuality makes people worse off, but that is not exactly an argument for them not being sick in the first place.

That just means that medical science is unable to adress this problem, if it is indeed prerceived as a problem.

I think you would run into giant problems if we found out that homosexuality is caused by something that can be treated, what to do then?

In the case of deaf children some deaf parents flat out refuse cochlear implants even though it means that their children could hear, but that does not mean that not being able to hear is a handicap.

The problem is that those people have built a whole culture around that handicap and now refuse to even acknowledge that not being able to hear is a medical, treatable condition.

So, this whole, “is homosexuality” a disease or not is not a question that can be decided on medical grounds, it is a cultural issue, it is more about labelling and who does the labelling than about science.

926

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

If we return to the original point about why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, we now have morally dubious character and mental unstability as reasons, which have neither been a hindance for heterosexuals to marry. So, what we have left is the reason that they are gay and marriage is for heteros. It makes this whole detour kind of unnecessary.[/quote]

Not at all, you’ve forgotten about male homosexual promiscuity. And this holds true even when they say they’re in committed relationships. And thre is evidence of this in virtually every study conducted from right wing christian groups to gay magazines to the CDC. And true in every country where marriage has been allowed as well. It’s a fact. Homosexuals do NOT promote monogamy under even the best of conditions.

927

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

If we return to the original point about why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, we now have morally dubious character and mental unstability as reasons, which have neither been a hindance for heterosexuals to marry. So, what we have left is the reason that they are gay and marriage is for heteros. It makes this whole detour kind of unnecessary.[/quote]

Homosexuals do NOT promote monogamy under even the best of conditions. [/quote]

You cannot be serious…

928

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

If you actually bothered to read the conclusions of the major health organizations, you would see that unanimously they conclude based on 40 years of research that homosexuality is NOT a mental disease, and that any emotional disturbance can be traced to social rejection.

Want to help gays? Encourage them to be who they are, instead of telling them they are mentally ill and pushing them into crackpot reparative programs that double the risk of suicidal thoughts, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, anxiety, and depression.

I wasn’t in great emotional health during my years in the closet. Since coming out, I’m much happier and more integrated as a human being. Imagine what it would be like to grow up being told that you are an abomination and mentally ill. Thankfully, this message is changing as society becomes more educated.
[/quote]

What causes what is really just conjecture, there is no such thing as measurable psychological causality as long as you do not get strictly behaviorist.

Also, maybe schizophrenics or bi polar people have additional problems too, because of how their environment reacts to them.

That does not mean though that their mental attitude is not far outside the norm and that it correlates strongly with other diseases.

The same is true for homosexuality.

Just replace homosexual with bi polar whenever you bring up an argument and see if it makes sense to, it makes for a better presentation no matter on which side you fall on this issue.

So:

Fact: Homosexuality strongly correlates with diseases, drug use and suicide.

Interpretation: entirely up to you, but that is just what it is, an interpretation.

[/quote]

With a strictly correlational study, that is true. But with a controlled pre-post treatment design, you can determine causality. For example, when the incidence of negative outcomes (suicidal thoughts, drug abuse, anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse) doubles following reparative therapy, controlling for other variables, you can reliably conclude that reparative therapy was the cause of this increase in negative outcomes.
[/quote]

I am not disputing that to try to “heal” homosexuality makes people worse off, but that is not exactly an argument for them not being sick in the first place.

That just means that medical science is unable to adress this problem, if it is indeed prerceived as a problem.

I think you would run into giant problems if we found out that homosexuality is caused by something that can be treated, what to do then?

In the case of deaf children some deaf parents flat out refuse cochlear implants even though it means that their children could hear, but that does not mean that not being able to hear is a handicap.

The problem is that those people have built a whole culture around that handicap and now refuse to even acknowledge that not being able to hear is a medical, treatable condition.

So, this whole, “is homosexuality” a disease or not is not a question that can be decided on medical grounds, it is a cultural issue, it is more about labelling and who does the labelling than about science.

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence, wasn’t trying to imply otherwise. The health organizations have concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness, based on 35 years of scientific research assessing gays on standardized measures of psychological and emotional health:

[quote]Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health
professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental
disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective,
well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and
itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social
problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness
because mental health professionals and society had biased
information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved
only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When
researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy,
the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to
be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance
of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from
the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two
years later, the American Psychological Association passed a
resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health
professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some
people still associate with homosexual orientation.[/quote]

929

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Not at all, you’ve forgotten about male homosexual promiscuity. And this holds true even when they say they’re in committed relationships. And thre is evidence of this in virtually every study conducted from right wing christian groups to gay magazines to the CDC. And true in every country where marriage has been allowed as well. It’s a fact. Homosexuals do NOT promote monogamy under even the best of conditions. [/quote]

Promiscuity has not been a hindrance for heteros to marry and even do it repeatedly. Homosexuals do most likely not promote heterosexual monogamy, but if they have a negative effect, I very much doubt there is any correlation at all.

As I have said before, I don’t care if people marry and divorce ten times a year, I don’t put much value on the institution, it already has lost much of it’s symbolic power. Monogamy becomes important first with kids, preferebly with the decision to make kids, but no big deal if it comes after, just that the importance of the turn of events is realized. That’s the point were we maybe can agree on something, family values.

930

forlife,

you’re back to lying again I see. Keep in mind I am really trying hard not to call you the name that you were dubbed 3 years ago for telling such lies.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was basicallly taken over by pro homosexual forces in 1973. There was no “new testing” done to change their clinical diagnosis that homosexuality is a mental disease.

READ ON:

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."

(These tactics sound familiar)

In 1971, homosexual 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.”

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group."

Gay politics won this one-Not science

According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years?”

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

931

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife,

you’re back to lying again I see. Keep in mind I am really trying hard not to call you the name that you were dubbed 3 years ago for telling such lies.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was basicallly taken over by pro homosexual forces in 1973. There was no “new testing” done to change their clinical diagnosis that homosexuality is a mental disease.

READ ON:

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."

(These tactics sound familiar)

In 1971, homosexual 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.”

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group."

Gay politics won this one-Not science

According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years?”

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

[/quote]

cool…so how is this relevant?

I mean, if it was a disorder (it’s not), what does it matter, how should that prevent someone from marrying
?

932

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Not at all, you’ve forgotten about male homosexual promiscuity. And this holds true even when they say they’re in committed relationships. And thre is evidence of this in virtually every study conducted from right wing christian groups to gay magazines to the CDC. And true in every country where marriage has been allowed as well. It’s a fact. Homosexuals do NOT promote monogamy under even the best of conditions.

Promiscuity has not been a hindrance for heteros to marry and even do it repeatedly.[/quote]

Oh I get it, because the divorce rate is high (for a minority of married couples, those married two or more times) then it’s okay for homosexuals to enter the institution and crap all over it by having multiple partners even when they claim to be in a committed relationship. You are actually comparing the two and thinking that there is no difference…LOL…

Here you go:

[quote]Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

· A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[12][/quote]

You know I like you, unlike forlife you are not trying to twist the facts. You’re just saying no big deal. And you’re not one to let facts stand in the way of how you feel about a topic. Good for you!

:slight_smile:

933

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife,

you’re back to lying again I see. Keep in mind I am really trying hard not to call you the name that you were dubbed 3 years ago for telling such lies.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was basicallly taken over by pro homosexual forces in 1973. There was no “new testing” done to change their clinical diagnosis that homosexuality is a mental disease.

READ ON:

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."

(These tactics sound familiar)

In 1971, homosexual 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.”

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group."

Gay politics won this one-Not science

According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years?”

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

[/quote]

cool…so how is this relevant?

I mean, if it was a disorder (it’s not), what does it matter, how should that prevent someone from marrying
?[/quote]

Oh darn…you forgot to pay attention. Let me explain how these threads work okay? Okay…you see a topic is begun and then after a dozen posts (or more) it goes off topic. Sometimes way off topic, sometimes just a little off topic.

Are you with me now?

Good.

Thank me later.

:slight_smile:

934

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh I get it, because the divorce rate is high (for a minority of married couples, those married two or more times) then it’s okay for homosexuals to enter the institution and crap all over it by having multiple partners even when they claim to be in a committed relationship. You are actually comparing the two and thinking that there is no difference…LOL…

You know I like you, unlike forlife you are not trying to twist the facts. You’re just saying no big deal. And you’re not one to let facts stand in the way of how you feel about a topic. Good for you!

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

Monogamous marriages are rare and I don’t like hypocrisy and double standards. Measured with the hypocrisy and bullshit meter, there are no valid reasons to refuse gay marriage, except values, christian values mainly in this context. I accept that, they are valid (E: just by their volume, if not else), I just disagree. They are impractical in the modern world.

E: So far you have presented only negatives. How about the positive Zeb, since gays will anyhow always be among us. Streight couples will occasionally produce gay kids. What should we do with them? I know you long for a time that has already gone, but I also know you know it is in the past. So, what is your modern solution? Hypocrisy, pretention? Shrug of shoulders? Since they are promiscuous, should we lock them up in some places, should we create havens? It’s time for some positive thinking, Zeb.

935

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh I get it, because the divorce rate is high (for a minority of married couples, those married two or more times) then it’s okay for homosexuals to enter the institution and crap all over it by having multiple partners even when they claim to be in a committed relationship. You are actually comparing the two and thinking that there is no difference…LOL…

You know I like you, unlike forlife you are not trying to twist the facts. You’re just saying no big deal. And you’re not one to let facts stand in the way of how you feel about a topic. Good for you!

:slight_smile:

Monogamous marriages are rare [/quote]

Okay now you’re being more like forlife. dam and I thought you were a good guy too. Prove it Bub. Prove that monogamous marriages are rare. Because I have evidence that they are NOT rare. And even if they were rare what you are saying in essence is that since marriage is not what it’s supposed to be we might as well let the homosexuals reck whats’ left of it. GREAT LOGIC! Too bad it makes no sense.

Now you’re just being a comedian. No reason? I gave you a list of reasons. You don’t like them? That’s a shame, but they are still nonetheless reasons. And here’s a little reminder for you and your buddy forlife. This is a Judeo-Christian nation. I have no idea where you’re from nor do I care. But here in the good old USA 85% of all people believe in God. And every time there is a referendum on gay marriage it FAILS by leaps and bounds.

Now why don’t we just stop all this nonsense. I agree that you want gay marriage and you can agree that I will NEVER want it and we can stop posting to each other. Now wouldn’t that be nice?

Yes, yes it would.

Bye

:slight_smile:

936

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife,

you’re back to lying again I see. Keep in mind I am really trying hard not to call you the name that you were dubbed 3 years ago for telling such lies.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was basicallly taken over by pro homosexual forces in 1973. There was no “new testing” done to change their clinical diagnosis that homosexuality is a mental disease.

READ ON:

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder."

(These tactics sound familiar)

In 1971, homosexual 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.”

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group."

Gay politics won this one-Not science

According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years?”

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

[/quote]

cool…so how is this relevant?

I mean, if it was a disorder (it’s not), what does it matter, how should that prevent someone from marrying
?[/quote]

Apparently, the gay activists have also taken over the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, Surgeon General’s office, and every other major health organization, all of which unanimously conclude that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Damn, what a coup!

937

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh I get it, because the divorce rate is high (for a minority of married couples, those married two or more times) then it’s okay for homosexuals to enter the institution and crap all over it by having multiple partners even when they claim to be in a committed relationship. You are actually comparing the two and thinking that there is no difference…LOL…

You know I like you, unlike forlife you are not trying to twist the facts. You’re just saying no big deal. And you’re not one to let facts stand in the way of how you feel about a topic. Good for you!

:slight_smile:

Monogamous marriages are rare [/quote]

Okay now you’re being more like forlife. dam and I thought you were a good guy too. Prove it Bub. Prove that monogamous marriages are rare. Because I have evidence that they are NOT rare. And even if they were rare what you are saying in essence is that since marriage is not what it’s supposed to be we might as well let the homosexuals reck whats’ left of it. GREAT LOGIC! Too bad it makes no sense.

Now you’re just being a comedian. No reason? I gave you a list of reasons. You don’t like them? That’s a shame, but they are still nonetheless reasons. And here’s a little reminder for you and your buddy forlife. This is a Judeo-Christian nation. I have no idea where you’re from nor do I care. But here in the good old USA 85% of all people believe in God. And every time there is a referendum on gay marriage it FAILS by leaps and bounds.

Now why don’t we just stop all this nonsense. I agree that you want gay marriage and you can agree that I will NEVER want it and we can stop posting to each other. Now wouldn’t that be nice?

Yes, yes it would.

Bye

:)[/quote]

you say bye because your arguments don’t stand. You have presented no mechanism by which gay marriages would undermine heterosexual marriage, only insinuations. I’m fucking embarrased that I have to stand as a becon of gayrights here. You turned suddenly nasty and the reasons are obvious. You have just one stinking opinion and that’s it.

E: So far you have presented only negatives. How about the positive Zeb, since gays will anyhow always be among us. Streight couples will occasionally produce gay kids. What should we do with them? I know you long for a time that has already gone, but I also know you know it is in the past. So, what is your modern solution? Hypocrisy, pretention? Shrug of shoulders? Since they are promiscuous, should we lock them up in some places, should we create havens? It’s time for some positive thinking, Zeb.

938

[quote]forlife wrote:

Apparently, the gay activists have also taken over the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, Surgeon General’s office, and every other major health organization, all of which unanimously conclude that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Damn, what a coup![/quote]

I guess you didn’t read what I posted, or you’re doing your usual forlife two step around the facts. Either way, the point is when the APA fell how could the AMA or the AAP stand on its own when the lead mental health organization was against them. It was a very smart tactic on the part of the powerful gay organization.

Kudo’s to them for this tactic. But none the less there was NEVER any “new” evidence which contradicted the “old” evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder. All it was was a policy change.

Simple, even you will have a hard time twisting it.

939

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
you say bye because your arguments don’t stand.[/quote]

You have not refuted even ONE of my arguments. You see saying “nu huh” is not sufficient refutation. I say this because you are boring. You are a politically correct liberal who has a certain mind set on the topic. And while it’s fun to poke a stick at forlife it’s not as much fun with you. And that is because you really don’t have an argument.

Yeah, I’d be embarased if I had to support a group like that too. But hey it was your choice.

This isn’t nasty. You have not been around T Nation long enough apparently. Anyway, my opinion is based upon:

1- The fact that homosexuals are an overly promiscuous bunch thus harming the institution of marriage. And the slippery slope which will lead to polygamous and incestuous marriage. You know obvious things like that for those of us who are not all starry eyed and messed up “give em dem dar rights it’s only fair sniff…sniff…” You see that’s just not a good reason to change a 5000 year old institution. But you’ll catch on eventually…or not. I don’t really care.

And my many other facts are obvious to those who have been paying attention.

Now we can keep doing this but I promise you one thing for certain, you will not derive any satisfaction from it. Not today, and not two months from now if we continue. All you’ll be is even more frustrated than you are currently - Yeah I sense that from you :slight_smile:

But that’s up to you.

Sorry if you thought I was nasty. I’m just not into entertaining posters who don’t really have a legitimate argument.

940

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
you say bye because your arguments don’t stand.[/quote]

You have not refuted even ONE of my arguments. You see saying “nu huh” is not sufficient refutation. I say this because you are boring. You are a politically correct liberal who has a certain mind set on the topic. And while it’s fun to poke a stick at forlife it’s not as much fun with you. And that is because you really don’t have an argument.

Yeah, I’d be embarased if I had to support a group like that too. But hey it was your choice.

This isn’t nasty. You have not been around T Nation long enough apparently. Anyway, my opinion is based upon:

1- The fact that homosexuals are an overly promiscuous bunch thus harming the institution of marriage. And the slippery slope which will lead to polygamous and incestuous marriage. You know obvious things like that for those of us who are not all starry eyed and messed up “give em dem dar rights it’s only fair sniff…sniff…” You see that’s just not a good reason to change a 5000 year old institution. But you’ll catch on eventually…or not. I don’t really care.

And my many other facts are obvious to those who have been paying attention.

Now we can keep doing this but I promise you one thing for certain, you will not derive any satisfaction from it. Not today, and not two months from now if we continue. All you’ll be is even more frustrated than you are currently - Yeah I sense that from you :slight_smile:

But that’s up to you.

Sorry if you thought I was nasty. I’m just not into entertaining posters who don’t really have a legitimate argument.[/quote]

No Zeb, you already gave me full satisfaction :wink: and to everyone that is one the same page. Bye, for realz.

941

Here is an article I found – http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/07/gay-catholic-and-doing-fine.html

[quote] Steve Gershom wrote:
When Leila asked me to write about gay marriage, the first thing I found out was how little I know about it. If I wanted to say anything coherent, I’d have to have definite beliefs about some deeper, thornier subjects first: the relationship between civil and moral law, just for starters. Even if I were sure enough of myself to talk about those things, I doubt I could do it in a blog-sized article.

So I’ll have to do it in a more personal way. That might be better anyhow.

I have heard a lot about how mean the Church is, and how bigoted, because she opposes gay marriage. How badly she misunderstands gay people, and how hostile she is towards us. My gut reaction to such things is: Are you freaking kidding me? Are we even talking about the same church?

When I go to Confession, I sometimes mention the fact that I’m gay, to give the priest some context. (And to spare him some confusion: Did you say ‘locker room’? What were you doing in the women’s…oh.) I’ve always gotten one of two responses: either compassion, encouragement, and admiration, because the celibate life is difficult and profoundly counter-cultural; or nothing at all, not even a ripple, as if I had confessed eating too much on Thanksgiving.

Of the two responses, my ego prefers the first – who doesn’t like thinking of themselves as some kind of hero? – but the second might make more sense. Being gay doesn’t mean I’m special or extraordinary. It just means that my life is not always easy. (Surprise!) And as my friend J. said when I told him recently about my homosexuality, “I guess if it wasn’t that, it would have been something else.” Meaning that nobody lives without a burden of one kind or another. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel said: “The man who has not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?”

Where are all these bigoted Catholics I keep hearing about? When I told my family a year ago, not one of them responded with anything but love and understanding. Nobody acted like I had a disease. Nobody started treating me differently or looking at me funny. The same is true of every one of the Catholic friends that I’ve told. They love me for who I am.

Actually, the only time I get shock or disgust or disbelief, the only time I’ve noticed people treating me differently after I tell them, is when I tell someone who supports the gay lifestyle. Celibacy?? You must be some kind of freak.

Hooray for tolerance of different viewpoints. I’m grateful to gay activists for some things – making people people more aware of the prevalence of homosexuality, making homophobia less socially acceptable – but they also make it more difficult for me to be understood, to be accepted for who I am and what I believe. If I want open-mindedness, acceptance, and understanding, I look to Catholics.

Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes want things that are not good for me. The Church doesn’t let me have those things, not because she’s mean, but because she’s a good mother. If my son or daughter wanted to eat sand I’d tell them: that’s not what eating is for; it won’t nourish you; it will hurt you. Maybe my daughter has some kind of condition that makes her like sand better than food, but I still wouldn’t let her eat it. Actually, if she was young or stubborn enough, I might not be able to reason with her – I might just have to make a rule against eating sand. Even if she thought I was mean.

So the Church doesn’t oppose gay marriage because it’s wrong; she opposes it because it’s impossible, just as impossible as living on sand. The Church believes, and I believe, in a universe that means something, and in a God who made the universe – made men and women, designed sex and marriage from the ground up. In that universe, gay marriage doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t fit with the rest of the picture, and we’re not about to throw out the rest of the picture.

If you don’t believe in these things, if you believe that men and women and sex and marriage are pretty much whatever we say they are, then okay: we don’t have much left to talk about. That’s not the world I live in.

So, yes, it’s hard to be gay and Catholic – it’s hard to be anything and Catholic – because I don’t always get to do what I want. Show me a religion where you always get to do what you want and I’ll show you a pretty shabby, lazy religion. Something not worth living or dying for, or even getting up in the morning for. That might be the kind of world John Lennon wanted, but John Lennon was kind of an idiot.

Would I trade in my Catholicism for a worldview where I get to marry a man? Would I trade in the Eucharist and the Mass and the rest of it? Being a Catholic means believing in a God who literally waits in the chapel for me, hoping I’ll stop by just for ten minutes so he can pour out love and healing on my heart. Which is worth more – all this, or getting to have sex with who I want? I wish everybody, straight or gay, had as beautiful a life as I have.

I know this isn’t a satisfactory answer. I don’t think any words could be. I try to make my life a satisfactory answer, to this question and to others: What are people for? What is love, and what does it look like? How do we get past our own selfishness so we can love God and our neighbors and ourselves?

It’s a work in progress.
[/quote]

942

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Or maybe everyone just has Orion on ignore by now.

[/quote]

Probably so. He’s silly just in post quoted by other people.[/quote]

FOAD