Brokeback Propaganda

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
What is so hard to understand? Nobody did an EXPERIMENT – i.e. bombarded one child over 15 years with gay images and distorted views of gender roles and then took his twin brother and exposed him to heterosexual images for 15 years and then see what happens. [/quote]

Have you ever conducted a scientific study in your life? You are talking like a 6th grader. You do realise that there is such a thing as STATISTICAL CONTROL, right? That you can conclusively rule out potential alternate explanations for a hypothesis through statistical means?

You can study the clinical outcomes of gays going through various kinds of therapy. You can note whether or not they successfully change their orientation over time. You can measure the reversion rate. You can measure the outcomes of trying to change one’s orientation and determine whether or not those outcomes are damaging. You can control for variables such as religious beliefs and social stigmatization.

This is exactly what research has done over the past two decades, and based on this research the major medical and mental health organizations in the world have drawn their conclusions on homosexuality. It takes tremendous arrogance to dismiss all of that in the name of one’s religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs are anything but grounded in the scientific method.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Precisely my point! It is a choice --[/quote]

WHAT is a choice? Are you even listening? The BEHAVIOR was a choice. The ORIENTATION was not. He would have strongly preferred having sex with women, but settled for men because there wasn’t another option.

And again, I will point you to the genetic studies I have shared repeatedly in this thread, which HAVEN’T BEEN DISPUTED ONCE. NOT ONCE.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
You feel better about it if you have “gayness” as a genetic factor, then you are not RESPONSIBLE for your sin, and thus you get comfort that it is all right. [/quote]

Lol, how would a genetic factor make me any less “responsible” if homosexuality were a sin? The genetics only influence the ORIENTATION, not the BEHAVIOR. Get the difference yet? Even if my genetics predisposed me to only liking men, I could still choose to have sex with women (and did so for 10 years).

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
What is so hard to understand? Nobody did an EXPERIMENT – i.e. bombarded one child over 15 years with gay images and distorted views of gender roles and then took his twin brother and exposed him to heterosexual images for 15 years and then see what happens.

Have you ever conducted a scientific study in your life? You are talking like a 6th grader. You do realise that there is such a thing as STATISTICAL CONTROL, right? That you can conclusively rule out potential alternate explanations for a hypothesis through statistical means?

You can study the clinical outcomes of gays going through various kinds of therapy. You can note whether or not they successfully change their orientation over time. You can measure the reversion rate. You can measure the outcomes of trying to change one’s orientation and determine whether or not those outcomes are damaging. You can control for variables such as religious beliefs and social stigmatization.

This is exactly what research has done over the past two decades, and based on this research the major medical and mental health organizations in the world have drawn their conclusions on homosexuality. It takes tremendous arrogance to dismiss all of that in the name of one’s religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs are anything but grounded in the scientific method.

[/quote]

This doesn’t pay anymore. We are typing past each other, and your name calling is getting annoying.

Be gay, be happy, be whatever you want to be. I will never support it. I will never vote for anyone who supports it.

Live in your sin, delude yourself. Whatever.

As for me and this thread…“over and out.”

In other words, you don’t have a logical response to my point that EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You can delude yourself into thinking that they are all just biased puppets of the political left, because their conclusions disagree with your religious beliefs. Just don’t forget that those same religious beliefs are grounded in subjectivity, rather than the well-controlled experiments that you claim to value.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

…“over and out.”

[/quote]

“Out”??? I KNEW IT!!! YOu’re gay too!!

Anyway, going back a bit to the nature/nurture debate that has cropped up here, I really think this is pretty irrelevant; even if you have chosen to be something, it doesn’t make it necessarily wrong, or in need of ‘reforming’. Using a 2000 year old book of dubious authorship and dubious intent to ‘prove’ that it is, is dumb beyond belief.

forlife,
While I agree with statements of these organizations, what about their statements 50 years ago? Wasn’t their a concensus back then, at least on the level of statements? In this matters “science” will hardly convince people. Plus it’s hard to call something “scientific” if only 30 years ago a completely different view was hold and not that many conclusive studies have been conducted. Just give it some time.

[quote]forlife wrote:
In other words, you don’t have a logical response to my point that EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You can delude yourself into thinking that they are all just biased puppets of the political left, because their conclusions disagree with your religious beliefs. Just don’t forget that those same religious beliefs are grounded in subjectivity, rather than the well-controlled experiments that you claim to value.[/quote]

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

They might have stopped having homosexual relations. That doesn’t stop them being homosexual.
[/quote]

What about all of the men who had a same sex attraction, went through therapy dropped it and are currently heterosexual and happily married?

Are they all liars and fakes as forlife so ignorantly assumes?

[quote]forlife wrote:
[/quote]
When the APA caved in to the political pressure many followed suit. And YOU know it!

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So a child molester must then go find a kid to have sex with because that is whom he finds attractive?

A child molester causes damage to the child, and thus should be prevented from acting. Sex between two consenting adults hurts nobody, and is none of your damn business.[/quote]

Then by your very own logic homosexuality should not be legal!

I’ll spare everyone the lengthy list of all of the physical and emotional pain that the homosexual act creates. It is very damaging to both participants. This has been proven over and over again.

Here is a “mini list”:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting ?always? using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.

The proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent.

Male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates.

Men who have sex with men are at increased risk for hepatitis B.

Interviews of 21, 850 males: Increasing percentages of men who have sex with men reported engaging in unprotected anal intercourse. There was an Increase in rectal gonorrhea rates.

Calabrese, L. Harris, B., Easley, K. (1987) Analysis of variables impacting on safe sexual behavior among homosexual men in the area of low incidence for AIDS. Paper presented at the Third International Conference for AIDS. Washington DC. (in Stall 1988)
Sample of gay men living outside of the large coastal gay communities, found that neither attendance at a safe sex lecture, reading a safe sex brochure, receiving advice from a physician about AIDS, testing for HIV antibodies, nor counseling at an alternative test site was associated with participation in safe sex.

Daling, J.R. et al. (1987, October 15). Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases, and the incidence of anal cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 317 (16): 973-977.
Anal cancers was strongly associated with a history of male homosexual activity."

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That could be possible, and we would see that it was caused by the environment and not by genetics. The choices we follow often become a habit and then a habit becomes repeated until it is “normal” for the person.

If that were true, I would have turned into a heterosexual after being married for 10 years. [/quote]

But the fallacy of your argument remains!

For 10 years you had sex with a woman. Now how do you do that without being aroused?

Answer: Can’t be done.

How many heterosexual men could live with another man and have sex with him for 10 years?

There is NO amount of social pressure that could make that happen.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

With many of you, I don’t think the trigger was obvious, so you ASSUME that it is genetic. This works for you, because if it is genetic, then it is not sin, etc. etc. etc…ad nauseum…

[/quote]

Excellent point Steve.

As many studies that I posted indicate there were usually one (or all) of three factors present in the development of a homosexual. There is far more to it than my abbreviated version below, but you get the idea.

  1. Dominant Mother figure.

  2. Distant Father figure

  3. Being molested at a young age.

[quote]forlife wrote:

Instead of pretending that you know more about science than the experts, maybe you should consider giving their unanimous conclusions some credence.[/quote]

Anyone confused by forlifes constant drum beat about homosexuality and health organizations should read this:

The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

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. 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.

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.” Dr. Socarides’ report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It’s a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section “302. Sexual Deviations” in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: “This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts ? performed under bizarre circumstances. ? Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them.” Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.

*American Medical Association statistic, 2002."

Again, the political forces that were (and are) at work were indeed quite powerful!

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

He would have strongly preferred having sex with women, but settled for men because there wasn’t another option.[/quote]

I want everyone to read that over and over again. How can forlife compare having sex in prison where there are no females available to the outide world?

And again I ask for about the 6th time:

Why is it we do not see heterosexual males having sex with other heterosexual males?

BUT… we do see “homosexual” males having sex with females. And in fact MOST homsexual men have had sex with females many times!

How is that physically possible if they are not aroused by females?

Homosexuality is indeed a choice (until proven otherwise) and should never be given special status marriage rights.

[quote]juninho wrote:

Anyway, going back a bit to the nature/nurture debate that has cropped up here, I really think this is pretty irrelevant; even if you have chosen to be something, it doesn’t make it necessarily wrong, or in need of ‘reforming’…[/quote]

I think you make another good point there juninho.

People should be free to live as they want to live in their own private lives.

But at the same time why should so small a percentage of people, who are freely making this choice have the right to change the heterosexual 5000+ year old institution of marriage?

Make sense?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

They might have stopped having homosexual relations. That doesn’t stop them being homosexual.

What about all of the men who had a same sex attraction, went through therapy dropped it and are currently heterosexual and happily married?

Are they all liars and fakes as forlife so ignorantly assumes?
[/quote]

How do you know they are ‘happily’ married? And when you say ‘all’ you make it sound like there are millions of them out there. I’m fairly sure this is not the case.

Once again though, as I said earlier, I know straight men that had sexual experiences with men in their younger days because they didn’t know what they wanted and thought they’d test the water. That doesn’t make them gay in the first place.

Don’t you feel bad for someone that has to live a lie every day of his life because he has been conditioned to give a shit what other people think of him to that degree?

Think about the last one and imagine the same scenario with a non-gay aspect.

I appreciate you think it is wrong, but don’t you think it’s just as wrong to think someone is inferior because of a sexual persuasion

I’m only really attracted to brunettes. I can’t help it. I don’t think that makes me less of a person. Catch my drift?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
juninho wrote:

Anyway, going back a bit to the nature/nurture debate that has cropped up here, I really think this is pretty irrelevant; even if you have chosen to be something, it doesn’t make it necessarily wrong, or in need of ‘reforming’…

I think you make another good point there juninho.

People should be free to live as they want to live in their own private lives.

But at the same time why should so small a percentage of people, who are freely making this choice have the right to change the heterosexual 5000+ year old institution of marriage?

Make sense?

[/quote]

But it’s not changing it for heterosexuals is it? They still get the same benefits from it.

It’s adding something to it so it does not exclude others. In the same way that, for example, nowadays blacks and whites can get on the same bus.

The whites weren’t any worse off for it but the blacks had equality (in that one thing).

Wow, this is almost like conversation without name-calling. Respect, Zeb…

Skor, it is like everyone believing that the sun revolved around the earth until science provided conclusive evidence that the earth in fact revolved around the sun. The motivation for the original belief was religious, since people liked the idea of the earth being at the center of the universe. Similarly, the motivation for the old beliefs about homosexuality comes from religion and prejudices which fail to reflect objective reality.

Literally hundreds of scientific studies on homosexuality have been conducted in the past 3 decades, and these provide the foundation for the conclusions which every major medical and mental health organization in the world have reached.

Some of the hardest core bigots will never be swayed regardless of the amount of objective evidence to the contrary, but we are seeing a general trend toward greater understanding. I agree with you that it is really just a matter of time.

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
ZEB wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

They might have stopped having homosexual relations. That doesn’t stop them being homosexual.

What about all of the men who had a same sex attraction, went through therapy dropped it and are currently heterosexual and happily married?

Are they all liars and fakes as forlife so ignorantly assumes?

How do you know they are ‘happily’ married? And when you say ‘all’ you make it sound like there are millions of them out there. I’m fairly sure this is not the case.[/quote]

Both very good points.

First, I only know what I have read. And they are saying that they are happy. Are we only to accept what one side says is true and disregard the other as being a lie?

Secondly, I have no idea how many have left the homosexual lifestyle. While certainly not millions I wonder how many would actually go through reparitive therapy and try if it would more in vogue?

But of course that’s not the sort of society that we live in is it?

Key phrase: “younger days.”

Again, how many adult heterosexual men could do the equivalent of what forlife did?

Stay with another man having sex whenever…?

Don’t you think that is the least bit odd?

How many adult heterosexual men could even become aroused with another man?

That alone would be quite a trick for most, don’t you agree?

I think we may have to disagree on the “living a lie” part.

If they are able to have sex with a woman for so many years what is the lie?

Is the lie that they "prefer men?

Does “preference” equal living a lie? If so then most adult men are living a lie as they would prefer to cheat on their wives. But they don’t for many reasons. Financial, family, respect for their wives etc…

No one is inferior in this argument. Homosexuals are people who deserve our love and respect. But many think that you show love by promoting a dangerous behavior. Would you allow your 5 year old to play in the highway?

Should we change a 5000+ year old institution (marriage) and as a state promote homosexuality?

[quote]I’m only really attracted to brunettes. I can’t help it. I don’t think that makes me less of a person. Catch my drift?
[/quote]

As I said that has nothing to do with it. I have two cousins that are homosexual. And I love them both very much. But I have also warned them that their acivity is dangerous. I did this because I really do love them!

[quote]juninho wrote:
Anyway, going back a bit to the nature/nurture debate that has cropped up here, I really think this is pretty irrelevant; even if you have chosen to be something, it doesn’t make it necessarily wrong, or in need of ‘reforming’. Using a 2000 year old book of dubious authorship and dubious intent to ‘prove’ that it is, is dumb beyond belief.[/quote]

I’ve believed this for a long time. State discrimination against people based on subjective religious beliefs is wrong, regardless of whether or not they made a “choice” to be who they are.

At this point, there is a large body of evidence showing that genetics plays a role in determining sexual ORIENTATION. But sexual BEHAVIOR is still a choice…even if people are genetically programmed to be attracted to someone of their own gender, they can always choose not to act on that attraction.

Of course, the choice people make still has consequences. If you look at the scientific conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations, choosing to act contrary to your sexual orientation does not change your orientation, it can be damaging, and it is not recommended.